Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: The Gerrard Place/Westminster Council cash cow
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices

I know this particular place in central London has been mentioned before. I am a recent victim of getting caught by CCTV turning right at this junction with poor signage.

Having read the forums, I rejected the PCN citing

1) Inadequate visibility of the sign due to the light fitting facing the wrong way (see the scans to see this yourself)
2) No right turn sign is only placed on left side of junction.

They rejected on both grounds showing a photo of the badly lit sign claiming it is still very visible. This is not true...the photo is either doctored or auto-exposure has made it seem a lot brighter than it really is.

They claim the no right turn sign is not needed on the right side of the road because it is a two way road.

I have attached the rejection notice FYI. I am now intending to proceed to PATAS primarily focussed on the lack of two signs based on the TSRGD where I have copied the relevant sections I also copied below.

As you can see...the sign should be on both sides, and this road is wider than 5 metres so the exception clause does not apply. Are there any other suggestions on what I should do or have I got this covered? Many thanks for this supportive community. I find myself getting more and more angry realising how much of a scam this particular junction/CCTV set-up is.


(3) Subject to paragraphs (4), (5) and (6) and to direction 9, a sign to which this direction applies shall be placed on the relevant road at or as near as practicable to the point referred to in paragraph (2) -

    (a) where the relevant road has only one carriageway, <b>on each side of that carriageway<b>; or

    (b) where the relevant road has more than one carriageway, on each side of each carriageway in relation to which the restriction, requirement, prohibition or speed limit begins.

(4) Where the relevant road has one carriageway, then signs to which this direction applies need only be placed on one side of the relevant road to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement, prohibition (but not a speed limit) begins in the following cases -

    (a) where the restriction, requirement or prohibition applies only to traffic on one side of the relevant road; or

    (b) at a junction where -

      (i) traffic proceeding on another road on which it is permitted to proceed only in one direction turns into the relevant road; or

      (ii) the carriageway of the relevant road is less than 5 metres wide and the sign is so placed that its centre is within 2 metres of the edge of the carriageway.
Matts Dad
First thing I would do would be to take my own photograph of the sign at around the same time of night that the alleged contravention took place, (without flash). From their photograph I can't see how the sign is being lit up as the light is clearley on the wrong side of the post.
This is a photo of the sign taken on the 21st June 2009, the light as you see has now been turned around to be correctly over the no right turn sign.



Google streetview clearly shows the light for the sign facing the opposite direction, however is that alone sufficient to quash the charge?
Sorry I posted that photo of the sign now lit to save the OP a trip back there at night.

I think the OP has grounds for appeal on the missing no right turn sign on the right hand side of the road (there's only one at the moment) and the go ahead arrow painted on the road.

But here is a night photo of what the sign looked like at night when the light above it was facing the wrong way (taken from another post on here)

That last photo is a much more accurate representation of how it looks in reality. Your eye is not drawn to it over the brightness of surrounding shop fronts and shop signage.

My intention was more to focus on the lack of a sign on both sides of the road. In my original post I quoted the TGRSD. The position of the word "or" between the two exemption clauses and the fact this is a junction of a road wider than 5 metres, make it look to me like there should be a sign on both sides. But depending on how you interpret the document, and the use of the word "or", its not as lock tight as I would have liked.

Nevertheless, because Wesminster apparently want to make sure they can keep using this cash cow, they will not want it to go to PATAS just in case it stops them doing this anymore and having to refund monies to the thousands that have paid up so far.

I live in Hertfordshire and attending a hearing in central London will be quite an inconvenience. On the small chance it does go ahead, is there any disadvantage to choose "postal decision" on the PATAS form?

This is tenuous but can you ask them for an original JPEG with intact EXIF data for the photo with the sign shown brightly? Perhaps under FOI? Or if it's not a still photo, ask for the video footage from which the shot is derived.

It looks to me that either a flash might have been used for it, or it may have been a frame grabbed from a video at the moment the sign happened to be lit up by something like a passing headlight.
Yes do ask for the orginal photo they printed in their letter of the sign.

There is a white straight ahead line painted in the road, this is misleading and confuses motorists.

This road should have two no right turn signs at its exit.

After to have cleaned the personal information from the PCN you may want to post that up, as there could also be things wrong with it.

You need to lists many things not just appeal on one wrong thing.

There has been a list of all the PCN's issued on that junction for the last six months, it's staggering.
you could also mention the conflicting signage as the arrow painted on the road tells you to go ahead only, by doing so i believe you would end up in the foyer of the curzon cinema oppisite
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.