PCN 52 Bank Junction, Lack of signage to indicate closed junction Options

[happyeveryday]

I see from multiple previous posts that people like cp8759 have been a strong advocate of not handing money over to CoL where they do not adhere to the law.
Please can anyone tell me if I am likely to successfully challenge PCN 52 for driving down Princes St on a Tuesday?
I have not driven in London for many years but was forced to last week. I approached Princes Street from Moorgate and had misgivings as I crossed the junction. As such I had a good look for signs but did not see anything. There was minimal other traffic around so I was not under any pressure and had plenty of time to take another route had I been aware.
There is nothing in the photo or video evidence that shows any signage. It only shows me starting to cross the Bank junction.

Taking the advice from other threads, I intend to challenge using the website with the statement:
"The PCN has been issued for 52 - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles), this is the contravention for failing to comply with the sign at diagram 619 (No motor vehicles) of the Traffic Sings Regulations and General Directions 2016. No such sign is present on Princes Street or the approaches to it and as such the alleged contravention did not occur."

Thanks in advance for any assistance.

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

If i where you i would find One of CP's drafts and use that after altering to suit the location. Case win here because

1 the sign is incorrect for the contravention cited it should be 953 not 619

2 Sign 953 must have the road legend " Bus gate"

[stamfordman]

Coming from Moorgate the signs are on Princes Street in two places. Others will advise on the signage.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5148591,-0....6384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.513952,-0.0...6384!8i8192

plus a warning:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5144387,-0....6384!8i8192



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 - 16:25

[happyeveryday]

Coming from Moorgate the signs are on Princes Street in two places. Others will advise on the signage.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5148591,-0....6384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.513952,-0.0...6384!8i8192

plus a warning:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5144387,-0....6384!8i8192

Thank you - I looked as I crossed from Moorgate and did not notice the two signs. ven if I had they would not necessarily have made me alter. That may be shaky ground though so at least I can fall back on some of the other points about incorrect signage.

[cp8759]

The draft you've found is fine, providing your PCN quotes contravention 52 (you've not shown us the PCN).

[happyeveryday]

The draft you've found is fine, providing your PCN quotes contravention 52 (you've not shown us the PCN).

Thank you cp8759. It does quote 52M. I didn't post it as I read that there is limited space on the site and my PCN seems to match numerous others. Many are quite old though so I was unsure if anything had changed in the last few months.

[cp8759]

As one lady once famously said, nothing has changed.

[happyeveryday]

As one lady once famously said, nothing has changed.

Not sure if anything has changed or if my appeal was not detailed enough but I received a rejection today:

Thank you for your communication in relation to the above PCN.
The vehicle was observed at 15:07 on 16/06/2020 by CCTV contravening the regulations in PRINCES STREET.
The PCN was issued, in accordance with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, as your vehicle was observed by CCTV camera and The City of London Corporation had reasonable cause to believe that it was committing the contravention of failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.
The PCN was issued to the above vehicle for failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles) - only buses and pedal cycles allowed Monday to Friday between 7am and 7pm. This is because the above vehicle has been seen to have passed through a sign [letter shows the blue bus/cycle sign] prohibiting certain class of vehicle from accessing Bank Junction during the restricted time(s).
Since Monday 22 May 2017, the ‘Bank on Safety’ experimental traffic scheme, aimed at reducing collisions and improving road safety, became operational meaning that only buses and pedal cycles are able to cross Bank Junction, Monday to Friday, between the hours of 7am to 7pm. Other vehicles will be rerouted via advanced warning signs on the approaches to the area and the junction.
The Court of Common Council approved a report on 13th September 2018 that recommended making the experimental scheme permanent and as of 25th September 2018 the scheme came permanently into operation.
The Bank Junction comprises the approaches of Princes Street, Threadneedle Street, Cornhill, Poultry, Lombard Street, King William Street and Queen Victoria Street.
Blue bus and cycle only signs are displayed at the entry points of the restriction. Advanced directional signs are also in place to give advance warning to the restriction to further assist with alternative routes.
Vehicles are being rerouted via advance warnings and signage on the approach streets leading to the junction. This is mainly a safety scheme which is needed to modify the area called ‘Bank Junction’ in order to make the wider area more successful by focusing on restricting the number of vehicles that cross Bank Junction during the working day to significantly reduce overcrowding, the number of collisions and improve road user travel experience.
The re-design is also being undertaken with passenger well-being and environmental improvement in mind.
The signs are not captured in the photograph/footage as they are situated before the Automatic Number Plate Recognition camera. The signs are however regularly checked for visibility and placement.
The restriction on Bank Junction was advertised in both local and national press as well as social media. During the initial phase City of London Police and City representatives were stationed at the junction to advised motorists. Warning notices were also issued during the first two weeks of the restriction going live. The City has made every attempt to highlight the area; ultimately it is up to the motorist to ensure that they take note of the signs on street as they approach the junction.
There are four large blue traffic signs; two situated at either side of the road in Princes Street junction with Gresham Street/Lothbury and two on either side of the road approximately halfway down Princes Street. There are also warning notices prior to entering Princes Street
None of the road diversions in place in the City directed traffic to any of the approaches to the Bank Junction.
I appreciate that you may not have known about the restrictions in place, however I must inform you that this does not provide for an exemption to the restriction in place. The onus remains firmly with the motorist to make themselves aware of any restriction in place and to drive accordingly, thus avoiding the issue of a PCN.
I must also inform you that the restriction is not a Bus Gate, which is a contravention code 33C and therefore a carriageway legend is not required. I would add that the signage in place is in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016
Therefore, having carefully considered the reasons for your challenge and the evidence before me, I am not prepared to cancel the PCN on this occasion.
Before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this Notice of Rejection, you must EITHER;
- Pay the penalty charge, OR
- Appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators
However, if you still wish to dispute the issue of the PCN you may appeal on-line at the following address www.londontribunals.gov.uk. Please ensure that you quote the unique appeal Verification Code XXXXX and follow the on-line instructions on how to complete your appeal.
Alternatively you can complete the Notice of Appeal form enclosed with this letter (please read the guidance notes before completing the form) and send your appeal to London Tribunals, the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators, PO Box 10598, Nottingham NG6 6DR OR appeal online at www.LondonTribunals.gov.uk.
Please do not send your appeal to us. If you wish to make any enquiries about your appeal, please visit the London Tribunals website at www.londontribunals.gov.uk or call 020 7520 7200.
The adjudication service is completely independent of the City of London. You should also be aware that, in certain circumstances, an application for costs can be made by either party as explained on the enclosed appeal form.

I am prepared to appeal again if recommended but not keen to incur additional charges, recognising this may be an empty threat to deter people.
In hope...

[PASTMYBEST]

post up all the letter not a transcript That rejection is BS they are making it up

[cp8759]

post up all the letter not a transcript That rejection is BS they are making it up

+1

[happyeveryday]

post up all the letter not a transcript That rejection is BS they are making it up

That is all of the letter bar the pictures of the sign and bank junction and a load of stuff at the end about how to pay or re-appeal. I have not cut any words out other than my reference and highlighted what i thought was the only point that they based their rejection on.

[happyeveryday]

I have attached screenshots of the 4 main pages of the letter. The other pages are the appeals process.
 20200630_BankJcnRejection.pdf ( 515.49K ) Number of downloads: 110

[cp8759]

Well the first page of the NoR confirms you should appeal. The corporation says the PCN was issued for failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles, which would be this sign:



But then they show you a picture of a completely different sign (a prescribed route sign), which does not indicate a prohibition of motor vehicles at all. I would register the appeal and just put:

The alleged contravention did not occur. A prohibition for motor vehicles is indicated by a diagram 619 sign, but no such sign is present on Princes Street. Full grounds of appeal to follow in due course.

If the corporation contests the case, it will upload its evidence in PDF format to the tribunal website. If that happens, please upload the PDFs on here and I'll type up a full appeal for you. If it doesn't contest the case, you will win by default.

[happyeveryday]

Well the first page of the NoR confirms you should appeal. The corporation says the PCN was issued for failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles, which would be this sign:



But then they show you a picture of a completely different sign (a prescribed route sign), which does not indicate a prohibition of motor vehicles at all. I would register the appeal and just put:

The alleged contravention did not occur. A prohibition for motor vehicles is indicated by a diagram 619 sign, but no such sign is present on Princes Street. Full grounds of appeal to follow in due course.

If the corporation contests the case, it will upload its evidence in PDF format to the tribunal website. If that happens, please upload the PDFs on here and I'll type up a full appeal for you. If it doesn't contest the case, you will win by default.

I have lodged the appeal and received the following standard reply: "You have indicated that there is further evidence to follow. This evidence should be uploaded by returning to the Track my appeal link available on this website. This evidence should be uploaded at least 5 days before your scheduled hearing."

I will wait to hear what comes back and keep you posted.

[happyeveryday]

cp8759 and others.

After a number of delays to this process I have just had the paperwork through for my case. The CoL letter (2 pages) is here:


They quote an email from DfT here:


Their technical note (4 pages) is here:





The hearing is scheduled for 1 Oct.

Any further advice please?

This post has been edited by happyeveryday: Sun, 20 Sep 2020 - 15:53

[cp8759]

OK we have a bit of time, please go to the tribunal's appeals portal and download all the documents in PDF format (there will be copies of everything you've received in the post), put them in a folder on google drive, dropbox or similar and I'll construct an appeal.

[happyeveryday]

OK we have a bit of time, please go to the tribunal's appeals portal and download all the documents in PDF format (there will be copies of everything you've received in the post), put them in a folder on google drive, dropbox or similar and I'll construct an appeal.

CP8759. Thank you for your reply. I have saved the documents in this Dropbox folder.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/btb5kq2k5edn3o0/...W6grTu5n4a?dl=0

[cp8759]

Have you asked for a telephone hearing? If so, would you like me to act as your representative?

Should have the grounds of appeal knocked out shortly.

[cp8759]

Draft appeal: https://bit.ly/334X39j

You will also need to upload the following cases from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, as that tribunal doesn't have an online register:

William Watson v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (SZ00006-2002, 11 March 2020)
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (JU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018)
David Chapman v Portsmouth City Council (PO00086-1811, 09 January 2019)
Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (CV00067-1902, 05 April 2019)
Mrs H v Worthing Borough Council (UW 05060M, 16 September 2015)

[PASTMYBEST]

Draft appeal: https://bit.ly/334X39j

You will also need to upload the following cases from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, as that tribunal doesn't have an online register:

William Watson v St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council (SZ00006-2002, 11 March 2020)
Anthony Hall v Kent County Council (with Tunbridge Wells BC) (JU-00042-1810, 07 December 2018)
David Chapman v Portsmouth City Council (PO00086-1811, 09 January 2019)
Ammar Abdul Hadi v Coventry City Council (CV00067-1902, 05 April 2019)
Mrs H v Worthing Borough Council (UW 05060M, 16 September 2015)

CP when trying to open the link it takes you to the thread again