Hello

Please could I get your expert opinions on whether there are any grounds for challenging this PCN?







The roads around there were extremely congested at the time as there was the Harrow Fireworks Display and thousands of people were leaving at the same time. It took me at least 10 minutes just to leave the Harrow Leisure Centre car park, where I was parked, and then there was such a long queue turning left I decided to try another route and turned right which led me to entering this restricted route. It was dark, I wasn't familiar with the route and there were lots of cars in front and behind me going the same way as everyone was just desperate to get out of there as quickly as possible given the congestion. As such, I didn't notice the signs.

In terms of signage, this is what there is as you approach:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.59186,-0....33;8i6656?hl=en

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5917458,-...33;8i6656?hl=en

The CCTV images show my car coming OUT of this road, onto the roundabout.

Harrow Council must be raking it in from this evening as there were loads of cars going this same route!

Many thanks for your help.

use the search option top right for christchurch ave, there are loads of them. Then have a look at some of these successful cases

access via this

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals

Stat register. view online environment and traffic adjudicators search enter case no

2140186145 2140210192 2140404836 2150133167 2150122069 2150298848

You can see this is a highly contentious spot

Thanks PASTMYBEST, I've looked through the Tribunal cases for this street/alleged contravention and found at least 7 cases from the last two years where the appeal has been allowed because of inadequate signage. There were some cases where this argument was not accepted and the appeal not allowed (I guess it just depends on which Adjudicator you get), however surely this shows that - at the very least - there is a significant degree of doubt as to whether the signs are in fact sufficiently adequate or not, which would mean that on the whole the signs are not adequate?

This makes me think that this PCN is worth challenging, especially given the additional factors that it was dark and there was a whole string of other cars going that exact same route (meaning it wasn't just me that didn't notice the signage). Both these factors are visible on the CCTV images.

What do you think? Am I just convincing myself here or would an Adjudicator be likely to make the same reasoning? Presumably, I can quote all 7 previous cases and this would add weight to the appeal?

My other question is: do I mention all of this in my initial appeal to the Council (including case references)? Wouldn't this reveal my hand and help them be able to counter-argue any eventual appeal to the Tribunal?

Another appeal for this spot was upheld on the basis that the PCN states the location as "CHRISTCHURCH AVE christchurch-byronON (date)..." which is what my PCN also says. The Adjudicator said: "Whilst no doubt the Council would argue that the location itself remains clear it seems to me that the motorist should not have to agonise over what this gobbledygook might mean, the significance of it being included, and the effect if any it might have on the previous description of the location."

This seems like a riskier argument to rely on, but I suppose it's worth including in any appeal.

Grateful for anyone's thoughts on what they think my chances are.

Ultimately this will go to London Tribunals, so may as well keep things short.

You were on a road you were not familiar with in a line of traffic, you were unaware that you had passed a bus only restriction as the signs in place are inadequate to convey the restriction