URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 65018--------------------------------------------------
       Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd/jun
       c. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: crxvtec Date: March 31, 2025, 12:06 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I have a PCN notification dated 11/03/25 for an event recorded
       on 05/12/24.
       I would have thought that they'd need to send this within a
       month of the event, not over 3 months later.
       Details here:
  HTML https://ibb.co/album/gM8p2r
       Location here:
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/R4xLoXaMG97YBavC7
       #Post#: 65026--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd
       /junc. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: John U.K. Date: March 31, 2025, 12:28 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Is the  car in your name & address on the V5 or is it leased?
       #Post#: 65091--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd
       /junc. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: crxvtec Date: March 31, 2025, 5:45 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It's a company leased vehicle.
       #Post#: 65095--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd
       /junc. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: fraser.mitchell Date: March 31, 2025, 6:06 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=crxvtec link=topic=5743.msg65091#msg65091
       date=1743461132]
       It's a company leased vehicle.
       [/quote]
       Under the legislation, the owner of a vehicle has full
       responsibility for appealing or paying a PCN, except where the
       owner is a lease or hire company.
       In such a case as yours seems to be, the first postal PCN has
       been sent to the lease company, the holders of the V5C for the
       car, and also the owner. The process is that they can submit
       representations to the council that they are a lease company,
       and provide the name and address of the lessee on the
       contravention day. The first PCN is cancelled, and they then
       have 28 days to serve a second PCN to the name and address they
       have been given. So a long interval can occur in these
       circumstances, given that the council have 28 days to serve a
       PCN, and the lease company have 28 days to respond, and then the
       council have a further 28 days to send out a second PCN.
       However, to be sure this is what has happened, is it your name
       and address on the PCN you have received ?
       #Post#: 65280--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd
       /junc. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: crxvtec Date: April 1, 2025, 3:27 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Yes it is my company's name and address in the PCN.
       #Post#: 65304--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd
       /junc. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: fraser.mitchell Date: April 1, 2025, 6:22 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=crxvtec link=topic=5743.msg65280#msg65280
       date=1743539253]
       Yes it is my company's name and address in the PCN.
       [/quote]
       So I think the lengthy interval between contravention date and
       your receipt of a PCN can be explained, based on my description
       of the process, so you should look for something else to submit
       reps on. Having said that, no harm will be done if you also
       state the PCN has been served out-of-time, because they must
       then explain why.
       #Post#: 65467--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd
       /junc. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: crxvtec Date: April 2, 2025, 5:44 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Looking at the PCN Key events, this has all happened 3 months
       after alleged PCN issue:
  HTML https://ibb.co/BV3dKkZf
       Also the colour images showing the car don't show the VRM; only
       a black and white still shows the VRM but that then doesn't show
       the car. Would that be insufficient evidence?
       #Post#: 65683--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd
       /junc. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: crxvtec Date: April 4, 2025, 1:19 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I've noted that the signage before the turn is all bent out of
       shape and doesn't face the roadway squarely.
  HTML https://ibb.co/album/gM8p2r
       I expect that this falls below the required standard for
       signage...does anyone know?
       #Post#: 65690--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd
       /junc. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: fraser.mitchell Date: April 4, 2025, 4:04 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [quote author=crxvtec link=topic=5743.msg65683#msg65683
       date=1743790758]
       I've noted that the signage before the turn is all bent out of
       shape and doesn't face the roadway squarely.
  HTML https://ibb.co/album/gM8p2r
       I expect that this falls below the required standard for
       signage...does anyone know?
       [/quote]
       It is inadequate, but you need to look at Regulation 18 (1) of
       The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
       Wales) Regulations 1996 : -
       [quote]Traffic signs
       18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the
       order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to
       secure—
       (a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the
       road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making
       authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate
       information as to the effect of the order is made available to
       persons using the road;
       (b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order
       remains in force; and
       (c)in a case where the order revokes, amends or alters the
       application of a previous order, the removal or replacement of
       existing traffic signs as the authority considers requisite to
       avoid confusion to road users by signs being left in the wrong
       positions.[/quote]
       Having said that, the sign you have posted is an advance warning
       sign, not the actual restriction sign, so your argument is not
       so powerful.
       #Post#: 65720--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Brent, code 53 failing to comply with a restriction, Mora Rd
       /junc. with St. Michael's Rd
       By: crxvtec Date: April 5, 2025, 3:25 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Just considering the point below:
       "(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near
       the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order
       making authority may consider requisite for securing that
       adequate information as to the effect of the order is made
       available to persons using the road;"
       If you look at the placement of the signs relative to the road
       junction I think there's argument that the signs aren't clearly
       legible when approaching the junction from St. Michael's Road,
       as happened in this instance, therefore there is only reliance
       on the advance warning sign, and we've evidenced that the
       advance warming sign falls short of the required standard.
  HTML https://ibb.co/LzpBddWj
       shows that the nearside sign is side on
       from St. Michael's Road and therefore illegible. It also shows
       the far side sign is around a metre from the kerb and in order
       to read it before passing it, the driver would need to be
       looking out of the side window, instead of the windscreen, when
       taking the right turn from St. Michael's Road to Mora Road. This
       is evidenced here:
  HTML https://ibb.co/LhBzgF4X
       and the opposite
       perspective is shown here:
  HTML https://ibb.co/Q7swJr27
       In summary, the advance warning sign is damaged, one restriction
       sign cannot be read at all due to it being side on to St.
       Michael's Road, and the third sign could only be read if not
       looking in the direction of travel, i.e., if driving without due
       care and attention, and that too only for a very brief moment
       during the right turn before that sign too becomes illegible as
       it would be side on.
       *****************************************************
   DIR Next Page