DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 48448--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: December 5, 2024, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Proscribed = forbidden.
IIRC TSRGD does not allow the use of'term time' as a permitted
legend in signs (but allowed in Scotland).
the yellow (not orange) sign is therefore proscribed: the signs
at beginning of Southey Road are permitted by TSRGD and
therefore OK (though as you say, not visible until you are upon
them & also 7 wordy signs in a very short stretch of road is
imnformation overload - you may wish to include the latter
point).
So may I respectfully suggest amending your draft as below.
--- Quote ---
> The proscribed prescribed signs directly at the entrance to
Southey Road are very hard to read from a car going west bound
on Kingston Road as they face perpendicular to the road.
>
>
> On revisiting the junction, I notice there is a yellow sign on
the approach to the junction, but this sign is not an advance
warning or proscribed prescribed sign authorised by Schedule 12
to the Traffic Signs Regulations and whose view is obstructed
when driving by a tree.
>
>
> The proscribed sign does not therefore discharge the
authority's duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities'
Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996,
to illustrate this point I am providing four photographs
detailing the approach to the road and the orange yellow sign,
you can view these here
HTML https://imgur.com/a/H0ibWUN.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
If you are using the click-counter technique you must have a
fresh link, unique to your reps.
#Post#: 48499--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 5, 2024, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The following case supports the argument of the proscribed sign:
Conor
Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No. 2240078999. But
what in my
view is rather markedly non-compliant is the legend "School term
time" in a
separate panel below the grey backed signage.
Review decision
Reasons for refusal
While I agree with a general proposition that an advisory or
advance warning
sign does not have to be compliant, the issue in this case is
not simply about a
non-compliant advance warning sign.
It is a reasonable inference that the advance warning sign was
installed because
motorists intending to turn left may find it difficult to
appreciate the restriction
before committing to the turn. The advance warning signage must
therefore give
a clear warning to render the overall signage adequate.
The use of the phrase "during terms times" is not authorised for
the simple
reason that it requires motorists to know what the term time are
so it is just
about non-compliance, it is about a lack of clarity as to when
the restriction
operates.
If an advance warning sign is needed and it is not clear, the
Adjudicator is
entitled to conclude the overall signage is inadequate.
The application is refused.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-pedestrian-zone/msg38593/#msg38593
#Post#: 48623--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: tobesb
Date: December 6, 2024, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear John,
thank you for the modification suggestions! Yes, I'll definitely
use them.
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear Hippocrates,
I don't think I follow your post sorry. I read it as Conor
Costelloe lost but the council should do an advance warning
sign. And that this sign is not correct (using phrasing like
"during term time") and so it may be refused by the Adjudicator.
Is your post saying that my representation will fail or has
legs?
Kind regards,
Toby
#Post#: 48625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 6, 2024, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
He won and the council lost their review application.
#Post#: 48928--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: tobesb
Date: December 8, 2024, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear John UK and Hippocrates. Thank you for your time and help
in this matter.
Taking John's amendment, I've added a paragraph pertaining to
the Conor Costelloe case. Have I worded it corrently and do you
think it's ready to be sent as representation?
Best wishes,
Toby
--- Quote ---
>
> Dear London Borough of Merton,
>
> I challenge liability for PCN MT00119992 on the basis that the
alleged contravention did not occur.
>
> The prescribed signs directly at the entrance to Southey Road
are very hard to read from a car going west bound on Kingston
Road as they face perpendicular to the road.
>
> On revisiting the junction, I notice there is a yellow sign on
the approach to the junction, but this sign is not an advance
warning or prescribed sign authorised by Schedule 12 to the
Traffic Signs Regulations and whose view is obstructed when
driving by a tree.
>
> The proscribed sign does not therefore discharge the
authority's duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities'
Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996,
to illustrate this point I am providing four photographs
detailing the approach to the road and the yellow sign, you can
view these here
HTML https://imgur.com/a/H0ibWUN.
>
> The following case supports the argument of the proscribed
sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No.
2240078999.
>
> In light of the above the alleged contravention did not occur
and the PCN must be cancelled.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
> the registered keeper of this vehicle.
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 49117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: tobesb
Date: December 9, 2024, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
???
#Post#: 49123--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: tobesb
Date: December 9, 2024, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Eek. I'm submitting tonight as it's the 14th day. However, there
are too many characters for the Merton PCN appeal form. Below is
an edited version that has 0 characters remaining (990
characters). Finally I'm not the registered keeper but I'm
assuming I submit as the registered keeper.Once again, I just
want to say how thankful I am to you for your help. It's been
much appreciated.Best wishes, Toby
--- Quote ---
>
> I challenge liability for PCN MT00119992 on the basis that the
alleged contravention did not occur.
>
> The prescribed signs directly at the entrance to Southey Road
are very hard to read from a car as they face perpendicular to
the road.
>
> On revisiting I notice there is a yellow sign on the approach,
but this sign is not an advance warning or prescribed sign
authorised by Schedule 12 to the Traffic Signs Regulations &
whose view is obstructed by a tree.
>
> The proscribed sign does not therefore discharge the
authority's duties under regulation 18 of The Local Authorities'
Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996,
to illustrate this point I am providing 4 photographs detailing
the approach to the road & the yellow sign:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/H0ibWUN.
>
> The following case supports the argument of the proscribed
sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No.
2240078999.
>
> In light of the above the alleged contravention did not occur
and the PCN must be cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 59625--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: tobesb
Date: February 25, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon,
I've had a Notice of Rejection from Merton Council yesterday.
I've attached the letter here:
HTML https://ibb.co/album/XZwbS5
Do I now make an appeal to the Parking Adjudicator? The form was
also attached to the email.
Kind regards,
Toby
#Post#: 60702--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: tobesb
Date: March 5, 2025, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon,
I've two days left before the discount charge period is over. Is
it likely that I could win by appealing to the Parking
Adjudicator based on what the members have said here or would it
be worth my while taking the discount charge?
Toby
#Post#: 60703--------------------------------------------------
Re: Merton PCN - 53J - driving in pedestrian zone (school
streets) - Southey Road
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: March 5, 2025, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For convenience
HTML https://i.ibb.co/wNMWDJtW/reply00011708.png
HTML https://ibb.co/8D65Fzk5
HTML https://i.ibb.co/B5KVt63g/reply200011708.png
HTML https://ibb.co/5gxW6j45
HTML https://i.ibb.co/LDwHfXBF/reply300011708.png
HTML https://ibb.co/hx5wvJr6
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page