Like many others on this forum, I have received a PCN for entering the infamous stretch of Imperial road in West London which the council recently closed to non-residents.

Can I challenge it on the basis that the sign is not visible enough?

1. 1st picture below: the picture taken by the CCTV shows is partially covered by a tree
2. 2nd picture: the no access sign is right behind a bus lane sign; if you are in the bus lane (as you are allowed to at the time of the alleged contravention) it is very hard to see the no access sign because of this. I took the 2nd picture going back to the area, and it shows exactly that, from that angle, the bus lane sign almost entirely covers the no access sign

I have also added below the actual PCN.

Thanks!

A reasonable argument to be made re the visibility of the sign

In another thread someone argued that the foliage obstructs the view if you are high up, not at ground level. While I agree that the higher up you are the less visible the sign, I'd still argue that:

1) even at ground level, having so much foliage close to the sign is not ideal (see 2nd picture)

2) the main argument,IMHO, is the 2nd picture which shows that the bus lane sign partially covers the no access sign. Having two signs so close to each other doesn't seem very wise, it would have been better to have them on the same pole. However, common sense and the law don't always go hand in hand. Does any one know of any requirement / regulation / ruling / precedent on this, ie on the fact that signs shouldn't be so close that one hides the other?

Also, someone asked if there is any advance warning. I went back to the area and now there is; I have no idea if it was there at the time. However, it still doesn't mean much, because saying "no access to xyz road from Imperial road" doesn't tell someone not familiar with the area whether they need to take the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or whatever left (or right) before reaching the no access sign.

I'm all for people taking their own photos in support of their case, but you appear to have taken yours from the position of maximum advantage to support your argument!

I would suggest that if you had taken 2/3 paces to the right, the sign would have been perfectly visible.

This would also have matched the position you appear to be in in the council's photo.

If this reaches tribunal, I suspect an adjudicator might think the same.

I've already appealed saying I wasn't notified despite working in Imperial Studios. (They said they'd notify affect users).

Bastards the lot of them!

How would the council know that you personally work for Imperial Studios? Have you confirmed with your employers that no notification was received from the council?

Recently received a PCN for the same violation (will post full details later). From the pictures however, since the signage is north of the Fulmead Road junction, that is surely insufficient space to read the sign, react to it and turn off Imperial Road down Fulmead Road?

DVLA requires you to be able to read a sign from 20m away

The sign is on the north side of Fulmead road (your last chance to turn off); the width of Fulmead Road is c.5m

This gives you 15m (20-5) to both read AND REACT to the sign (in a safe manner as well, especially since most offenders will be in the right lane and need to move across the left lane).

At 20 mph however, the average stopping distance is about 12m - so you have 3m of thinking space which at 20m is about 0.3 seconds!!

Unless there is a sign further south on Imperial road I think science is a good argument here

WA1 - the 20m to read a number plate test is not relevant here. In any case one would always have the option of not passing the sign and turning around.

the 20m to read a number plate test is not relevant here. In any case one would always have the option of not passing the sign and turning around.


?

The eyesight test is relevant. A council cannot place signs in such a manner as to require a higher standard of eyesight than is the minimum prescribed.

At 30 mph the stopping distance in a car is 75 feet. Notwithstanding that the OP was on a motorcycle, the signs must be placed to allow a motorist who, having read the signs and realised they do not meet the conditions to pass them, to make a controlled manoeuvre to avoid being in contravention. In this case turn into Fulmead.

Therefore in order to comply with LATOR the authority must place advance notices if it is not possible for a motorist to execute a controlled manoeuvre.

What happens if I challenge a PCN, the council akcnoledges it has received my challenge, but then I don't hear back from the council for 56 days?

The PCN in question is this: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=135946&hl=
I received a PCN in the post and challenged it online; they sent an email confirming that "Your PCN Representation has been successfully received"
I am starting another thread because I feel this is a separate question, that could be of interest to any one.

I understand the PCN gets cancelled after 56 days, but shall I just assume that, or is it worth getting some kind of confirmation from the council? I don't want to be in a situation where the council prepared a response but then some IT glitch didn't send it or whatever, and the council then chases me.
Eg my council royally messed up its IT systems a few years ago and people regsitering for parking permits were not getting emails, some had to create new emails just for that, it was an omnishambles.

Thanks!

PS I checked the spam flter and there's nothing there, but of course proving a negative, proving that I have never received an email from the council, is basically impossible.

No. 56 day rule is for replying to an NTO for parking PCNs. Yours is a moving traffic PCN. The tribunal reckons 3 months is a reasonable max time but it's not binding.

Please don't start new threads for an existing case.

I've asked a Mod to merge

Thank you for clarifying about the difference between 56 days and 3 months.

As for the separate post, well, like I said I felt, and still do, that this is a very generic question that could be of interest to any one, regardless of the specifics of my alleged contravention.

I couldn't care less myself, but any one who in the future searches for the answer to the same question will find it much more easily if it is in a separate thread than at the bottom of the trhead discussing the original PCN. If moderators disagree, they will merge, what can I say!

PS I have now found here

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process

that "The adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations within 3 months"

What does "normally" mean? How much discretion is there?

A lot. The 3 month rule has been applied where there is no justification or explanation for the delay. COVID might well amount to a good reason for a longer delay.

Hi you pic is incorrect. The no access sign is not covered by the bus stop sign but it is too close as you can see from my pic.
Click to view attachment

here are the 2 signs located further back at Townmead Road and William Morris Way roundabout, before you reach the Fulmead Road sign.
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment

"This gives you 15m (20-5) to both read AND REACT to the sign (in a safe manner as well, especially since most offenders will be in the right lane and need to move across the left lane)"
Click to view attachment
This picture describes the scenario. Not much time to read the bus lane sign, then read the no-entry sign then make a sharp left into Fulmead Street across the bus lane to avoid the violation!!

The Council has cancelled the PCN.
I have uploaded their letter here: https://imgur.com/PIMbuAM

Am I too cynical if I think they cancelled it because they thought they would have lost with an adjudicator, but at the same time they don't admit that, they state the signs are clearly signposted (which I disagree with) and that "other PCNs issued in similar circumstances may not be cancelled".

I mean, either someone at the council was in a good mood and was feeling generous, or maybe, just maybe, they don't want to set a precedent, they don't want other people caught in the same spot to be able to say: "you cancelled that PCN, so you must cancel mine, too"?

What do people with more experience think? Is this kind of legalese boiler-plate language that many councils use because of this very reason?

Please can i have some help to appeal, i also got the same fine letter for entering this area which i had no idea about! I didn't even know such a fine existed!

Please if you can show what you sent to them, it would be a big help! I was driving in the night and it was very dark also and definetly dont remember seeing any sign there.

thanks

Start your own thread.

Yeh i did, but just wanted to see the appeal that you sent to them that got approved as it could help, todays my last day for the 14 day period so any help would be appreciated.

thanks.