DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22246--------------------------------------------------
Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: 244065013
Date: May 13, 2024, 3:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I recieved a PCN on 06/05/24 for for the above no give way and
wanted to check if there any point in appealing before I pay it.
Have attached the redacted PCN.
Video Link -
HTML https://imgur.com/a/uyhcBB8
VRN EX63KWF
Thanks in advance
T
** Updated with PCN and video ***
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 22249--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 13, 2024, 4:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please re-instate PCN number and re.mark - see
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
The evidence against you is not the photos, but the video.
Please download from Lambeth's site and post here.
#Post#: 22258--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: 244065013
Date: May 13, 2024, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks John.
Have added PCN and video.
T
#Post#: 22302--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: MrChips
Date: May 13, 2024, 12:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The other car was stationary so it's unlikely you impeded them
by crossing the give way line.
#Post#: 22309--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 13, 2024, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
See s 4.8.3 and 4.8.5
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
'Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g.
through the arch of a bridge..the signs should include the
distance.
They don't.
IMO, a driver is entitled by virtue of this omission and the
presence of 'obvious' limits i.e. the arch of the bridge, to
consider that the limits of the priority section do not extend
beyond the arch.
There is no vehicle in or in motion approaching this section.
Lambeth consider that any vehicle which their camera can see
approaching from the opposite direction, even if nowhere near
the 'priority' sign in their direction, represents potentially
impeded traffic.
#Post#: 22314--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 13, 2024, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This exceptionally mendacious council seem to think they make
the laws regarding these give-way locations, and of course,
always in favour of them making shedloads of money out of it.
Fortunately, using GSV, one can see where the approaching car
was located when you passed through the single-lane section. If
one looks at the left side of the street where the car is
located, one can see a dropped kerb. This is located at the
vehicle entry gates of the Kingswood Primary School, and as you
can see, is some distance away from the sign that indicates the
car has priority within the single lane section.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/doJDkSbMotjwEP1E6
The distance according to GSV is just under 25 metres. I would
therefore argue that the contravention did not occur. You can
also view cases on the London Tribunals Statutory Register under
location "Salters Hill".
#Post#: 22332--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: 244065013
Date: May 13, 2024, 5:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all for your advise - I will appeal and see where it
goes.
#Post#: 22344--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 13, 2024, 6:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Also note that the speed limit at this location is 20 mph.
#Post#: 22380--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: May 14, 2024, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, I would reiterate that your reps should focus on objective
facts (the video) and the law. In this regard..:
The council's evidence shows the following:
A 'priority' sign as defined by the Traffic Signs etc. Regs;
An associated plate stating 'Give way to oncoming vehicles' but
without a specified distance over which the priority applies;
The arch of a bridge and a narrowed carriageway for the length
of the arch;
An oncoming vehicle which was stationary but not within the
length of the arch or narrowed carriageway;
My car entering this narrowed section.
The legal interpretation of the combination of signs is given in
the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and further expanded in s4 of
Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual which states that:
'Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g.
through the arch of a bridge etc..then the traffic sign
[indicating the priorities] should include the distance over
which the priority applies.'
The driver is therefore entitled to rely upon what are the
obvious limits of the priority i.e. through the arch of the
bridge.
It is indisputable that there were no oncoming vehicles in the
priority section, indeed, the nearest vehicle appears to be at
least ** metres from the end of the arch and ** m from the
priority sign on that side and therefore the authority must
cancel the PCN.
In order to forestall the authority from misguidedly believing
that the 'Give Way..' associated plate alters the nature of the
prohibition, I would refer them to s4 of the Traffic Signs
Manual and the Traffic etc. Signs Regs which make it clear that
a 'Give Way' restriction applies at junctions only and not along
a two-way section of carriageway. Specifically:
'The Give Way sign may be used ..to give greater emphasis[to the
priority restriction] and to indicate where vehicles should
wait[when required to do so].
#Post#: 22450--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth Salters Hill - Failing to Give Way 37 j 28/04/24
DIR By: 244065013
Date: May 14, 2024, 1:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. I will work up a draft and post back.
T
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page