DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 64118--------------------------------------------------
Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: Fletcher
Date: March 25, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello All, Attended an appt. at the local NHS health centre on
17/03/25 08:05am. Received a PCN today for driving through a
restricted pedestriation zone on the way out. Zone was
implemented within the past year, and cuts off direct access
from the main road to the health centre during the times
specified. Signage pic included as there was no legible
picture/s of the signage included in the PCN photos or video.
Can I appeal the PCN based on the signage, please? Previous
thread for same situation here
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-perrymans-farm-pcn-(school-roads)/msg52083/#msg52083<br
/>Google street view does not have the signage, so I posted pic
from the pcn and a map pic to show exact location of the spot.
<br>
HTML https://i.imgur.com/g05Zyv9.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/5qu2Anm.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/lppR6rs.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/YW8kpaE.jpeg
#Post#: 64121--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 25, 2025, 1:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I will be back with the case won.
#Post#: 64869--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 30, 2025, 8:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PM received. Busy and a trifle unwell.
Case No: 2250006928 Submissions
Dear Sir or Madam
1. The council’s website limits to one ground of representation
and also fetters its discretion by creating many hoops through
which the appellant must pass in terms of grounds it will not
accept. Please see the screenshots attached.
2. The following case supports the argument of the proscribed
sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No.
2240078999. The Adjudicator said: 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.
3. The NOR fails to properly address the issues raised.
4. Further, the application for a review of the above case was
refused:
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.
I also rely upon Papjinder Gahir v London Borough of Redbridge
Case No: 224043551A and attach the decision as a pdf.
In light of the above, I ask that the appeal be allowed.
Yours faithfully
********
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 2250006928
Appellant Syed Ali
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM BC19EYV
PCN Details
PCN AF30076761
Contravention date 14 Nov 2024
Contravention time 14:31:00
Contravention location Perrymans Farm Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 11 Mar 2025
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Mr Phillip Morgan has attended the hearing by video link as the
authorised representative of the appellant. Mr Ali has also
attended by video link.
The CCTV footage shows Mr Ali's car as it makes the right turn
into Perrymans Farm Road. There is pedestrian zone signage
attached to a post on the left hand side of the road which is
slightly angled in the direction of the junction from which Mr
Ali's car exited but the sign does not directly face the driver.
This is confirmed by the Council's site image. The signage
carries controlled hours with an exemption and then a separate
plate relating to term time restricted access.
A motorist must have the time to safely process restrictions and
I am not satisfied that such is the case at this location. In my
judgement, a motorist at the junction will not be able to read
all of the restrictions on the signs opposite. I base this
judgement on the fact that I cannot read what is on the signs
when I am looking at the footage or the still image. The sign on
the right is angled towards the opposite junction. There is no
evidence of any advance warning signs. I do not see how a
motorist can see and process the restrictions without crossing
over and stopping on school entrance markings. I am not
satisfied on balance that the signage was adequate to alert Mr
Ali to the restrictions.
****
The signage in your case is even more pi$$ poor. Put up a draft
and we will tweak accordingly if necessary. If they reject, I am
happy to do this one for you.
#Post#: 64879--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: Fletcher
Date: March 30, 2025, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hippocrates, many thanks for your response & help, it is much
appreciated.
I am not sure how much of the information given to quote in the
appeal, but please see my initial draft below where I have
attempted to include any info. which relates to my own PCN. (I
do not have the pdf details of Case No: 224043551A, so please
advise if that needs to be removed.)
Dear Sir or Madam
Re Penalty Charge Notice: AF3072522A
1. Your website as per the attached screenshot fetters
discretion and limits to one ground of representation which
flies in the face of the law and the PCN thereby causing
confusion.
2. In the 3 pictures provided (2 still photos and 1 video) the
signage in question is illegible. (See screenshots attached)
3. The signage pertaining to term time is proscribed and there
are no warning signs. (See photo of signage attached)
4. The following case supports the argument of the proscribed
sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No.
2240078999. The Adjudicator said: 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.
5. The NOR fails to properly address the issues raised.
6. Further, the application for a review of the above case was
refused:
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.”
I also rely upon Papjinder Gahir v London Borough of Redbridge
Case No: 224043551A and attach the decision as a pdf.
In light of the above, I ask that the appeal be allowed and the
PCN cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 64899--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 30, 2025, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fletcher link ---
>
> Hippocrates, many thanks for your response & help, it is much
appreciated.
> I am not sure how much of the information given to quote in
the appeal, but please see my initial draft below where I have
attempted to include any info. which relates to my own PCN. (I
do not have the pdf details of Case No: 224043551A, so please
advise if that needs to be removed.)
>
> Dear Sir or Madam
>
> Re Penalty Charge Notice: AF3072522A
>
> 1. Your website as per the attached screenshot fetters
discretion and limits to one ground of representation which
flies in the face of the law and the PCN thereby causing
confusion.
> 2. In the 3 pictures provided (2 still photos and 1 video) the
signage in question is illegible. (See screenshots attached)
> 3. The signage pertaining to term time is proscribed and there
are no warning signs. (See photo of signage attached)
> 4. The following case supports the argument of the proscribed
sign: Conor Costelloe v London Borough of Merton Case No.
2240078999. The Adjudicator said: 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.
> 5. The NOR fails to properly address the issues raised.
> 6. Further, the application for a review of the above case was
refused:
> 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.”
>
> I also rely upon Papjinder Gahir v London Borough of Redbridge
Case No: 224043551A and attach the decision as a pdf.
>
> In light of the above, I ask that the appeal be allowed and
the PCN cancelled.
> that the PCN be cancelled.
> Yours faithfully,
>
--- End Quote ---
I have redacted so please tweak the numbering etc accordingly.
#Post#: 78897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 30, 2025, 9:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
;D 2250176564 Left sign in video not good enough. Tomorrow
comes the decision.
#Post#: 78904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: Fletcher
Date: June 30, 2025, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks, H, you are a gent :)
#Post#: 79063--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 1, 2025, 7:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wK5n8nB9L2ufENvrWnZeMv2rYJr519Mn/view.
#Post#: 79117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 1, 2025, 1:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fletcher link ---
>
> Many thanks, H, you are a gent :)
>
--- End Quote ---
My absolute pleasure as ever. We had the same adjudicator as in
Costello v Merton: a good job the video was rubbish as we may
well not have won on the school term time plate - or any other
plate re Xmas Day!
#Post#: 79177--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 53j Perrymans Farm Road - pedestrian zone
restriction
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: July 2, 2025, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> as we may well not have won on the school term time plate..."
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] does that imply that the
'argument' of the blue "School Streets: Term-time only" signs
being proscribed is on shaky ground?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page