PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN 52M Lombard Street / Bank Junction., Appeal rejected. Do I now appeal to tribunal?
sadface-emoji
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 15:34
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Member No.: 109,002



Hi.

Like many people who have been through Bank junction, I've been sent a PCN with the contravention code 52M.


I only found this website recently, as my original appeal was refused, so the question I'd like to ask now is, do I now appeal to the tribunal with the argument that my PCN should be cancelled on the basis that the signage in Lombard Street does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, as found by the London Tribunals in Salih Dogan v City of London (case reference 2180198194)?

My original appeal was on the basis that coming from Gracechurch Street towards London Bridge, London Bridge is closed.
Below are some screen shots of my route.
-
Pic of diversion from London Bridge. On the right you can just see Cannon Street is also closed.

As Cannon Street is also closed, you have to take a right to King William Street.


Here on King William street, about 50m from Lombard Street, is a diverted traffic straight ahead sign.


There are no other diversion signs after this straight ahead before heading in to Lombard Street.

Once you past this sign, this is where the contravention happens, and the signs are blue and no bus gate markings on the ground -


And this is the CoL evidence of us, having just passed the blue signs, at the Bank Junction.


It amazes me that they would close off two main roads around London Bridge, then divert you towards Bank. Should that even be allowed? As there were plenty of cars and vans just following the diversion that was in place, towards Bank.

So, as I now have the a stock rejection letter, should I now register my appeal on the tribunal website and just put "detailed grounds to follow in due course", or should I just mention that the signage in Lombard Street does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, as found by the London Tribunals in Salih Dogan v City of London (case reference 2180198194)?

Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks in Advance, and thanks for reading down to here!





Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 12)
Advertisement
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 15:34
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 17:57
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



show us your representations and te notice of rejection


--------------------
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
sadface-emoji
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 19:58
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Member No.: 109,002



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 18:57) *
show us your representations and te notice of rejection


Hi PASTMYBEST.

I've attached the pdf of my appeal rejection, with my details removed.

My original representation, was, come to think of it, quite rubbish, as this was the first time I've ever had to write one. sad.gif
I only mentioned how the surrounding roads were closed and the diversion signs pointed towards Bank.

This was what I submitted on their website -
"I feel this ticket should be cancelled as there were diversions in place which took me down towards Lombard Street. I was heading towards London Bridge, but it is closed, so had to turn right, but as soon as you turn right towards Cannon Street, Cannon Street is also closed, so you have to take King William Street. King William Street has a diversion arrow that says go straight on, which ends up on Lombard Street, where this ticket was issued. I have dashcam footage showing the diversion sign, with the aforementioned roads being closed, which meant I had to follow the diversion signs."

i only wish that I had found this site prior to making my appeal. sad.gif

Thanks.


Attached File(s)
Attached File  rejection.pdf ( 1.51MB ) Number of downloads: 16
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 20:32
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



There was nothing wrong with your representations given your knowledge at the time, and the council did not consider it at all aground for appeal on its own One of us will help you draft an appeal.

Another point is the date of notice, today the 29th and by post and e mail. There is an argument that the document is not properly served by e mail but whilst i would make it I am not convinced as to its merit. But if the send by post and e mail when does the 28 day period for making an appeal begin?


--------------------
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
sadface-emoji
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 09:01
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Member No.: 109,002



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 21:32) *
There was nothing wrong with your representations given your knowledge at the time, and the council did not consider it at all aground for appeal on its own One of us will help you draft an appeal.

Another point is the date of notice, today the 29th and by post and e mail. There is an argument that the document is not properly served by e mail but whilst i would make it I am not convinced as to its merit. But if the send by post and e mail when does the 28 day period for making an appeal begin?



Thank you PASTMYBEST! Any help is very much appreciated!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 11:35
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,455
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The rejection isa standard fob-off letter, but the PCN is fatally flawed as it relates to a no motor vehicles sign, and there is no such sign on or near Lombard Street.

Personally I would just register the appeal with this:

QUOTE
The alleged contravention did not occur, because no diagram 619 sign is present on or near Lombard Street, full grounds of appeal to follow in due course


The Corporation may or may not contest, if it does it will upload its evidence in PDF format to the tribunal portal. If this happens, download it, post it up on here and I will type up a full appeal.


--------------------
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
sadface-emoji
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 15:38
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Member No.: 109,002



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 12:35) *
The rejection isa standard fob-off letter, but the PCN is fatally flawed as it relates to a no motor vehicles sign, and there is no such sign on or near Lombard Street.

Personally I would just register the appeal with this:

QUOTE
The alleged contravention did not occur, because no diagram 619 sign is present on or near Lombard Street, full grounds of appeal to follow in due course


The Corporation may or may not contest, if it does it will upload its evidence in PDF format to the tribunal portal. If this happens, download it, post it up on here and I will type up a full appeal.



Thank you cp8759. Quick question before I register my appeal. You've mentioned "no diagram 619 sign is present on or near Lombard Street". However, there is one on Lombard Street, but you only see it if you take the right turn from King William Street into Lombard Street. If you went straight ahead in to Lombard Street, where the contravention occurs, then there is no diagram 619 sign.

So would this be ok to register my appeal with instead?
QUOTE
The alleged contravention did not occur, because no diagram 619 sign is present, full grounds of appeal to follow in due course



Just for your reference, here is a photo of the sign on Lombard Street-


It doesn't really make sense to me, because the appeal rejection letter states that you're supposed to turn into this road, but then the road sign says No Motor Vehicles, except access to off street premises. But I doubt if most people who turn there are accessing any premises.

Once again, thanks for your help!




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 17:18
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



You are in danger of confusing your self, if that was the sign you were accused of contravening you would be bang to rights. It wasn't though look at your photos in the opening post. You were driving in the opposite direction


--------------------
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
sadface-emoji
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 22:41
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Member No.: 109,002



Hi PASTMYBEST,

Thanks for the reply. Just to clarify, the last photo I posted was just for reference purposes.
I was asking whether I should still use this full quote from cp8759 -
QUOTE
The alleged contravention did not occur, because no diagram 619 sign is present on or near Lombard Street, full grounds of appeal to follow in due course

or whether I should remove the part about "on or near Lombard Street" as the photo does show a sign on Lombard Street, and I don't want to be at fault by stating that there aren't any diagram 619 signs on Lombard Street.
So, would this be better to register my appeal with?
QUOTE
The alleged contravention did not occur, because no diagram 619 sign is present, full grounds of appeal to follow in due course

Thanks for your continued help!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 1 Jul 2020 - 10:32
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,455
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Maybe change the wording to:

The alleged contravention did not occur, because I did not pass any diagram 619 sign on Lombard Street, full grounds of appeal to follow in due course


--------------------
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
sadface-emoji
post Wed, 1 Jul 2020 - 21:32
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Member No.: 109,002



Thank you cp8759.
I'll enter my appeal with your updated wording.

Your help is very much appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sadface-emoji
post Sun, 12 Jul 2020 - 11:52
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 29 Jun 2020
Member No.: 109,002



Hi.

I still plan on using the advice given previously in my appeal to the Adjudicator regarding "not passing any diagram 619 sign on Lombard Street".

But in my original representation to CoL, I mentioned that I was following the diversion signs, and I've also noticed some other people on this forum who have made similar statements regarding these diversions.

A couple of nights ago, I went back to Bank and there is now an additional diversion sign telling people to turn right. (Anyone know when this was added?)
As you can see, the straight ahead sign is still there, but there is now a diversion sign very close behind it (40 metres).




which wasn't there on the date of the PCN -


This right turn sign directs you in to this


which forces you to pass this sign, which was there on the day of the PCN.



Is there any benefit to adding any this to my grounds of appeal?
And have City of London realised their Diversion signs were initially wrong as they have now added the right turn diversion sign?

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Yesterday, 18:56
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,455
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Keep all those photos, if the CoL contests we can use all of that to strengthen your appeal.


--------------------
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

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: Tuesday, 14th July 2020 - 13:45
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.