Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN 38JL - Riversdale Road, Islington
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Mark.K
Hi All,

Hoping someone can help me fight (or at least try) this PCN i received, I feel like I should at least appeal it once, to see if i can get it dropped.

Here are photos of the PCN, apologies no scans as I don't have a scanner.
Link to Album: http://imgur.com/a/lWcv2

I've drafted up this letter, any comments appreciated.

Penalty Charge Notice No:
Date of Notice: 13/10/2016
Location of Contravention: Riversdale Road [Zone H] on 01/10/2016 at 09:30
Vehicle registration: XXXXXXX

Dear Islington Council Parking,

I am writing to appeal the above PCN.

I would argue that it is not reasonable to turn into Riversdale Road from a very busy 30 mph zone and have less than 20 meters to comply with the oddly structured road layout, when turning into Riversdale Road from Green Lanes Road. It was also my first time seeing such a traffic island layout, which added to my hesitation and uncertainty.

Given the very short amount of time to react to the road layout, the left lane measuring 2M wide against my cars identical width of 2M, and from my position on the road it (viewable from the images provided) it would not have been possible for me to navigate into the left lane without reversing and aligning my car straight – endangering myself and other road users behind me.

I made a split-second decision and I believe that it would be reasonable to assume that the middle of the measure was the compliant route. This can be seen in my hesitation which is visible from the images (from the brake lights).

Moreover the alleged exclusion area has no block white lines that clearly indicate no entry, or a bus lane or emergency access only. I also trust that my confusion and reluctance in this matter would be clearly demonstrated in the alleged video evidence that you have, although I am unable to access this via your website – as your system states “PCN image viewer is temporarily unavailable while we investigate a security issue”.

Bearing in mind that I have discovered that Islington is already well aware of issues with this traffic-calming layout being very unclear, following a FOI request the total number of tickets issues for Riversdale Road over a 7 year period is as follows:

Year Total PCNs
2009 2281
2010 4368
2011 4020
2012 5948
2013 6052
2014 6372
2015 8458
2016 4995

This sums up 42,494 tickets in the last 7 years – clearly demonstrating, that this road layout is confusing to a lot of motorists.

I trust that in consideration of the notes made above you will take no further action in respect of this alleged contravention.

I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,

---------

I've seen other posts about this PCN so i've tried to incorporate some of their reasons, but most of the posts were from a few years ago - and the reasons didn't seem to apply to me.

GSV: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5602917,-...3312!8i6656


Thank you all
DancingDad
Quick check at London Tribunals brought up 55 hearings at this location, only 3 or 4 won and only one of the winners on signage..... no real details simply that it didn't accord with TSM3. And out of step with all others, many of which declared the signage adequate.
Width also raises not sympathy..... to quote from one....
"If Mr. H did not feel he could drive through the left-hand gap he ought to have turned around and driven a different route. Driving through the central gap was not a lawful option"
The other winners were cos the council cocked up BTW, premature Charge Certificate in one case, late evidence pack in another.

Plenty of hits on here for similar cases, probably need to go through and find tactics that worked to get a cancellation.
Mark.K
Thanks for the response DancingDad, I'm hoping to be on the lucky side and maybe get a cancellation from the reviewers discretion as some other users have - i know it's a long shot but i'm thinking it's worth trying to appeal at least once. If that doesn't succeed I'm probably going to pay the discounted rate before the 14 days are up, as you mentioned - i'll probably loose if i go to adjudicators.
DancingDad
Always worth challenging within discount.
My only concern at the moment is that without something specific re signage, lack of warning etc, it will simply be a tactic to delay payment.
My preference is to try to build on something that may achieve more then that.

Just not seeing it at the moment sad.gif
Mark.K
I've checked a few more posts relating to PCN Code 38 and drafted up a second letter adding reasons posted by users ADAZE and Incandescent, and other users who have had their PCN cancelled for mentioning the confusing layout of the road - not sure if it will help me but worth a try.

I've also changed the layout to help put my points across.

Any input is appreciated.

I'm hoping to send out an email reps in a few days.

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


Penalty Charge Notice No:
Date of contravention: 01/10/2016
Date of Notice: 13/10/2016
Location of Contravention: Riversdale Road [Zone H] on 01/10/2016 at 09:30
Vehicle registration: XXXXXXX

Dear Islington Council Parking,
I am writing to appeal the above PCN, on grounds that the contravention did not take place, for the following points.

1. I would argue that it is not reasonable to turn into Riversdale Road from a Green Lanes Road which is a very busy 30 mph zone and have less than 20 meters to comply with the confusing road layout and multiple traffic signs the driver has to take in. This was also my first time seeing such a traffic island layout, which added to my hesitation and uncertainty (images show my brake lights) and I’m sure video evidence would support this, although I am unable to access it via your website – as your system states “PCN image viewer is temporarily unavailable while we investigate a security issue”.

2. Given the very short amount of time to react to the road layout, the traffic signs, and from my position on the road it (viewable from the images provided) it would not have been possible for me to navigate into the left lane without reversing and re-aligning my car straight – endangering myself and other road users behind me.

3. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, dictates that Diagram 1040 – as implied by the road markings – is “Part of the carriageway which vehicular traffic should not enter unless it is seen by the driver to be safe to do so”. As stated above, I do not believe it was safe for me to reverse, and straighten my car to fit into the left lane, I saw the hatching as a safe area of passage and I was compliant with the road markings.

4. Moreover the alleged exclusion area has no block white lines that clearly indicate no entry, or a bus lane or emergency access only. Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, Road Markings (CHAPTER 22. WORDED AND DIAGRAMMATIC MARKINGS) states “Marking NO ENTRY on the carriageway should help to reduce the risk of inadvertent non-compliance.”

22.32 Purposes for which the marking might be used, either alone or to supplement No Entry signs, provided that the Secretary of State has given written approval to use the signs or markings in the absence of any statutory provision include:

(i) To prevent drivers taking the incorrect route past channelising traffic islands, e.g. when turning right at a side road junction. This procedure must not be used to prohibit completely the right turn at the junction. If this is necessary, a traffic regulation order must be made, and
(ii) To reduce the risk of traffic going the wrong way along a dual carriageway road or a slip road.

5. Statutory appeal ground 'E' does not reflect the legislation, and is therefore prejudicial and makes the PCN void. The words that are key to this clause are "in the circumstances of the case". These have been omitted. This is crucial because this appeal ground was carefully written by the draftsman to cover cases where the circumstances are such that the relevant penalty has been exceeded. The use the word "legal" which appears nowhere in the legislation or indeed any regulations at all. Whilst the exact wording of a PCN is not defined in law, just the content, the statutory grounds for an appeal are statutory, so I don't think it is lawful to edit them so as to essentially change the meaning.

6. Bearing in mind that I have discovered that Islington is already well aware of issues with this traffic-calming layout being very unclear, following a FOI request the total number of tickets issues for Riversdale Road over a 7 year period is as follows:

Year Total PCNs
2009 2281
2010 4368
2011 4020
2012 5948
2013 6052
2014 6372
2015 8458
2016 4995

This sums up 42,494 tickets in the last 7 years – clearly demonstrating, that this road layout is confusing to a lot of motorists and not adequate.
I trust the consideration of the notes made above will assist in a cancellation of this alleged contravention.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours faithfully,

stamfordman
QUOTE (Mark.K @ Sun, 16 Oct 2016 - 17:04) *
This sums up 42,494 tickets in the last 7 years – clearly demonstrating, that this road layout is confusing to a lot of motorists and not adequate.


It's an interesting point - maybe we are missing something. Human factors and systems is an important area of study - let's say this is a system that should be pretty much guarantee that people will comply with, say avoiding a stall in an aeroplane through the supply of data. Likewise, the idea of a width restriction should be to avoid nearly all violations, or perhaps more obviously, a height restriction to stop buses having their roofs ripped off. Yet in the height case we know there are quite a few violations, and in width restrictions like in this case thousands of people missing it.*

I would suggest if it's not been done already that we enlist a human factors expert to have a look at a few of these. But we do need the right data.*

I live near to Riversdale Road but this has never fooled me because I am used to width restrictions and other things common to inner London boroughs (it's TFL that's my weak point). Again, the raw data is not good enough because we also need to know who drove through the middle (where they are from, vehicles driven etc).

Straight on view: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5602685,-...3312!8i6656

* Note though: we don't know how many were cars less than 6 foot 6 inches missing the drive-through restriction or wider vehicles going through the middle anyway. We don't know too who failed the test - e.g. out of borough, town etc.
lwwarehouse1
Its a great letter. Did you manage to cancel it?
parkingnoticenotthedriver
I am interested of outcome of this too.


My OH drove through the middle lane 3 weeks ago because he was in a rental van and he believed he cannot drive through to left lane without damaging the van (we are out of London by the way)
Also when he came to the junction he didnt want to drive through the middle lane but it was impossible to turn back because of the traffic behind the van.
It was only choice to go through the middle lane.


It was rental van and we havent received the pictures yet but I have checked the measurements.
Van external measurement is side to side 1.949 cm

Road signage is 6` 6" (1,9812 cm)

this just leaves us 0.032 cm.

Even the most experienced drivers would hesitate on this measurements I believe.
stamfordman
Start a new thread if you want help with this.


This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.