DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 62203--------------------------------------------------
Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply with
prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: FightTheGoodFight
Date: March 12, 2025, 4:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Recently received a PCN from Greenwich Council and would
appreciate any advice on whether I can appeal it and what
possible grounds might be, or whether I should just bite the
bullet and pay up.
---------------------------------------------------------
I drove South up Crooms Hill, into and through a stretch of road
which now has restrictions on times/days that cars can drive
through it. I have been driving up this road for literally
decades and I’m pretty sure that these signs have been put there
relatively recently. It simply wasn’t in my mind that this road
would have restrictions, and the signs indicating the
restrictions weren’t exactly massive and screaming “don’t drive
down here, there are vehicle restrictions!” … by the time I had
noticed them there wasn’t really time to read the details.
(Although now that I look at the images ... the signs seem
larger in the images than I remember them!)
---------------------------------------------------------
Received PCN from Greenwich Council a few days ago, dated 3rd
March.
---------------------------------------------------------
A quick look on Google Street View suggests that the
restrictions weren’t there in October 2024, and I think I would
have driven through that street at Christmas but possibly not
during restricted hours.
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m wondering whether this is something I could appeal against
on the basis that the signs are new and I was not aware of the
restrictions, or that they aren’t visible enough … or perhaps
there might be other grounds? If anyone could suggest any
possibilities I would be more than grateful.
---------------------------------------------------------
Location on google maps:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/dKL37Y27XKSrziVr9
---------------------------------------------------------
Street view:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/MthQMALfUVhy7WAP7
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN images ... I have omitted the fourth page which is
"intentionally blank":
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/PCN_P1.jpeg
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/PCN_P2.jpeg
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/PCN_P3.jpeg
---------------------------------------------------------
Images from the council:
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/EvidenceImage1.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/EvidenceImage2.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/EvidenceImage3.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/EvidenceImage4.jpeg
And the video:
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/EvidenceVideo.mov
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/EvidenceVideo.mov
#Post#: 62226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 12, 2025, 7:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Signs like these, the notorious "Flying Motorbike" signs are in
place now all over London. The sign has been in the signs
lexicon for decades, and as a motorist you are supposed to know
what they mean. In addition to that, you approached the signs
head on so saying you didn't see them is a non-starter.
However, there seems to have been something "going on" here,
because the road was closed to motor vehicles in September 2020
: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/1EiBkowQcKLR7ePdA
but GSV October 2022 shows the signs gone, planters that now
hold the signs you passed in position, but the road is open with
no restrictions.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/LTAsmmRiv6maP8Ks7
The latest GSV view is dated October 2024 and no signs are
there, so this looks like a quite late imposition. For such a
recent restriction, I would have thought the council would have
put up advance warnings of the restriction, such as when one
turns in from the A206, but as there is no more recent GSV view
we cannot tell unless you do some legwork.
So I suggest you submit representations based on your narrative,
pointing out you have used this road for decades, and would have
expected some form of advance warning of the restriction before
you get to the signs. They will re-offer the discount if/when
they reject them.
#Post#: 62240--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: SITR
Date: March 12, 2025, 10:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The restrictions started in November, but only issuing PCNs
since Jan.
HTML https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/news/2024/west-and-east-greenwich-traffic-management-scheme-update-were-making-changes-based-your
HTML https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/news/2024/west-and-east-greenwich-traffic-management-scheme-update-were-making-changes-based-your
HTML https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2025/01/31/greenwich-ltn-more-signs-council-learning-lessons/
HTML https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2025/01/31/greenwich-ltn-more-signs-council-learning-lessons/
#Post#: 62258--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 13, 2025, 4:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So maybe add into your reps something about the difficulties the
scheme has caused with controversy in meetings of the council,
but don't be confrontational. Post a draft here before
submitting.
#Post#: 63562--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: willtrinh
Date: March 21, 2025, 4:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> So maybe add into your reps something about the difficulties
the scheme has caused with controversy in meetings of the
council, but don't be confrontational. Post a draft here before
submitting.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have also receive the same PCN, have you managed to compose a
response?
#Post#: 63809--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: FightTheGoodFight
Date: March 23, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: willtrinh link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=5516.msg62258#msg62258
date=1741859783]
> So maybe add into your reps something about the difficulties
the scheme has caused with controversy in meetings of the
council, but don't be confrontational. Post a draft here before
submitting.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have also receive the same PCN, have you managed to compose a
response?
[/quote]
Hoping to finalise first draft and post today. I did some
research, drove back to look at the signs, and it looks like the
two additional warning signs on the A206 are partially broken
(in one direction) and completely turned around to face the
wrong way (in the other direction). Will try to update tonight!
#Post#: 63894--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: FightTheGoodFight
Date: March 23, 2025, 7:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have a draft appeal ready ... I must admit I am struggling to
word some of it, and I'm *really* struggling with having to
write it all with HTML tags! I'm unsure whether to bother with
point (3) or not ... I do recall that I was having to navigate
in and out of the space between parked vehicles to drive up that
road, so I had reduced capacity to focus on restriction signs,
but I'm not sure whether that's an effective argument. If anyone
has comments on the appeal draft I would love to hear them.
Thankyou!
I write to appeal against penalty notice GR23113012 on the
following grounds:
1. Familiarity with old system (no restrictions). I have been
driving in Greenwich for decades but this was the first time I
had driven through this road since the new restrictions were put
in place. I had no idea the road was restricted and there were
no advance warnings.
2. There are acknowledged problems with the implementation of
the new restricted zones in Greenwich, of which this zone is one
example.
3. Nature of traffic and parked vehicles in Stockwell Street and
Crooms Hill make it more likely that signs will be missed or
there will not be time to read and understand the timings.
4. Additional warning signs on A206 are damaged, offering
reduced or no visibility, therefore they do not provide advanced
warning of the restrictions.
1. Familiarity with this road as an unrestricted road.
I have been driving around Greenwich for over four decades. I
grew up in Charlton and visited Greenwich regularly. I fondly
recall driving up the now-pedestrianised road through Greenwich
Park, and once this was closed to vehicle traffic my famiily and
myself swapped to using Crooms Hill. It was therefore part of my
“mental map” of the area that Crooms Hill was “the” way to drive
between Greenwich and Blackheath, and I had no expectation that
this road might have traffic restrictions. I fully accept that
this fact in and of itself does not provide an excuse for having
missed the signs, but, given that the restrictions were put in
place within the last 2-3 months, I would be grateful if you
could take this into consideration when considering mitigating
circumstances.
2. Known and acknowledged problems with the implementation of
these restrictions.
There are documented issues with the implementation of the new
restrictions. According to the following link…
HTML https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/news/2024/west-and-east-greenwich-traffic-management-scheme-update-were-making-changes-based-your
… it is clear that this is a trial scheme and there have already
been issues raised regarding confusing signage, leading to an
extended grace period up to 2nd January while new signs are put
in place and additional ones installed. However, as I will
explain in point (4), these additional signs are damged and do
not function to alert drivers to the upcoming restrictions.
As additional evidence for this point I offer the following link
to an article from the Greenwich Wire:
HTML https://greenwichwire.co.uk/2025/01/31/greenwich-ltn-more-signs-council-learning-lessons/
To quote some of this article:
“Greenwich Council’s deputy leader Averil Lekau admitted that
the launch of the LTN, which began at the end of November but
has only been enforced since January 2, had not been smooth and
said the town hall was still “learning lessons”.
“There has been an increase in traffic in some roads in
Charlton, while enforcement was delayed because of problems with
the signage, which remains minimal, with little advance warning
of the restrictions. “ [My emphasis]
“Some advance warning signs were put up before Christmas but
were quickly taken down again. Lekau said that signs were being
reviewed to ensure they were clear.”
“Lekau replied: “I believe we’re learning lessons and I believe
as we learn those lessons, we will continue to address them.”
She did not give a date for when the new signs would be
installed.”
3. Signs are easy to miss owing to nature of traffic and parked
vehicles in Stockwell Street.
The signs on either side of the road are raised up on poles and
if one is more focussed on the road ahead, one might have only a
short period of time in which to take them in and — crucially —
to read and parse the timing restrictions. My memory of this
drive was that I had to navigate between both parked and moving
cars and coaches as I was driving up Stockwell St towards Crooms
Hill. (Please see Image1_StockwellSt.jpeg as an example of the
drive up Stockwell St.) As I got up to the location near to the
signs, I was in addition looking ahead to judge whether I could
drive into Crooms Hill itself. At the point the restictions
begin, the road narrows through a pair of planters, and one has
to be careful of vehicles coming towards you on ‘your’ side of
the road. (Please see Image2_NarrowCroomsHill.jpeg.) All of
these circumstances contribute to the signs being effectively
less visible than static photographs suggest. (Having reviewed
the video evidence, I would note that it does not show what
happened just previously, specifically that a car had approached
me coming down Crooms Hill and I had to slow down somewhat and
judge my speed such that I could let it pass me on Stockwell
Street before driving between the planters into Crooms Hill.
Again, this focus on oncoming cars mitigates against having time
to read, parse and understand the signs).
As you can see from Image3_ExtraWarning.jpeg, this is clearly
enough of a problem that someone has taken it into their own
hands to print an additional sign on the left-hand planter,
warning drivers of the restrictions. This would strongly suggest
that the two signs by themselves provide insufficient warning of
the restrictions.
4. Additional warning signs on A206 are damaged and do not
provide adequate warning in one direction and no warning in the
other.
Given the three points above, it would seem reasonable to
provide additional early warning signs, further away from the
point at which restrictions begin. I do not recall seeing these
signs during the journey in question.
I therefore drove back to the area in question on 14th March to
double-check and was able to establish the following:
- Coming from the SW, as you drive along the A206 before turning
right into Stockwell Street, the warning sign is partially
damaged and the bottom half is semi-rotated, making it more
difficult to see.
(Image4_A206TowardsTurningFromWest_SignPartiallyTurned.jpeg)
- Coming from the NE, as you drive along the A206 before turning
left into Stockwell Street, the warning sign is completely
rotated and not visible.
(Image5_A206TowardsTurningFromEast_SignTurnedRound.jpeg and
Image6_A206TowardsGreenwich_SignTurnedRound.jpeg)
It is clear that as of 14th March, drivers coming from either
direction along the A206 would not be able to see these signs
and would therefore have no advance warning of the restrictions.
It is reasonable to assume that this was also the case on the
date of my journey. I therefore suffered by not receiving a fair
warning that the restrictions were in place.
Conclusion
Taken overall, I believe that the following points all indicate
that I did not receive fair warning of the restrictions:
- The scheme is recent, is a trial scheme, and is still
receiving feedback.
- There are known problems with the scheme, with have been
acknowledged by Greenwich Council. The scheme is controversial
and it has been admitted that The Council “is learning lessons”.
- The scheme suffered from various problems with advanced
warning signs.
- The two advance warning signs on the A206 are damanged (as of
14th March), one of them so badly that no driver would receive
an advance warning.
These points, along with my expectation that the road was
drivable with no restrictions — based on decades of driving up
the road while there were no restrictions — meant that I did not
receive fair and sufficient warning of the restrictions. I
therefore request that this penalty notice be cancelled.
Images:
Image1_StockwellSt.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/Image1_StockwellSt.jpeg
Image2_NarrowCroomsHill.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/Image2_NarrowCroomsHill.jpeg
Image3_ExtraWarning.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/Image3_ExtraWarning.jpeg
Image4_A206TowardsTurningFromWest_SignPartiallyTurned.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/Image4_A206TowardsTurningFromWest_SignPartiallyTurned.jpeg
Image5_A206TowardsTurningFromEast_SignTurnedRound.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/Image5_A206TowardsTurningFromEast_SignTurnedRound.jpeg
Image6_A206TowardsGreenwich_SignTurnedRound.jpeg
HTML https://vectoreyes.github.io/ftla/GR23113012/Appeal/Image6_A206TowardsGreenwich_SignTurnedRound.jpeg
#Post#: 63922--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: JoCo
Date: March 24, 2025, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I know this restriction well. It is basically a scaled down
version of previous LTN in Greenwich implemented and dropped in
2022.
The prohibition has been live since November. Enforcement
delayed until January.
If OP is from Charlton, then there has been a LOT of chatter
about this on social media. Especially as Charlton residents are
concerned that the restrictions in Greenwich will create vehicle
overspill to Charlton (Along Victoria Way etc.) Edit. I realise
they may have moved out of the area.
The issue about insufficient signage, which delayed the
enforcement. This related a) Insufficient advance notice b) the
original signs implied that access was allowed to all Blue Badge
vehicles, whereas access was only allowed to cars pre-registered
as exempt [Blue badge holders can nominate one car only] .
These issues have been largely, but not entirely, addressed
before enforcement.
Had the OP had been travelling Northbound (i.e. down Crooms
hill) then there is a very good case for insufficient notice.
As there are no advance notices until the restriction itself, at
which point the driver is faced with a fait accompli, as the
road is narrow and no escape routes available.
Ironically my wife drove Northbound in contravention, and I
prepared a challenge. But no PCN arrived...
However as the driver is travelling northbound, there are
advance notices, as you describe [albeit compromised]. Also
there is a clear straight run to the restrictions at the
junction with Nevada St. where the restriction notices and the
wooden planters are obvious and clear. There are escape routes
via Nevada St & Burney St. So I think the contravention is
clear.
So I fear only hope is to plead for clemency or find a
administrative error.
#Post#: 63949--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: FightTheGoodFight
Date: March 24, 2025, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks JoCo. Do you think it's likely that the compromised
advance warning signs would significantly affect the chance that
clemency would be granted? It seems a little unreasonable to put
up advanced warning signs, and then when they become damaged and
don't actually provide any advance warning, to insist on people
paying the fine anyway. But I am not sure how to get that across
without sounding antagonistic!
#Post#: 64168--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition - two small-ish signs at side of road
DIR By: FightTheGoodFight
Date: March 26, 2025, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> So maybe add into your reps something about the difficulties
the scheme has caused with controversy in meetings of the
council, but don't be confrontational. Post a draft here before
submitting.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi Incandescent. I will be posting my appeal in the next few
days, I was just wondering whether you had any opinions on my
draft? I have successfully fought off several private parking
ticket charge notices before but this is the first time I've
appealed against a Local Council PCN.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page