DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 36271--------------------------------------------------
Barnet, Nether Street into Moss Hall Grove, failing to comply
with restriction on entering pedestrian zone
DIR By: tanster
Date: September 9, 2024, 5:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have received three penalty notices in quick succession for
turning into a pedestrian zone - this road had restrictions
placed on it for an hour each day since spring but I wasn't
aware and was driving through each day. Two out of three signs
were obscured with foliage - both the closest signs - and the
third sign was hard to see from the angle at which I turned as
it was on the far side of a roundabout. I took photos and
submitted these as evidence. The council have rejected my
appeals so I will have to go to tribunal. Do you have any
advice other than resubmitting the same photographic evidence?
I was away on holiday so missed the deadline to go to tribunal
on the first PCN. The others I have two or three more days in
which to submit an appeal to tribunal so I am on a tight
deadline. I have uploaded photos of one of these rejection
notices as well as photo evidence here:
HTML https://tanster1.imgbb.com
#Post#: 36272--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, Nether Street into Moss Hall Grove, failing to
comply with restriction on entering pedestrian zone
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 9, 2024, 6:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
London Tribunals will accept late registrations if a good reason
can be given, have you asked them ?
For others looking here, GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date to
show the restriction.
I am assuming that on the date you received the first PCN, the
other two are dated after the contravention date of the first
PCN, but were only received after receipt of the first one. If
so you can argue that you only became aware of the contravention
when the first PCN arrived, and it is therefore the total
penalty (3 PCNs) is disproportionate.
You need to get all three PCNs considered together at London
Tribunals. Pity you acted alone, as I'm sure we could have
helped you with a more robust representation to Barnet. As I see
it, your main appeal point is obscuration of the signs, both
advance and entry. Obviously, if they haven't offered the
discount it is a total no-brainer to take them to LT.
#Post#: 36699--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, Nether Street into Moss Hall Grove, failing to
comply with restriction on entering pedestrian zone
DIR By: tanster
Date: September 13, 2024, 12:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Incandescent. I applied to the tribunal and all three of
my PCNs are being considered on the 4th of November. Do any of
you have any advice on how to approach the tribunal?
#Post#: 43781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, Nether Street into Moss Hall Grove, failing to
comply with restriction on entering pedestrian zone
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 3, 2024, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just seen this. I see early in the morning. Just say the
foliage obscured one of the signs. And the NOR fails to mention
the power of the adjudicator to extend the period in which to
appeal. I will PM you.
The NOR fails to mention that the Adjudicator can extend the
period of time in which to lodge an appeal. In this regard I
rely upon the following two cases and respective extracts: David
Miller v London Borough of Barnet Case No: 217024143 in which Mr
Chan said:
Mr Dishman makes a further submission in relation to the
contents of the Notice of Rejection. In essence, he complains
that it has not advised motorists contemplating an appeal to the
Adjudicator that the Adjudicator may extend the time limit for
an appeal. There is no requirement that the Notice must spell
out the appeal process. It must however "describe in general
terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made".
I find that this must include a reference to the time limit and
that it can be extended." I am not satisfied that the PCN can be
upheld. I allow the appeal. And Shelley Sinclair v London
Borough of Lewisham Case No: 218033612A in which Mr Walsh said
with reference to the aforementioned case: The second alleged
deficiency is that the Notice of Rejection does not expressly
state that an adjudicator may extend the period of 28 days
provided for lodging an appeal, as provided by Regulation
7(1)(b). It is right to say, of course, that Regulation 6 does
not stipulate that it should. It is also right to say that the
Notice of Rejection alludes to the power to extend the period,
in that it states that a person who does not appeal within the
period ‘may’ have missed the opportunity to appeal. I conclude,
however, that a reasonable reader of the Notice of Rejection
would be unlikely to conclude that an adjudicator had the power
to extend the 28 day period. That discretionary power is, in my
view, an important component of the appellate process and a
power of which a potential appellant should be made aware. In
the case of Miller v. London Borough of Barnet (2170241413, 21
June 2017), cited by Mrs Sinclair, my fellow adjudicator Mr.
Chan held that it was essential that a Notice of Rejection
describes the power of potential extension to the 28 day limit.
He held that a Notice of Rejection that does not contains this
detail does not describe in general terms the form and manner in
which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made, in accordance
with Regulation 6(1)(c). For the reasons I have given I agree
with that decision which I consider highly persuasive.
***
Also say the issue of 3 consecutive PCNs is disproportionate. He
will understand.
#Post#: 44051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet, Nether Street into Moss Hall Grove, failing to
comply with restriction on entering pedestrian zone
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 5, 2024, 5:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Very well done indeed. :)
The Appellant has attended for her three appeals.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to
comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone
when in Nether Street/Moss Hall Grove on 26 June and 9 and 12
July 2024.
The Appellant's case is that the signage was insufficient when
turning right into this pedestrian zone. She argued that the
signage at the entrance to the zone on the right hand sign and
the warning signage were obscured by foliage, and that the sign
plate on the left hand side was at a disadvantaged angle. The
Appellant has produced signage and some page from the Traffic
Signs Manuals in support of her case, which I have considered.
I have considered all the evidence in this case, and I find it
to be a borderline case, which just falls in the Appellant's
favour. I find, on a balance of probabilities, that these three
contravention are not proved.
I find the signage at this location, whilst compliant with the
regulations, was overall inadequate for the Appellant's vehicle
when turning right into this zone on the 26 June and 9 and 12
July 2024.
I find that the sign plate on the Appellant's right hand side
was obscured by foliage and this includes the warning signage on
the approach to this pedestrian zone. Further, I find that the
sign plate on the left hand side of the road was not facing in
the direction of the Appellant's travel and would be too easily
missed.
The appeals are allowed.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1