DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 43045--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Wood End Way. 53J - Failing to comply with a restriction
on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone.
DIR By: estevenin
Date: October 29, 2024, 7:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, jumping up as a conclusion, for people that would find
this post later on :
The appeal was allowed, thanks cp8759 for the outcome link.
To sum it up:
1. As advised I appealed by simply mentionning "I rely on my
initial defence".
2. The council then sent their evidence pack, with a few points.
Main bits here :
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/99ztna0mqxbdd5tbzh3hj/SECTION-J-AO01724215-cut.pdf?rlkey=31avx35u14p3qoyf78fuzgvs3&dl=0,<br
/>main points were :
- They insisted about the advanced sign
- They mentionned that the signs were slightly angled, and could
be seen easily
- They said that even if I hadn't seen that advanced sign, I
would have seen the OTHER advanced sign (northside), on my way
"in". This neighbourhood is a dead-end, and I would have
inevitably pass a sign, on my way in
- They argued that, coming from my home address, it was
inevitable to miss the advanced sign
This was their main angle of attack.
3. Our answer to that was :
- We accepted that the sign had a slight angle, but there was no
evidence that the sign was angled at the time the PCN happened,
and also that was not angled enough to make any difference.
- It is absurd to expect a motorist to remember a restriction on
one sign, after having seen it on the other side.
- They are wrong to assume that I came from my home address.
(Indeed this was not a work journey, I had spent the weekend
there). We even provided evidence and witness statement of that
just in case, even though I believe it was not needed, as the
burden of proof is on the council.
Those are the main bits, if someone ever needs the whole thing,
PM me and I'll send the full response.
4. At the trial, Ealing wasn't there, and this is how it played
out :
- We mentionned that there were no signs in the live evidence.
The judge said this is often not the case and not necessary.
- We then added that our argument was that the signs were not
visible. And the fact that there are no signs shown in the live
evidence, does not help at showing evidence that it is, and we
can only rely on post-added evidence.
- He watched the evidence, and saw the signs
- We explained that the council's evidence is not shown from a
driver's point of view, and that I had added a video of my
journey, from the driver's point of view
- He watched it, and said that he can see the sign before
turning
- We agreed, but not with enough time to make an informed
decision about making the turn or not, as at this point, it is
too late to read it in full and understand it.
If visible at all, since the sign is placed right at the angle
of the turn, instead of slightly further in the street, as it is
usually the case with school street restrictions nowadays.
- He agreed and asked to confirm if I had driver from Mary
Peter's Drive, I said yes, he then said that indeed I would not
have seen the advanced sign
- He then agreed with us that the sign offers poor visibility
and allowed the appeal
Conclusion :
As I anticipated, the sign beeing hidden by a tree, the crucial
part here to address in that case was the advanced sign.
Therefore I produced a map of the journey, but also a video,
from the driver's perspective, of my exact journey.
If you were to have the same case but with a different journey,
that might have lost the case.
Ealing wasn't here so he didn't even bothered asking about the
dead-end thing, if I had entered the same day or not... But I
believe it would not have made any difference, a restriction
should be seen before the actual restriction, not some minuts
(or days) before, in a different geographical position.
Thanks a lot [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] for the help with
the Defence, and the support, I'm sure I'll get some more PCN's
to drink beers for in the near future!
I hope this post helps others, please feel free to DM me if you
ever get a PCN at this location.
PS : Just for the fun, I think I now understand how this PCN
came along, I had parked an adjacent street to Mary Peter's
drive, and on the monday morning went to my car, waiting for a
friend to get ready. I put my GPS (right before 9AM), and wait.
5/10mn after my friend arrives, and I start driving. 9.07AM I
cross this restriction, following the GPS route. So the route
from the GPS was not restricted when I entered my journey, but
it was when I started driving! Which is strange as it should
normally update. And with that sign behind the tree, very hard
to notice.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page