DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 37059--------------------------------------------------
PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: EllHas
Date: September 16, 2024, 8:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello all, I'm new here. I had a brief look around the site
before signing up and just wanted to say that it's great what
you're doing. I didn't know something like this existed.
I'll try to be as brief as possible with this.
I've received a PCN from Lewisham council for an alleged 52 m
contravention on Leahurst Road - Westbound occuring on Saturday
7th September.
The charge is £130 with a discount to £65 if I pay it before the
26th of this month I believe.
Normally I'd just pay this and forget about it, but I feel
particularly aggrieved by this one as a major South Circular
Road was closed off on that day and I was just trying to find my
way around the massive traffic queues and road nonsense
diversions that resulted.
So to receive a PCN due from the council due to an issue that
the council caused... Anyway.
I went back to the location of the alleged contravention this
morning and took some pictures (they're attached), I've also
attached the letter in case it's relevant.
The key issues that I can see is
1) Leahurst Road has clear signs designating it as a pedestrian
and cycle zone, but ONLY during Monday - Friday (this occured on
a Saturday) (Image 1)
[img]
HTML https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipMIF45kzSA6-JEK_13pkhJnowIA6vf9IQKthXRj[/img]
2) Further up the road is a sign warning of a width restriction
but nothing else (relevant to point 3) (Image 2)
3) At the location of the alleged contravention is a No Vehicle
Entry sign directly behind a pedestrian crossing and in front of
a road with no entry signs on either side (this is Leahurst road
continued). (Image 3) (Image 4)
In relation to point 3, the road then naturally turns to the
left and becomes Ennersdale Road, suggesting that the No Vehicle
Entry sign may be in relevant to the rest of Leahurst Road with
the clear no entry signs and NOT Ennersdale Road to the left.
This is further supported by the fact that there is another
Monday - Friday 'No Through Route For Vehicles' sign on
Ennersdale Road a little further up.
Additionally, looking at Image 3, there is a faded No Entry road
marking just before the No Vehicles sign and a very clear No
Entry road marking at the junction of Leahurst Road with the No
Entry signs (Image 4).
My argument would be that the sign was no clear and there was
insufficient warning that vehicles were not allowed to even
progress onto Ennersdale Road, the only sign before this point
was a warning of a width restriction and after that, once you've
driven to the point that you're in front of the No Vehicle Entry
sign, it's impossible to turn around as the vehicle would be
blocked by the pedestrian crossing.
I therefore planned to reply to the council and ask them to show
me the exact sign that I failed to comply with that is relevant
to the prohibition. And also for video evidence of the
contravention.
I'm hoping to show that either, I had a vehicle behind me, at
the time which would've made stopping and reversing or turning
before the sign very dangerous (and thus it's a badly placed
sign) or that there was insufficient warning or signage present
to allow me to make an informed judgement whilst driving on an
unfamiliar road.
And therefore, the contravention did not occur.
I'm not sure if this is the correct approach though, so I'm here
to ask if somebody could please advise me based on the
information and ideally let me know what I should actually reply
with to the council so that this doesn't become a long drawn out
affair where I then have to go to a tribunal to argue about
this.
Thank you in advance.
If you need any more information, please let me know. But
hopefully, this all makes sense!
*I can't attach pictures directly into this post for some
reason, so I've made a Google Photos Link
HTML https://photos.app.goo.gl/q9HheRa6F66AzfZWA
*
#Post#: 37111--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 16, 2024, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I will draft representations shortly. This is becoming infamous.
Do not pay it. I won two cases two weeks ago* and have just
taken on another 22 PCNs which suggests that the signage is not
fit for purpose.
You will need to edit the preamble:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lewisham-52-m-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-vehicles-2974/msg35090/#msg35090
*Add this one too:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me
today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being
alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at
the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain
types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the
case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the
carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and
in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the
council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this
single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to
satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly
found that these contraventions had not been proved.
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appellant represented, by Mr Morgan, appeared before me
today at Chancery Exchange.
The council did not attend the hearing
Two penalty charges formed the subject of this appeal it being
alleged that this vehicle at Leahurst Road on the dates and at
the times given failed to comply with a prohibition on certain
types of vehicle.
Mr Morgan said that he had uploaded a skeleton argument to the
case a week ago.
No such document was before me.
He raised the issue of signage arguing that it was inadequate.
The council's one regulatory sign was posted on the left of the
carriageway as shown on its online footage of the incident and
in its supporting images. I acknowledged that this sign on the
council's case was preceded by advance warning signage but this
single regulatory sign was in my judgment too inconspicuous to
satisfy the test of sufficiency of signage and I accordingly
found that these contraventions had not been proved.
#Post#: 37125--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: EllHas
Date: September 16, 2024, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] thank you very much for
getting back to me.
So if I understand you correctly, I just change the beginning of
the representation that you linked me to and then copy the rest,
making sure to add in the extra part you wrote in the reply to
me?
I just want to make sure I do it correctly.
#Post#: 37206--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 17, 2024, 8:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: EllHas link ---
>
> Hello [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] thank you very much for
getting back to me.
>
> So if I understand you correctly, I just change the beginning
of the representation that you linked me to and then copy the
rest, making sure to add in the extra part you wrote in the
reply to me?
>
> I just want to make sure I do it correctly.
>
--- End Quote ---
Just tweak the preamble to suit your circumstance and re post
the draft so that we can check.
#Post#: 37223--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 17, 2024, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Searching the tribunal records gives this for Leahurst Road-
Westbound for the period 01/01/2023 - 16/09/2024.
HTML https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:60::INITIALISE::::&cs=3KIp2mB0gH5oec4oxh15RaqiYUfRWUos_gowoTJYhGVhYL89AYOul5rXmB8AX93xLt0xla8XvOELPol-PjZNY0A
I haven't delved into each one, but a random sample gives the
location in question here and rejected appeals.
If this is the same location then it would seem that the
adjudicator on the day is an unfortunate material factor as well
as, I suspect, the quality of the argument.
But OP, it's clear that your argument loses often.
#Post#: 37252--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 17, 2024, 3:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Six adjudicators have allowed. Re the ones refused, how does one
know what was argued and with how much vehemence? In the last
case won, the adjudicator did not even have my submissions and
just went his own decision. The other material issue is how they
respond, surely?
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/london-borough-of-lewisham-code-52m-leahurst-roadpcn-acts-as-nto-the-vicissitude/msg35757/#msg35757
#Post#: 37260--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 17, 2024, 4:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
But the public record cannot just be ignored as regards outcomes
and I feel that the OP should be made aware.
Several adjudicators have found that the signage is
substantially compliant.
Apparently some others have not.
#Post#: 37264--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 17, 2024, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sure; but as I said, we do not know what was argued at the
Tribunal do we? This is the problem with look at cases - won or
lost.
Therefore, wish me luck with the 22 I have taken on! 12 for one
and 10 for the other. They are adamant to fight. The number of
PCNs is indicative that there is a signage problem.
#Post#: 37277--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 18, 2024, 1:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, you can only do your best. Good luck.
#Post#: 37286--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Lewisham Council - Leahurst Road - Contravention 52 m
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 18, 2024, 3:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I need to tweak the specimen advice as there are measurements to
add of the so-called warning sign on Leahurst Road.
This from the guy with the 12 PCNs: he knows his stuff! And we
thought we were experts. :o
Re advanced warning signs in Leahurst Road and Longhurst Road
1. You have produced a Regulatory sign smaller than the minimal
recommendation of 450mm
subsequently reducing the sign’s legibility. The circumference
of the sign measures 310mm which
is 31% smaller than the recommended 450mm.
I refer to TSRGD guidelines Chapter 3 (Schedule 3, Part 2).
2. You have placed a Regulatory sign upon a blue backing board
and you have added a white
border to that backing board. In doing so, you have detracted
from the signs recognisable
silhouette.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing
boards.
In particular, 1.11.1.
….A backing board must not itself be provided with a border, nor
give the impression of
being an additional border. Where it seems that a sign is not
being noticed by drivers,
it should be checked to ensure that it is well‑sited, not
obscured by vegetation or other
obstructions, and is of the appropriate size and in good
condition...
and 1.11.3.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing
boards. The larger overall
size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A
backing board can deprive
non‑rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their
distinctive silhouette. Yellow
backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and
their over‑use could
eventually devalue their attention‑attracting benefits. A
less garish way of increasing a
sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of
larger size. Not only will this be
more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve
legibility and hence reading
distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
3. You have mounted the sign in Lonhgurst Road at a height
outside of the TSRGD recommendations.
The base of the backing board of Sign 1 is 2.9m from the ground.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Section 5, Positioning of
Signs, 5.4 Mounting heights
5.4.1. Signs should be mounted such that the lower edge of the
sign is generally
between 900 mm and 1500 mm above the highest point of the
adjacent carriageway.
Signs mounted at the lower end of this range benefit from
receiving the most illumination
from vehicle headlamps, but they are also prone to soiling due
to spray from passing vehicles.
Mounting heights at the higher end of the range should be used
where this or obscuration by
other vehicles is likely to be a problem. Speed limit signs and
other safety-critical signs will not
normally be mounted lower than 1500 mm above the carriageway.
The base of the blue backing board mounted to the lamppost is
2.90m off the ground meaning
the Regulatory sign itself is even higher. This is above eye
line in a moving vehicle. This is the
only warning sign that would give the driver the option to avoid
driving into the restricted area by
turning right into Longhurst Road.
4. You have mounted the sign along with 3 other signs making 4
in total when the
recommendation is 2 maximum.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.10 Mounting
more than one sign on a post
1.10.1. Research has shown that the greater the number of signs
which drivers are
presented with simultaneously, the greater the difficulty they
are likely to have in
assimilating the information. This problem in dealing with
information overload increases
with age, so that older drivers suffer disproportionately.
Generally, therefore, not more
than two signs should be erected on any one post when intended
to be read from an
approaching vehicle…
5. Although not compulsory to use 2 signs, one each side of the
road, you have chosen not to
install dedicated housing but instead have utilised an existing
lamppost on the offside of the
road, further reducing the sign’s visibility and effectiveness.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.8 Siting of
upright signs
1.8.5. There is no specific requirement that signs indicating
the beginning of a restriction
or prohibition must be placed on each side of the road or on
each side of the appropriate
carriageway of a dual carriageway road (see 8.2 in respect of
speed limit signs). This
relaxation has been made to reduce environmental impact, but
care should be taken to
ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to all road users
and does not give rise to
issues relating to enforcement or road safety...
Re terminal sign
The second sign is situated approx. 3 metres from where the
prohibition comes into force.
By the time you are upon this sign there is nowhere else to go
but to enter into the enforcement
area. Your camera is set to capture vehicles at that point.
Additionally, Sign 2 is backed by another sign, at a different
height, with a grey backing, causing
further clutter and distraction.
You have used a yellow backing board for Sign 2 (as well as
several other signs in the immediate
area).
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 1, Introduction, Section 7, Sign
Backgrounds
7.2 Backing boards
7.2.2. Yellow backing boards are intrusive; they should be used
sparingly, and not as a
matter of course. They can reduce the attention drivers give to
other, more important,
signs and over use could eventually devalue their
attention-attracting benefits.
See TSRGD guidelines, Chapter 3, Introduction, 1.11 Backing
boards.
1.11.3. There are potential disadvantages to the use of backing
boards. The larger overall
size of the assembly can sometimes obstruct sight lines. A
backing board can deprive
non‑rectangular signs of a primary recognition aid: their
distinctive silhouette. Yellow
backing boards can be especially environmentally intrusive, and
their over‑use could
eventually devalue their attention‑attracting benefits. A
less garish way of increasing a
sign’s conspicuity is simply to provide a standard sign of
larger size. Not only will this be
more noticeable than a smaller sign, but it will also improve
legibility and hence reading
distance, which a yellow backing board cannot.
To summarise, the signs you have in place to warn drivers they
will be entering a prohibited area
are ineffective.
The first (Sign 1) is as good as invisible and the second (Sign
2) is badly situated, poorly mounted
and lost in a sea of signs.
As the driver approaches the prohibited area, the most prominant
sign(s) to oncoming traffic are
the No Entry signs, positioned in the drivers direct line of
sight on Eastdown Park. The colour, size
and shape of the No Entry signs grab the drivers attention.
The No Entry signs take visual precedence due to their size,
silhouette, positioning and
colour. The driver’s focus is on the No Entry signs and not the
yellow backed board set back
from the junction.
Regardless, even if the sign was spotted, by that point there is
nothing to do but to drive into the
prohibited area.
It should be noted that there are an unusually high number of
road signs in the area. There are
signs for weight restrictions, parking restrictions, no entry
signs, cycle signs to name but a few.
It is unsurprising that drivers become sign fatigued and
distracted.
****
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page