DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95230--------------------------------------------------
Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply with
prohibition
DIR By: filippi9
Date: October 22, 2025, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Received a PCN as I was travelling north bound on Crooms Hill,
and barely even noticed the signs indicating some sort of a
restriction, but at that point it was already too late. I've
gone up the road again, and there is no advance warning at all,
the street is very narrow with parked cars on one side, no
escape road and not really much of an opportunity to reverse and
drive all the way back up again.
Is there enough here to appeal this PCN? Could I also use the
fact that that the period in which the notice must be paid is
wrongly stated as "period of 28 days beginning with the date of
this notice"?
PCN can be viewed here:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/2pcUKLF
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/2pcUKLF
#Post#: 95244--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: October 22, 2025, 5:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Could I also use the fact that that the period in which the
notice must be paid is wrongly stated as "period of 28 days
beginning with the date of this notice"?
--- End Quote ---
No, it is actually correct. The Act under which this PCN was
served gives the period for payment as from date of service, but
period for submitting reps is from date of service, which is
barmy, (but that is Parliament for you !). Councils, and indeed
adjudicators have struggled with this ever since the Act came
in.
We've seen this location before, but I can't remember how it
turned out. However, it is clear from looking at GSV that the
entry to Croome Hill was closed in 2020 : -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/tPXT3ub4gMyPUVPQ6
But then it is miraculously open again in 2022 !
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/MiRRttorKsL6M9YH8
and this seems to have continued for the next two years, and is
shown in the last GSV view of 2024 as open: -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/AhAfwRyezEPoh2tZ8
Note that the planter boxes are always there. I suspect this
closure caused a huge row in 2020, and it is only fairly
recently that the restriction has been reimposed.
So in the absence of an up-to-date GSV view we need to see what
is there now. You say there is no escape road, but there are
two side streets before the restriction and the street is fairly
wide, so I don't think that is a winning argument, frankly.
What can win is adequacy of signage. You say there is no advance
warning sign so that is something to emphasise. However we
really do need to see what's there, so if you are prepared to do
some legwork with a camera, (your mobile phone camera is
sufficient), please provide some up-to-date photos.
#Post#: 95261--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: October 23, 2025, 4:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Post the video.
#Post#: 95264--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: October 23, 2025, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And are you the registered keeper of the vehicle and addressee
on the PCN?
#Post#: 95272--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 23, 2025, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN omits one piece of information re the price increase
from the 28 days from the date of the notice. Back later. BTW
Greenwich do not appear to contests any appeals these days at
the Tribunal so I would stay in there.
#Post#: 95361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: filippi9
Date: October 23, 2025, 5:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've uploaded the video here:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/z6dvTt8
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/z6dvTt8
I did go back earlier to check the signs; the restriction is in
place, it's essentially from some time in the morning until 7pm,
so unfortunately I crossed 8 min early. I'll be driving past the
area again tomorrow, so let me know if specific information is
required, in which case I'll take a photo of the signs.
There is no escape road prior to crossing the signs, and as you
can see from the video it's certainly not a wide road. I also
had a car right behind me, so it would have been dangerous to
all of a sudden come to a stop.
To confirm I'm indeed the registered keeper and the PCN is
addressed to me.
#Post#: 95365--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: October 23, 2025, 6:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The signs seen in the video are for the other direction. So I
suggest your reps include the statement that the video does not
show you passing any signs in your direction of travel,
therefore the contravention is not made out and the PCN must be
cancelled.
Despite the above, it wwould be best if you can get and post
your own photos of what you passed there. There should be a
warning sign in advance too.
#Post#: 95403--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: October 24, 2025, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What do the signs say. Couple of cases.
Greenwich fails to provide evidence a lot of recent cases.
----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
I heard the Appellant by audio link.
Her case is essentially that the signage was not clear,
particularly in the absence of any advance warning. It seems to
me in view of the limited evidence provided by the Council that
she might well have an arguable case on that point. However it
is unnecessary to consider that aspect further since the sign
relied on by the Council does not comply with the requirements
of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General directions 2016 in
that “Except authorised vehicles” is not a permitted variant of
the wording allowed on the associated plate for this particular
sign. As the prohibition relied on was not correctly signed the
Appeal must be allowed.
-------------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
The Appellant was due to attend a virtual hearing before me
today, but has not done so. No explanation has been received by
the tribunal for his absence and in the circumstances I consider
it just and appropriate to determine his appeal on the
information before me in the absence of the Appellant.
The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to
comply with the restriction on motor vehicles in Crooms Hill on
23 January 2025. A penalty charge notice was issued at 0908.
The Authority rely upon its CCTV footage. I have viewed this and
it shows the Appellant's vehicle driving towards the camera and
passing two restriction signs that are facing towards the
camera. There is no image of what the reverse of the signs state
– that will be facing the motorist. There are no location images
before me and accordingly, on the information provided I cannot
be satisfied that the contravention occurred and the appeal must
be allowed.
#Post#: 95480--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: JoCo
Date: October 24, 2025, 3:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am familiar with these restrictions.
Unfortunately the op is incorrect. There is advance notice of
the restriction. It is just before King George St. Allowing an
escape route along King George St. (Or opportunity to reverse
direction).
The camera angle is facing south bound, whereas the
contravention is north bound. Hence the restriction notices
visible in video are not relevant to the contravention.
Really there should also be warning earlier at the turning from
the A2, to save a wasted half mile journey for the unfamiliar.
But this aside is no help to op.
If a driver missed the notice at King George St. then it is nigh
on impossible to avoid contravening restriction at the
restriction due to narrowness of road / cars parked as the op
found.
#Post#: 95481--------------------------------------------------
Re: Greenwich - Crooms Hill / Nevada St - 52m failing to comply
with prohibition
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 24, 2025, 3:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Do not join The Mugged Club. Greenwich are not contesting any
appeals mostly at the moment at the Tribunal.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page