PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 52JM At Connell Crescent W5
ooppss
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 16:33
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 28 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,644



Hi,
This is my first post and also my first PCN..... I have looked online and it seems that this is a blackspot for getting fines but can I ask if anyone has successfully appealed against the fine please?
We drove to London for the first time ever a couple of weeks ago and got lost, we drove in to Connell crescent at 15.33, we literally drove in realised we had gone the wrong way and turned round then drove out again - we were in the road less than a minute.
Having received the PCN it appears there is a sign at the entrance to the road saying no motor vehicles between 3pm and 7pm.
I totally take on board that we were in the wrong because the sign is there - however as we were lost we weren't looking high up at signs, we were just trying to look at street signs which are low down.
So, before we pay I just thought I would see if anyone had had any success in appealing against it?
Thanks biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 16:33
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 17:55
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Post a copy of the PCN and the council evidence, only redact your name and address. We can't tell you whether you have a case or not if we don't see the evidence first.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 18:13
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,204
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Mr Mustard had a real go at Connell Cres. but unless something has changed and this is for the same thing the advice is to pay up.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=113110

The PCN is always worth a check though.
Put pics on https://imgbb.com and post BBcode embed links.


This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 18:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ooppss
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 18:22
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 28 Oct 2018
Member No.: 100,644



Sorry, I didn't think of that blush.gif

Hope this is correct?

https://ibb.co/i5bJQq
https://ibb.co/hSZ55q

Thank you smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 18:28
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19,705
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Can't see anything helpful on there I'm afraid.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 18:35
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,744
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



This one might be worthwhile considering:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1394055

The OP's vehicle does not appear to have crossed the line between the two signs from the photo.

Amongst other things Mr. Mustard maintained that the signage was inadequate because the L/H sign was set so far back.


Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 18:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DastardlyDick
post Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 20:27
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,860
Joined: 12 May 2012
Member No.: 54,871



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 28 Oct 2018 - 18:35) *
This one might be worthwhile considering:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1394055

The OP's vehicle does not appear to have crossed the line between the two signs from the photo.

Amongst other things Mr. Mustard maintained that the signage was inadequate because the L/H sign was set so far back.


Mick

Unfortunately, Mr Mustard was shot down on that one too. I believe it was all over exactly where Connell Crescent starts, and the Adjs ruled that it started where the give way line is, which put the sign in "substantial compliance",coupled with the fact that the Council placed two signs when they only needed one, really put the icing on the cake.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 29 Oct 2018 - 08:43
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,744
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Yes I remember I commented on it at the time because it was wrong then and it is wrong now. They have to place a sign in accordance with Reg 18 LATOR 1996 :-

(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road

I recall Mr. M saying the R/H sign was easy to miss in the cluster of signs and the L/H sign was set too far back to the extent that it was invisible to drivers turning into the Crescent.

If they have to have two signs then there must be a "line" between them marking the entrance to the restriction and in this case the photo on the PCN does not demonstrate that the OP crossed that "line".

If the adjudicators want to rule that the give way line is the start of the restriction they are wrong because the L/H sign is not placed there.

What the adjudicators ruled, if I remember correctly, was that it was acceptable for the Authority to place the L/H sign as close as possible to the turning. Ergo they are hoist in that the case I posted means that a contravention cannot take place unless the vehicle crosses the "line".

The video will probably show the vehicle in contravention but if the present documents go before an adjudicator there is no evidence that a contravention occurred IMO.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loucamera
post Mon, 18 Feb 2019 - 23:47
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 3 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,761



Hey All

I got done at this junction. Ealing backed out of my tribunal two days before I went to tribunal. If anyone else is heading here do let me know is I'd love the chance to argue it. I'm not legally trained but have a bit of geeky enjoyment in reading the road traffic Act. My friends do call me weird.

Ealing Parking Services in their rejection of my informal appeal stated that “non awareness of a restriction does not exempt you from having to comply with the restriction in place.” This is an absurd statement which they continued further by saying “the law is clear that it is the responsibility of motorists to ensure they are aware of the restrictions that operate in the areas they chose to drive and park.” If the local authority do not put up correct signage which is clearly sited there is no way for road users to be magically aware of what restrictions are in place.

The council believes that the signs at this location are adequate however the Parking Ombudsman has already ruled in case number 2150375541 Eman Saeed v London Borough of Ealing 7 August 2015 that they are not.

“..there is a requirement that the restriction is clearly signed at the point of entry so that the approaching motorist is alerted to the fact that there is no entry. That is not the case in Connell Crescent. The sign which will be seen by a motorist making the left turn is the one positioned on the left hand side of the road. This sign is set so far back from the junction that it will not be seen by a motorist making the left turn until it is too late.”

Just to reinforce this statement the Road Traffic Manual (RTM) states in Chapter 3 paragraph 1.19 that regulatory signs (of which diagram 619 is one), “must be placed on either side of the road.” Although there are exceptions for using just one sign, Connell Crescent does not meet these requirements. Even if it did, paragraph 1.43 of the RTM states general practices dictates that if one sign is used it should be sited on the left hand side of the road and no less than 2m from the edge of the carriageway. Figure 4-8 in Chapter 3 of the RTM shows the correct placement of regulatory signs which should be the layout for Connell Crescent.

Furthermore, table 1-1 in Chapter 3 of the RTM demands signs on a road with a speed limit of 20mph must be visible to approaching drivers from a distance of 45m. Ealing Parking Services stated in my informal appeal rejection letter that the sign is clearly visible to motorists even before they reach the give way road markings. Photograph 1 of my evidence is taken from the middle of the approach road to Connell Crescent. It shows that the left hand sign is not clearly visible to motorists as it is obstructed by scaffolding which breaches Chapter 1 paragraph 1.56 of the RTM. Their own video evidence also clearly shows this obstruction.

My argument goes further in stating the signs used by Ealing Parking Services to enforce the prohibition of motors vehicles at certain times are incorrect. Diagram 619 has been used to show that motor vehicles are prohibited. As restrictions are in place only at certain times of the day Diagram 620 has been used in conjunction with 619 to show the time restrictions. The problem here is that Diagram 620 is an “except for access” sign. These words are not present on the signs at the start of Connell Crescent. Diagram 620 is allowed to be modified but only with the addition of times, days and months. In this case the council have illegally subtracted the ‘except for access’ part of the sign when they have added the times of day. Please see Picture 2 (a picture of the sign) of my submitted evidence as a reference point.

Further variations are allowed to Diagram 620 under Chapter 3 paragraph 5.12 of the TSM but these must adhere to paragraph 5.7. Paragraph 5.7 is very clear in that variations are allowed but the sign must contain the words ‘no vehicles’ and arguably also the words “except for access’ as per diagram 618.1. The signage at the start of Connell Crescent does not contain any of this vital wording and therefore is not legal signage. If I am to be prosecuted under the law of this land then I would expect Ealing Parking Services to be forced to adhere to it also.

At the end of the day the signage at the start of Connell Crescent is inaccurate in its positioning and wording. Please see Picture 3 which shows where the correct siting of the sign should be. Ealing Council stated to the ombudsman in 2015 that to move the sign presented “financial and environmental impracticalities.” The only impracticalities to moving this sign would be this honey trap would stop netting them hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.



Please be aware that after I wrote the above letter I became aware that an appeals adjudicator had sat down with a number of cases of Connell crescent. None of them made the point about the sign wording being incorrect. Furthermore I'm not sure if the scaffolding was present at the time of these cases which really is the main argument. If anyone is about to go to the tribunal then please let me know. I'd be happy to come along just to have the chance to present this argument.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 07:32
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



Hi there,

I came across your post today and hope you don't mind me contacting you.
A driver in our company has received a PCN for driving into Connell Crescent on 11/11/2019. They were in a lease vehicle which is leased by O2 and had been loaned to my employer for us to carry out mobile phone network coverage testing. As part of this testing, we are asked to follow a designated Satnav route and this is what prompted them to drive into this road.
I believe they have two arguments against this PCN. The first is that they were trying to access their place of work, and that as you have stated below, the signs used are Except for Access signs and any restriction placed with them must be clear and unambiguous. The second argument, is that the sign on the left was shielded by a hoarding, meaning it is not visible until you have turned onto the road. The sign on the right could be construed to be applicable to the main road, as it is on the left hand side of that carriageway.

They are going to request a copy of the video footage, but as you have rightly stated that this is a honey trap. As they were carrying out their work and were not familiar with the area, I do not think they should be penalised for this. Needless to say, the Leasors of the vehicle refuse to take any responsibility even though it was them who sent us along this route.

Apologies if you no longer have an interest in this.

All the best,
Will


QUOTE (Loucamera @ Mon, 18 Feb 2019 - 23:47) *
Hey All

I got done at this junction. Ealing backed out of my tribunal two days before I went to tribunal. If anyone else is heading here do let me know is I'd love the chance to argue it. I'm not legally trained but have a bit of geeky enjoyment in reading the road traffic Act. My friends do call me weird.

Ealing Parking Services in their rejection of my informal appeal stated that “non awareness of a restriction does not exempt you from having to comply with the restriction in place.” This is an absurd statement which they continued further by saying “the law is clear that it is the responsibility of motorists to ensure they are aware of the restrictions that operate in the areas they chose to drive and park.” If the local authority do not put up correct signage which is clearly sited there is no way for road users to be magically aware of what restrictions are in place.

The council believes that the signs at this location are adequate however the Parking Ombudsman has already ruled in case number 2150375541 Eman Saeed v London Borough of Ealing 7 August 2015 that they are not.

“..there is a requirement that the restriction is clearly signed at the point of entry so that the approaching motorist is alerted to the fact that there is no entry. That is not the case in Connell Crescent. The sign which will be seen by a motorist making the left turn is the one positioned on the left hand side of the road. This sign is set so far back from the junction that it will not be seen by a motorist making the left turn until it is too late.”

Just to reinforce this statement the Road Traffic Manual (RTM) states in Chapter 3 paragraph 1.19 that regulatory signs (of which diagram 619 is one), “must be placed on either side of the road.” Although there are exceptions for using just one sign, Connell Crescent does not meet these requirements. Even if it did, paragraph 1.43 of the RTM states general practices dictates that if one sign is used it should be sited on the left hand side of the road and no less than 2m from the edge of the carriageway. Figure 4-8 in Chapter 3 of the RTM shows the correct placement of regulatory signs which should be the layout for Connell Crescent.

Furthermore, table 1-1 in Chapter 3 of the RTM demands signs on a road with a speed limit of 20mph must be visible to approaching drivers from a distance of 45m. Ealing Parking Services stated in my informal appeal rejection letter that the sign is clearly visible to motorists even before they reach the give way road markings. Photograph 1 of my evidence is taken from the middle of the approach road to Connell Crescent. It shows that the left hand sign is not clearly visible to motorists as it is obstructed by scaffolding which breaches Chapter 1 paragraph 1.56 of the RTM. Their own video evidence also clearly shows this obstruction.

My argument goes further in stating the signs used by Ealing Parking Services to enforce the prohibition of motors vehicles at certain times are incorrect. Diagram 619 has been used to show that motor vehicles are prohibited. As restrictions are in place only at certain times of the day Diagram 620 has been used in conjunction with 619 to show the time restrictions. The problem here is that Diagram 620 is an “except for access” sign. These words are not present on the signs at the start of Connell Crescent. Diagram 620 is allowed to be modified but only with the addition of times, days and months. In this case the council have illegally subtracted the ‘except for access’ part of the sign when they have added the times of day. Please see Picture 2 (a picture of the sign) of my submitted evidence as a reference point.

Further variations are allowed to Diagram 620 under Chapter 3 paragraph 5.12 of the TSM but these must adhere to paragraph 5.7. Paragraph 5.7 is very clear in that variations are allowed but the sign must contain the words ‘no vehicles’ and arguably also the words “except for access’ as per diagram 618.1. The signage at the start of Connell Crescent does not contain any of this vital wording and therefore is not legal signage. If I am to be prosecuted under the law of this land then I would expect Ealing Parking Services to be forced to adhere to it also.

At the end of the day the signage at the start of Connell Crescent is inaccurate in its positioning and wording. Please see Picture 3 which shows where the correct siting of the sign should be. Ealing Council stated to the ombudsman in 2015 that to move the sign presented “financial and environmental impracticalities.” The only impracticalities to moving this sign would be this honey trap would stop netting them hundreds of thousands of pounds a year.



Please be aware that after I wrote the above letter I became aware that an appeals adjudicator had sat down with a number of cases of Connell crescent. None of them made the point about the sign wording being incorrect. Furthermore I'm not sure if the scaffolding was present at the time of these cases which really is the main argument. If anyone is about to go to the tribunal then please let me know. I'd be happy to come along just to have the chance to present this argument.


This post has been edited by WillStitched: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 14:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 10:31
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,204
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



You need to start your own thread for a new case.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 13:36
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,713
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 10:31) *
You need to start your own thread for a new case.


And discount most if not all of the tread you read, it is sadly out of date


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
WillStitched
post Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 16:13
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 15 Feb 2020
Member No.: 107,880



Ok thanks.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 15 Feb 2020 - 10:31) *
You need to start your own thread for a new case.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Wednesday, 23rd September 2020 - 21:42
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.