at least its decriminalized could have been undue care in the old days

http://goo.gl/maps/vrv4Y

Can someone explain what the point of these bits of furniture are for . I presume if your vehicle ( delivery vans,refuse lorries,fire engines etc ) can't get through the side bits you can use the wider centre section or go in via a side road if possible.

Only authorised vehicles are allowed through the middle (wide section), like ambulances and fire engines, and no doubt the cars of local councillors and nomenclatura, (no, surely not !!). So if you're not authorised you get a PCN, simple.

The whole point of these pinch points is to stop HGVs and other commercial traffic from rat-running via the street concerned. This then begs the question as to why PCNs are issued to narrow and small vehicle at all . Of course we all know it is for the PCN penalty income from simple mistakes that counts for everything these days.

So what if you are driving something like a delivery lorry ...what do you do ..

Thanks for your quick reply. I've now attached the full PCN to the first post.

Thanks Hippo.

I've now added the Charge Certificate issue. And you may have missed it but I've already referenced the case you mentioned in the appeal I sent you under 6A. Funnily enough, this idea was from one of your older posts which referenced the same case.

I'll post my lengthy appeal on this forum when I have a result, if it's positive. Let's see what happens

Sorry, I meant I used the case to write my own version of it, not explicitly reference it.

But in general is it good to reference cases to reinforce a point? Like Carey v TfL and Grimwood v Croydon? That's the impression the forum has given me anyway.

I just want to check something in case I'm misunderstanding.

I'm assuming it's fine to point out the various issues with the PCN and circumstances of the contravention in the initial appeal to the council? Or am I supposed to keep all this hidden with the assumption it goes to an adjudicator and then surprise them at that stage? The appeal I sent you over PM is for the council.

My plan is provide so many examples with what's wrong with their PCN and the circumstances that they will bail at the last minute before it gets to an adjudicator.

Thanks but why would pointing out all the issues with the PCN piss off an adjudicator? Looking at past cases, it seems the technical errors in PCNs have been the sole reason for successful appeals.

Ah I get you. Thank you.

So I will go ahead and send the council my lengthy appeal tomorrow with a total of 9 points of defence including 4 that refer to the technical validity of the PCN.

Dear Islington Council,

I wish to appeal PCN (Ref: ISXXXXXX) on the basis that the contravention did not occur.

Please consider the following points and respond to each individually:

1) I do not believe that the alleged sign was visible at the location at the time of the alleged offence. The images and video provided show the back of a sign but do not show the sign face. I therefore conclude that the alleged sign was not visible or had been obscured from view.

2) The Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3) states that the minimum visibility for signage in this situation is 45m on a 20mph road. The alleged keep left sign is located only 41m from the junction with Essex Road.

I’m aware that there is a width restriction sign at the junction but this provides no warning of the unusual and unexpected close proximity of the restricted lane. Therefore, I do not consider this adequate advance warning of the immediate requirement to keep left upon entering Englefield Road.

3) Furthermore, in reference to cases Carey v TfL and Grimwood v Croydon, it is unreasonable to expect a motorist to digest the alleged keep left sign, along with the numerous additional signs in close proximity, considering the distance between the sign and junction. Those additional signs include a camera enforced speeding sign, a width limit sign, a weight restriction sign, a 20mph zone sign, along with the give way marking and the additional obstacle of the parked cars protruding out in front of the width restricted lane.

4) The central area is not a raised surface to distinguish it from a normal through-way and yet this is in fact the case with the same traffic calming measure on the adjacent road (Ockendon Road). This lack of distinction on the road surface is an additional cause of confusion with such a short space of time to react. Even more so in this case where the Van ahead dramatically swerved into the middle lane giving the impression the driver was avoiding an object on the road (please refer to video evidence).

5) The Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 4) states that the hatched markings allow for vehicular traffic to enter if the area is bordered by a broken line and the driver sees it as safe to do so, which is contradictory to the alleged sign. Even if this exception does not apply to the particular design used at Englefield Road, I would argue that this is just another piece of information to digest in a short space of time and a further cause of confusion. It also reiterates the case for a central raised surface which would clearly remove the need for the driver to think about rules and exceptions of different hatched marking designs.

6) In reference to the Local Authorities and Transport Act 2003, I believe the Penalty Charge Notice itself was unenforceable based on:

a) The third ground of appeal (box C on the PCN) inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. It is not correct to require an insurance claim or crime report when making an representation on this basis. For example if a friend had taken the keys to the car without consent. Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report, there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal.

b) The Penalty Charge Notice does not indicate that I can present “compelling reasons” as a challenge against the PCN. Whilst the PCN does mention “mitigating circumstances”, I refer you to the case against the London Borough of Harrow where the adjudicator ruled that by failing to explicitly mention “compelling reasons”, the PCN was unenforceable.

c) The Penalty Charge Notice appears to conflate the two 28 days’ periods regarding the service of a Charge Certificate. The PCN must state it may be served at the end of the payment period, not the representations period and neither a conflation of the two, as it is in this PCN.

In consideration of the above, I trust you will cancel the PCN forthwith.

Acceptance of Representations:

Thank you for providing the requested document and information.

The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued for failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign.

Having examined the PCN you have sent in to us, I can see that it was an old style PCN which was discontinued in 2013. The document was undated in 2014 and you should have received the new version which unfortunately you did not. Due to this error, I have cancelled the PCN and can only apologise for the inconvenience caused by this matter.

I will therefore formally accept your representations and as the ticket has now been cancelled, there is no need for you to take any further action.