DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 29962--------------------------------------------------
PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction on
vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: estevenin
Date: July 15, 2024, 6:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Received that PCN :
HTML https://maipdf.com/est/d15751856311@pdf,
in
this location :
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/uz64wCQk1FmLJvMD6
(This is the coming left turn on the map)
That's their video evidence :
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/s3chhwrdbzepjet19om3a/GetPartialVideo.mp4?rlkey=odxf8chzg5i3gtkjs1kcd9fmx&dl=0
There are no signs in their pictures or Google Maps, seems to be
recent, I'v been back and taken a video of the approach, the
restriction is there. There is a very poor visibility of the
signs, and this is what I have built my defence on.
Here's my draft :
============
Dear Sir, Madam,
Please find representations, regarding the PCN xxxxx, on the
following grounds:
The contravention did not occur.
1. It is accepted that I have entered Wood End Way, after
arriving from Mary Peters Drive and passing through Lilian Board
Way.
2. I have reviewed the evidence submitted by the council, and I
can see no sign or restriction, in any of the picture. I could
also see no sign or restriction, from Google Map (pictures of
September 2022).
3. Therefore I assume a very recent restriction has been put in
place, and I could verify after a visit in situ, two restriction
signs at entry of Wood End Way, one on the right, one on the
left.
4. After visiting the site, it is clear that thos signs are not
visible, for a motorist not familiar with the area, unaware that
such a restriction has been recently put in place.
5. The left sign is hidden by a tree on approaching the
junction, and would only be clear from obstruction, once below,
which does not allow a clear vision from inside a car. In my
view, the driver would not have sufficient time to see and read
the restrictions before making the turn by which time it is too
late, and that would be if the sign would have been noticed.
6. The right sign is simply not visible from motorists arriving
from the opposite sign. Only a pole can be seen.
7. The CCTV footage is not helpful as it does not show the
vehicle on the approach from Mary Peters Drive to the turn in
Wood End Way, but it only shows the vehicle after entry to Wood
End Way.
8. There's no visual indication whatsoever that this is a
pedestrian zone, as there are many cars parked on the street,
which suggests that cars are normally allowed on that road.
9. Also, in the absence of advance notification, a motorist has
no option to avoid the transgression once such a turn is
initiated. I note after exploring the road, that, in authorised
signage regarding advance warning to motorists in Lilian Board
Way of the limitation upon a left-hand turn is present, but only
further down the road on Lilian Board Way, and not on Mary
Peters Drive, so it is irrelevant to the present case.
I know not whether such sign was present at the time of the
present matter; nor its compliance value with the governing
Regulations, as the PCN does not present any evidence of any
advance sign, or any sign at all for that matter.
Although not mandatory, I point out that based on the Traffic
Signs Manual, the signs are recommended to be visible from 60
meters and should face the direction of traffic. By placing the
sign right behind the tree, the sign would inevitably fail to be
visible from 60 meters.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to be consult signage and
comply with advertised restrictions, it is incumbent upon an
enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the
terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate
the nature of the restriction to motorists, and adapting the
signs to the environement where it is going to be in force and I
do not believe it is the case here.
Without any sign visible enough to enforce the restriction, the
contravention hasn't occured.
De minimis
10. In Situ, the restriction seems to be starting at 9AM, and
the car was seen entering Wood End Lane at 9.07AM. The crossing
time is so close from the start of the restriction time, that it
would have caused not issue whatsoever regarding the goal of the
restriction.
It could not be considered a traffic contravention, but rather a
minor difference, too trivial to merit consideration.
Please find attached a video of the approach, as well as photos,
taken from the driver’s point of view, to support my points.
Best regards,
==================
There are no evidence whatsoever from the council of any sign or
advance sign, however I anticipate that they will produce it as
an answer to that appeal, or at Tribunal stage, so I'v
mentionned it straight away to address it immediately. For the
record, that sign is placed where the "school" sign can be seen
on Google Maps. Didn't take a photo of it as I tried to
reproduce my exact journey, but I'm sure they will. Councils
rely on those a lot when the actual signs are controversial.
And this is the video I'm going to send :
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/aou4u1rk4qidi8kxpj3dq/Video.mp4?rlkey=u6ztmtoj3z6ke5g0dpemfrios&dl=0
The sign is only visible by the end as you turn, and at which
point it is too high to be seen.
Some pictures of the sign (almost) :
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/jgpy1pnhl2jj271kiti6i/20240712_063721.jpg?rlkey=sam8rpwl91ilqz2rj1k270kvs&dl=0<br
/>/
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/oeb8n8h8vmcfswdeuf7ec/20240712_063723-0.jpg?rlkey=30cr2pd8y1jdtvu09t1bfw1xq&dl=0<br
/>/
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/z9d34hcs51soo9644uojx/20240712_063724.jpg?rlkey=db65w74pnqr70k4af7p5rn4ng&dl=0<br
/>/
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ax2vhp8bdmr16xz5n9c2b/20240712_063726.jpg?rlkey=d7pq0cq25x178t6guvt57la64&dl=0
I haven't seen any other angle of attack, please let me know
what do you think ? I'v passed the 14 days limit, it's still
65GBP though, and I intend to go all the way anyway, so I have
another 10 days.
Thank you in advance!
#Post#: 29971--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 16, 2024, 3:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well you seem to have been very diligent in your observations
since receiving the PCN ! Not much to add, really, but the main
question is, are you prepared to take them to London Tribunals,
because no matter what you say and submit, they are going to
reject your reps ?
Very bad signs installation but, of course, most people just
cough-up so they have no incentive to behave differently.
Please post up their reply when you get it.
#Post#: 30059--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: estevenin
Date: July 16, 2024, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Of course. Every single one of my PCNs go to the Tribunals.
Thanks a lot for the confirmation, will send that and update
that post accordingly.
#Post#: 34992--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: estevenin
Date: August 29, 2024, 4:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Here's the answer :
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/vy3n3ltjv5mrqzu0efxbr/Notice-of-Rejection-Hidden-compressed.pdf?rlkey=ohau1bh4zlhp0ro3fgcx4yhe9&dl=0
Pretty much a copy/paste generic response for most of it.
Here's my draft for the London tribunals, which is pretty much
the same text, with just 2/3 sentences more in response to their
NOR.
I will also send the same evidence, but I will add a map of the
route I took as well as the position of the signs, which I think
will be crucial for that case, since 2 possible routes makes you
pass the advanced signs, and one route (the one I took) doesn't.
They do insist a lot in their template on those, and I know from
previous appeals that those advance signs only can loose you a
case.
If anyone sees anything further to add before I file my appeal,
any comment is welcome.
Thank you all
-------------------
The contravention did not occur.
1. It is accepted that I have entered Wood End Way, after
arriving from Mary Peters Drive and passing through Lilian Board
Way.
2. I have reviewed the evidence submitted by the council, and I
can see no sign or restriction, in any of the pictures or video.
The car cannot be seen going over any sign or restriction. I
could also see no sign or restriction, at the location in Google
Maps (pictures of September 2022).
3. Therefore, I assume a very recent restriction has been put in
place, and I could indeed see after a visit in situ, two
restriction signs at entry of Wood End Way, one on the right,
one on the left. I do not know if such signs were present at the
time the PCN was issued, as there is no evidence of the car
going across such signs on the CCTV photos/video.
4. After visiting the location, it is clear that those signs are
not visible, for a motorist not familiar with the area, unaware
that such a restriction has been recently put in place.
5. The left sign is hidden by a tree on approaching the
junction, and would only be clear from obstruction, once
arriving below such sign, which does not allow a clear vision
from inside a car, or to be noticed at all for that matter. In
my view, the driver would not have sufficient time to see and
read the restriction before making the turn, by which time it is
too late, and that would be if the sign would have been noticed
in the first place.
6. The right sign is simply not visible from motorists arriving
from the opposite direction. Only a pole can be seen.
Both of those signs would benefit from beeing placed a couple of
meters inside the street, as opposed to directly in the corner
facing the opposite pavement at a 90 degrees angle from the
motorist, as it is the case with many school street signs
currently in force in London. This specific location garuantees
that it will fail to be visible, both with anticipation, and
approaching the junction. Even more so when placed behind a
tree.
7. The CCTV footage is not helpful as it does not show the
vehicle on the approach from Mary Peters Drive, until the turn
in Wood End Way, but it only shows the vehicle after entry to
Wood End Way.
8. There's no visual indication whatsoever that this is a
pedestrian zone, as there are many cars parked on the street,
which suggests that cars are normally allowed on that road.
9. Also, in the absence of advance notification, a motorist has
no option to avoid the transgression once such a turn is
initiated. I do note after exploring the area, and as mentioned
by the council in the Notice of Rejection, that, advance warning
to motorists in Lilian Board Way of the limitation upon a
left-hand turn is present.
But that warning is placed further down the road on Lilian Board
Way (by the bus stop), and not on Mary Peters Drive, so it is
irrelevant to the present case. Any motorist arriving from Mary
Peters Drive, and entering Wood End Way crossing Lilian Board
Way, will not be exposed to any of the advance signs currently
present in situ. (Please review Map of the journey and video
evidence in that regards)
I know not whether such sign was present at the time of the
current matter; nor its compliance value with the governing
Regulations, as the PCN does not present any evidence of any
advance sign either (or any sign at all for that matter).
Therefore I refute the claim from the council that the location
is clearly sign posted.
As a conclusion to the above points:
Although I accept that the following is not mandatory, I point
out that based on the Traffic Signs Manual, the signs are
recommended to be visible from 60 meters and should face the
direction of traffic. By placing the sign right behind the tree,
the sign would inevitably fail to be visible from 60 meters, or
even 10, 5 or 2 meters for that matter.
The photo and video evidence are clearly showing that both signs
at entry are not compliant with the above, in terms of
anticipated visibility, and I therefore refute the claims from
the council that it is.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and
comply with advertised restrictions, it is incumbent upon an
enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the
terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate
the nature of the restriction to motorists, and adapting the
signs to the environment where it is going to be in force and I
do not believe it is the case here.
De minimis
10. In situ, the restriction seems to be only partial, starting
at 9AM. The car was seen entering Wood End Lane at 9.07AM. The
crossing time is so close from the start of the restriction
time, that it would have caused not issue whatsoever, regarding
the reason why such restriction has been put in place.
It could not be considered a traffic contravention, but rather a
minor inaccuracy. The difference is so small, that it would be
too trivial to merit consideration.
#Post#: 35040--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 30, 2024, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Failure to consider the video point re not showing the sign.
Also, their pictures are dated. I will e mail you if you want me
to represent you. In any case, I would not lodge the appeal with
all the details included. Just our usual advice: I rely upon my
formal representations and full submissions will follow upon
receipt of the council's evidence pack. Personal hearing.
The video is rubbish - sorry, of very little evidential value!
What a cheek they have to pursue this. They remember you, of
course. ;D
#Post#: 35212--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: estevenin
Date: September 1, 2024, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> FaiThe video is rubbish - sorry, of very little evidential
value! What a cheek they have to pursue this. They remember you,
of course. ;D
>
--- End Quote ---
With pleasure, I'll message you back privately.
Yes it's not impossible that they remember the name!
#Post#: 35213--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 1, 2024, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
μολὼν λαβέ 8)
#Post#: 39899--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 8, 2024, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
;D The hearing was today. I have to say that, as
representative, I just sat back and watched the OP doing his
stuff. 8) Well done Monsieur Leffe!
#Post#: 40043--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: October 9, 2024, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DwPqlm2EIxExMt8aA8SSjvS1RyHmLMpx/view,<br
/>you would have thought Ealing would have learnt their lesson
about going up against estevenin ::)
#Post#: 40045--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 9, 2024, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DwPqlm2EIxExMt8aA8SSjvS1RyHmLMpx/view,<br
/>you would have thought Ealing would have learnt their lesson
about going up against estevenin ::)
>
--- End Quote ---
Innit! I mentioned the £5000 to the Adjudicator too.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page