DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 94472--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: almep13
Date: October 17, 2025, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> [quote author=almep13 link=topic=8437.msg94460#msg94460
date=1760693774]
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=8437.msg94456#msg94456
date=1760692298]
> [quote]My three points below would be the main arguments to
present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit
on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
--- End Quote ---
Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th
July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of
alleged contravention.
[/quote]
Good morning Incandescent,
the time limit I was referring to was the time it took LBHF to
respond to my appeal i.e. I submitted my appeal on the evening
of 08 July and LBHF rejected it on 08 Oct serving it to me
initially via email and then through a postal letter so that
they could include the appeal form to London Tribunals.
Is there such a 3 months time limit for councils to respond to
motorists' appeals for moving traffic PCNs or am I
misunderstanding and misinterpreting?
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
[/quote]
Your PCN was issued under the LLA and TfL Act 2003. There is no
time limit in this Act for responding to representations against
a PCN. However, 3 months is getting into unfairness territory.
Adjudicators in London Tribunals usually consider a response
beyond 3 months as unfair as it prejuices the appellant who may
have problems remembering tehe circumstances and also evidence
becomes more difficult to obtain.
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, there is a limit of 56
days to respond to formal representations.
[/quote]With 3 months just barely passing on the date of
response by LBHF, it's hard to judge how the Adjudicator is
going to lean on such point. What's your view, does it have any
small chance of success? Obviously, this is a call for me to
make and risk to take of paying double the price, but I would
appreciate your frank view on this.
The other point to raise is that such "unfairness" is not listed
under the grounds of appeal and I wonder if it needs to be
aligned to "contravention did not occur".
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
#Post#: 94474--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 17, 2025, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is NOT a Pedestrian Zone or any of its derivatives, it's
simply a restriction on vehicles entering a length of street.
The contravention is wrong because the signs are improper as
they are not underpinned by a traffic order.
And Sept-July is improper in the upper panel whose contents,
mandatory and optional, are prescribed under the regs.
Where is the 'zone end' sign photo pl?
#Post#: 94483--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: almep13
Date: October 17, 2025, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi H C Andersen,
here are the links to pictures requested and thank you once
again to you and other forum members for their time and views.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/wryjtMD_xl.jpg
- End zone 1 -
westbound exit-jnct Cobbold Rd-Lefroy Rd-Hartswood Rd
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/WDfxstR_xl.jpg
- End zone 2 - full
view - eastbound exit - Cobbold Rd-Gayford Rd-Becklow Rd (CCTV
on background top left)
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/P3DLC17_xl.jpg
- End zone 2 -
eastbound exit - Cobbold Rd-Gayford Rd-Becklow Rd
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/4PqHWFb_xl.jpg
- Warning Sign 4 -
Hartswood Rd northbound (
obscured by the tree same as the one on westbound Cobbold Rd
that the driver was supposed to see before entering the
restricted area)
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/PYT6T0b_xl.jpg
- Sign 4 - eastbound -
jnct Cobbold Rd-Lefroy Rd-Hartswood Rd
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/PkbOLFS_xl.jpg
- Warning Sign 3 -
Lefroy Rd southbound
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ER8OmFQ_xl.jpg
- Restrictions signs on
the left - Lefroy Rd southbound
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/N8wQuup_xl.jpg
- Restrictions signs on
the right - Hartswood Rd northbound
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/pk7Wils_xl.jpg
- Sign 5 - Stronsa Rd
southbound
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/4SdDwZf_xl.jpg
- Warning Sign 2 -
Cobbold Rd eastbound
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
#Post#: 94490--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 17, 2025, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is what an 'end of zone' sign looks like. It is not the
blank backside of a gateway 'in' sign.
Items 3 and 4 in the Part 2 table:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8
If neither of these is present then the zone has been improperly
signed - again- because the entry signs convey a prohibition
which must be correctly terminated.
#Post#: 94537--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: almep13
Date: October 17, 2025, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> This is what an 'end of zone' sign looks like. It is not the
blank backside of a gateway 'in' sign.
>
> Items 3 and 4 in the Part 2 table:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8
>
> If neither of these is present then the zone has been
improperly signed - again- because the entry signs convey a
prohibition which must be correctly terminated.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi H C Andersen,
here is the TMO for Cobbold Rd. LBHF were kind enough to email
it to me quickly.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/lZtcMc1_xl.jpg
- TMO Cobbold Rd - p.1
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/bwnXlWt_xl.jpg
- TMO Cobbold Rd - p.2
I'm starting to feel optimistic again.
Thank you to both of you including Incandescent for your time
and comments, I appreciate them.
Have a nice week-end both.
Kind Regards,
Almep13
#Post#: 94553--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: October 17, 2025, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: almep13 link ---
>
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=8437.msg94471#msg94471
date=1760697922]
> [quote author=almep13 link=topic=8437.msg94460#msg94460
date=1760693774]
> [quote author=Incandescent link=topic=8437.msg94456#msg94456
date=1760692298]
> [quote]My three points below would be the main arguments to
present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit
on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
--- End Quote ---
Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th
July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of
alleged contravention.
[/quote]
Good morning Incandescent,
the time limit I was referring to was the time it took LBHF to
respond to my appeal i.e. I submitted my appeal on the evening
of 08 July and LBHF rejected it on 08 Oct serving it to me
initially via email and then through a postal letter so that
they could include the appeal form to London Tribunals.
Is there such a 3 months time limit for councils to respond to
motorists' appeals for moving traffic PCNs or am I
misunderstanding and misinterpreting?
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
[/quote]
Your PCN was issued under the LLA and TfL Act 2003. There is no
time limit in this Act for responding to representations against
a PCN. However, 3 months is getting into unfairness territory.
Adjudicators in London Tribunals usually consider a response
beyond 3 months as unfair as it prejuices the appellant who may
have problems remembering tehe circumstances and also evidence
becomes more difficult to obtain.
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, there is a limit of 56
days to respond to formal representations.
[/quote]
With 3 months just barely passing on the date of response by
LBHF, it's hard to judge how the Adjudicator is going to lean on
such point. What's your view, does it have any small chance of
success? Obviously, this is a call for me to make and risk to
take of paying double the price, but I would appreciate your
frank view on this.
The other point to raise is that such "unfairness" is not listed
under the grounds of appeal and I wonder if it needs to be
aligned to "contravention did not occur".
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
[/quote]
To win on the delay in their response of nearly 3 months, you
would need to show some prejudice was caused to your ability to
assess whether to take the matter to adjudication; can you do
this ? This would be what is called a "collateral" appeal, and
would come under the statutory grounds of "the penalty
exceeded......in the circmstances of the case".
#Post#: 94556--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: almep13
Date: October 17, 2025, 4:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Incandescent,
thank you for your view and explanation. Probably a tough case
to make to persuade the Adjudicator on this point (unfairness).
Have a nice week-end.
Kind regards,
Almep13
#Post#: 94750--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: almep13
Date: October 19, 2025, 6:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> This is what an 'end of zone' sign looks like. It is not the
blank backside of a gateway 'in' sign.
>
> Items 3 and 4 in the Part 2 table:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8
>
> If neither of these is present then the zone has been
improperly signed - again- because the entry signs convey a
prohibition which must be correctly terminated.
>
--- End Quote ---
Good morning H C Andersen,
I hope you had a nice week-end.
It seems clear that LBHF hasn't complied with end zone signs.
However, an old manual from 2008, Traffic Signs Manual, seems to
suggest that it's "not a requirement to have the end zone"
(p.94, point 11.13 as per link below). I wonder if the
Adjudicator may sympathise with the fact that LBHF hasn't
complied with the Schedule 8, Part 2 regarding the end zone, but
still uphold the alleged contravention of entering the
pedestrian and cycle zone during the restricted time period
indicated in the signs.
HTML http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/files/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03-2.pdf<br
/>- pls see p.94, point 11.13
Nearby, two side roads along South Parade in Turnham Green, W4,
part of Ealing Borough, were literally covered with black
plastic bin bags a week ago and I presume either for amending
the time restrictions and/or adding the end zones. Two
neighboroughing boroughs having two different approaches to end
zone signs for similar pedestrian and cycle zones. I attach some
pictures for comparison. However, I wonder if showing these
signs will sway the Adjudicator to consider the signs used by
LBHF invalid or insufficient to prevent the contraventions from
taking place.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/acoPTy5_xl.jpg
- The Orchard W4 -
Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/yiosBJ0_xl.jpg
- The Orchard W4 - Zone
Ends
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/rjoagOI_xl.jpg
- Newton Grove W4 -
Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/F0SDBv7_xl.jpg
- Newton Grove W4 -
Zone Ends
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/o8FsFCR_xl.jpg
- Bedford Rd W4 -
Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ayxUnCk_xl.jpg
- Bedford Rd W4 - Zone
Ends
I attach below copies of the TMO that LBHF provided me.
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/lZtcMc1_xl.jpg
- TMO Cobbold Rd - p.1
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/bwnXlWt_xl.jpg
- TMO Cobbold Rd - p.2
What's your view on potential position that the Adjudicator may
take that despite LBHF having failed to provide signs relating
to end zones, the contravention did occur regardless and as such
rejects the appeal?
Thank you and regards,
Almep13
#Post#: 94835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 20, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The test for signage is 'adequacy'. It's not just one sign or
set of signs, it's the adequacy of the total signage which
brings a lawful restriction to a diligent motorist's attention
in the proper manner.
Warning sign;
Gateway sign;
Zone end sign.
Each is deficient you would argue.
In total = your argument is that it does not meet the test of
adequacy.
#Post#: 94867--------------------------------------------------
Re: Moving traffic restrictions on Cobbold Road
DIR By: almep13
Date: October 20, 2025, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi H C Andersen,
Thank you for your comments, I appreciate your efforts. I'll
draft my response and place it here for comments before I submit
it to London Tribunals.
Have a nice evening,
Almpe13
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page