notomob.co.uk
General Category => General No To Mob Discussion => Topic started by: The Bald Eagle on 24 November, 2015, 02:31:08 PM
-
We have been keeping an eye on appeals going to London Tribunals and people are beginning to win their appeals on the grounds that the signage is wrong.
There have also been several decisions so far that have gone against motorists. From what I can see this is because the losing arguments raised by the motorist do not concern the position of the signs.
The two adjudicators who have ruled in favour of the motorist have both identified that the sign on the left is too far back (we have measured it as being over 50 feet from the entrance to Connell Crescent) and the sign on the right is lost in a sea of signs that apply to traffic using the A40.
So the question is, if the contravention did not occur for these three motorists, how can it have occurred for others?
========================================
N.B. - Adam Drakard had 5 appeals allowed on the same grounds
Case Details
Case reference 2150349698
Appellant Adam Drakard
Authority London Borough of Ealing
VRM xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PCN Details
PCN EA35971547
Contravention date 03 Aug 2015
Contravention time 17:29:00
Contravention location Connell Crescent
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with veh. type prohibited sign
Decision date 04 Nov 2015
Adjudicator Joanne Oxlade
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction The PCN be cancelled and the sum of £65 to be refunded to the Appellant
Reasons
The issue in these cases is whether the signage was adequate; the Appellant having put this in issue, the burden rests on the EA.
The EA case is that the vehicle failed to comply with signage which prohibited vehicles of a certain class, from entering Connell Crescent between the hours of 4pm and 7pm; as this was a car it was prohibited.
The EA rely on contemporaneous footage and stills.
The Appellant's case is that this change was not well advertised before hand, and in any event the signage is not adequate. Whilst it was conceded at the hearing by xxxxxxxxxxxx, that there need only be one sign (not two, as in this case) both signs were compromised: they are both too high, being 2.8 and 2.9 high; further, the one on the right is placed amongst a small forest of other signs, which against the backdrop of the A40, and vehicles travelling along both Connell Crescent and Hanger Green in two directions, compromises the driver's ability to see it; further, neither sign is placed at the junction, but back from it, which means that the driver has committed to the turn before he can do anything about it.
There were other points taken, but as I allow the appeal, I need not address them.
The TMO provides that the prohibition is on vehicles "entering" Connell Crescent, and Regulation 18(1) of the TRSGD 2002 provides that signs shall be placed on or near a road to communicate the restriction. However, the signs are placed someway back from the point where Connell meets Hanger Green (particularly the one on the left), so the signage does not reflect the EA intention as expressed by the TMO. It does mean that on the face of it a driver would think it was acceptable to enter Connell Crescent and come to a halt prior to the sign, which is regarded as the threshold; yet the driver would be in breach of the TMO. A driver seeing the signs could not take evasive action, and would have to reverse, onto Hanger Green, which is a busy location, being the entrance to the A40.
I do not see that there is force in the height point, Chapter 1 being advisory in nature, and as the minimum height (not maximum) is to be 2.3 m.
I find that the placement of the signage being so far back from the junction, is not adequate to communicate the prohibition. I therefore allow the appeal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
PCN Details
PCN EA35955609
Contravention date 29 Jul 2015
Contravention time 15:33:00
Contravention location Connell Crescent
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with veh. type prohibited sign
Decision date 17 Nov 2015
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles (motor vehicles) in Connell Crescent at 3.33pm on 29 July 2015.
I have looked at the CCTV footage and also at the still images submitted by the Council. I am allowing the appeal because I do not believe that the signage of the restriction is adequate. There is no sign placed on the left hand side at the junction where vehicles make a left turn into Connell Crescent. Instead, the sign is set some distance into Connell Crescent where it will only properly be seen by the motorist when it is too late. The sign should be placed to alert motorists not to make the turn rather than being positioned where it will only be seen after the turn has been made. Although there is a sign on the right which is closer to the junction, it is the sign on the left which, in my view, is the critical one to alert motorists taking the left turn. Although there is an access road immediately on the left after the junction, the no entry sign is placed well beyond the access road.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PCN Details
PCN EA35991395
Contravention date 10 Aug 2015
Contravention time 16:31:00
Contravention location Connell Crescent, Ealing W5
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with veh. type prohibited sign
Decision date 19 Nov 2015
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Miss Chandar-Seale has appeared in person, supported by her brother, Mr Aaron Chandar-Seale.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles in Connell Crescent at 4.31pm on 10 August 2015.
I have looked at the CCTV footage and also at the still images submitted by the Council. These show Miss Chandar-Seale's car making a left turn into Connell Crescent. There is an access road immediately after the left turn into Connell Road. There are two no entry signs for motor vehicles with a no entry restriction between 3pm and 7pm, Mondays to Fridays.
The Council correctly states that there is no requirement for advance warning of a no entry restriction. However, there is a requirement that the restriction is clearly signed at the point of entry so that the approaching motorist is alerted to the fact that there is no entry. That is not the case in Connell Crescent. The sign which will be seen by a motorist making the left turn is the one positioned on the left hand side of the road. This sign is set so far back from the junction that it will not be seen by a motorist making the left turn until it is too late.
The Council says that moving the sign closer to the junction presented "financial and environmental impracticalities". That may well be the case but the result is, in my view, a sign placed in a position which is not adequate for the purpose of alerting motorists to the restriction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
-
The Council says that moving the sign closer to the junction presented "financial and environmental impracticalities".
They won't make nearly as much money and could run out of bullshit...?
-
24 Nov 2015
Jennifer Shepherd
EA35949912 + 4 more
I heard today from Ms Milovic, the office manager for Capital Housing Associates, the appellant in this and 4 other appeals, all of which I have decided. All appeals concern Penalty Charge Notices (“PCN”) issued to vehicles leased and operated by the appellant company, a housing association operating properties throughout London Borough of Ealing.
I have allowed all 5 appeals and my reasons given herein are the same as my reasons in respect of all 5 appeals.
All PCNs the subject of these 5 appeals were issued in respect of the same claimed moving traffic contravention at the same location, Connell Crescent, on successive dates. The authority issued the PCNs on the basis of images recorded by camera at the roadside which showed the vehicles in question being driven so as to enter Connell Crescent in contravention of a prohibition against motorised vehicles in that road Monday to Friday 3 PM to 7 PM.
The existence of the prohibition is not in dispute and is evidenced by a copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order, a copy of which is produced, together with its plan. The order was made on 2 July 2015 and came into operation on 10 July 2015. The authority’s objective in making the order was to prevent rat-running by traffic trying to avoid peak hour congestion on the adjacent A 40.
The authority relies on signage present in Connell Crescent in diagram 619 of the Traffic Signs Regulations (as permitted to be amended), which indicates a prohibition on motor vehicles between the hours indicated. The position of the signs is shown in the CCTV images put in by the council, and also by photographs put in on behalf of the appellant company. It is agreed that there is no advance warning or advisory sign en route to the location.
The appellant’s case is that the association’s drivers had used Connell Crescent at all times of day in the past, before the introduction of the prohibition, and indeed has two properties in that road, where it is necessary to attend from time to time. The appellant company and its employees had not been made aware the proposed change in restrictions, and the on-street signage was insufficient to indicate the prohibition. Specifically Ms Milovic, who was one of the drivers against whom one of the PCNs was issued, gave evidence on behalf of herself and her colleagues that, owing to the angle at which vehicles approach the junction between Hanger Lane and Connell Crescent, as currently positioned the signs are not visible at sufficient distance to adjust one’s route accordingly. Indeed Ms Milovic went further to say that she believed that the signs themselves were too small, and situated too high to be properly visible.
This issue has been raised with the authority in representations, and the authority makes the following points in response:-
-There was a Consultation process prior to making the Order, initiated following complaints from local residents.
-Following the making of the order statutory advertisements were placed in local newspapers and copies of the Order were placed at points in the vicinity. It was impractical to notify all motorists who use the route. Reliance was placed on the signs erected.
-Despite it not being a statutory requirement the authority did not enforce contraventions in the initial 2 week period between 13 July 2015 and 24 July 2015, but sent out 300 warning notices to those captured on camera as driving in contravention.
-The authority has erected 2 signs in Diagram 619, one on either side of the carriageway in Connell Crescent, despite it having been given specific Dispensation by the Secretary of State from the statutory requirement to do so, whereunder 1 sign would be sufficient. A copy of the Dispensation is produced.
-The signs themselves are unmistakably visible to the motorist driving from Hanger Lane to Western Avenue.
-There is a suggestion that ‘Motorists can exit Hanger Green back into Western Avenue when they notice the sign’ (legend on photo put in by the authority).
Upon the making of a traffic management Order an authority must take such steps as a necessary to secure the placing on or near the road 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 person using the road: The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 (No. 2489). It can be seen this is a mandatory duty to’ take steps’, albeit that the way in which it is put into effect ( type, number, location of signs etc) is to some extent discretionary. However the terms of the discretion must be exercised reasonably, concerned as the authority is here with being effective making information known to a wide public (all users of the road), to assist them in complying with traffic restrictions and to avoid a penalt.
The starting point for assessing the adequacy of the signage erected by the authority is to check compliance with the requirements as to type, size, positon etc., for that signage in the Traffic Signs Regulations and Directions. The sign relied upon is that in Diagram 619, which is subject to the requirements of Direction 8. Direction 8 specifies that such a sign must be placed to indicate ‘ the point at which the prohibition begins’ (Direction 8(2), and that the signs should be placed on the relevant road ‘at or as near as practicable’ to the point referred to in paragraph (2) (Direction 8(3). Thus the requirement to put the sign at the point of commencement of the prohibition is only attenuated by the concession as to practicality.
The difficulty for the authority in this case is that the only one of the 2 signs erected is in compliance with Direction 8. The sign on the left side is set back well beyond the junction of Connell Crescent at Hanger Green, identifiable by ‘Give way’ road marking at this point. At a guess ( always difficult from photographs), that sign may be set back from the junction as much as 20 metres. This is clearly nowhere near compliant with Direction 8, and the defect does support the drivers’ contention that the signage is not readily visible from a moving vehicle. There is no suggestion that this sign could not for practical reasons be placed at the junction with Hanger Green.
The authority may, in response, argue that the erection of 2 signs was not strictly required under its Dispensation by the Secretary of State, and seek to rely solely on the sign on the right hand side, which is nearer the junction. However, I conclude that of the 2 signs erected, if only one were deemed sufficient ( a position which I would reject in the unusual and difficult conditions of the road layout at this point), then it is the one nearer the oncoming traffic which should take precedence, and which currently is at an unacceptable distance from the junction.
In the alternative, the authority may seek to argue, on the basis of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Herron and Parking Appeals Limited v The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWCA Civ 905, that the signage provided is nevertheless ‘substantially compliant’ with the Traffic Signs Directions, and arguably therefore sufficient for purpose, and lawful. However, in a matter where the failure in strict compliance is as to position of a sign, and the prohibition is directed at moving traffic in a problematic layout, then I conclude that the greater the burden will be on the authority to demonstrate substantial compliance, which in this instance it has not met.
In referring to the problems of the layout at this point, I refer to the inconsistency between the physical beginning of the Connell Crescent ( confirmed by the Give Way lining) , and the placing of the signs, (and the proximity to the A40). The presence of the small side road to the left, immediately after the Give Way line ( the end point of Connell Crescent), may well be a problem with which the authority has wrestled in making the Order. Presumably the decision was taken not to include the side road in the new prohibition on motorised vehicles, and that is perhaps why the sign on the left hand side has been set back to be physically present on the pavement beyond the side road. I note that, on the Order plan, the previous Give Way line was actually positioned across Connell Crescent beyond the side road, excluding what now appears to be the final portion of Connell Crescent. In the event the result of this is that the signage and the layout are inconsistent with each other, and I do conclude that the signage, in this and in the failure of positioning according to the Signs Regulations, renders it inadequate to give effect to the Order.
In those circumstances the appeals must be allowed.
-
My understanding is that the adjudicators are only allowed to look at the evidence presented by each appellant in isolation from any other case they may have ruled on previously, they are also not bound by each others decisions (although they may find them "persuasive"). So unless an appellant tells them that on day/date Adjudicator Smith in case number 123 on the same evidence ruled that the PCN is cancelled, they don't know about it!
I don't know about Council's, but some very senior people at TfL were baffled by some of PaTASs decisions, and it looks like London Tribunals are going to continue that tradition.
It's good to see more people are getting the correct verdict, and that the "substantial compliance" issue appears to have been dealt with - I wonder what Ealing will do now?
-
Case reference 2150372339
Appellant Eman Saeed
Authority London Borough of Ealing
VRM FD07ZZX
PCN Details
PCN EA3596711A
Contravention date 31 Jul 2015
Contravention time 17:37:00
Contravention location CONNELL CRESCENT W5
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with veh. type prohibited sign
Decision date 26 Nov 2015
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles in Connell Crescent at 5.37pm on 31 July 2015.
I have looked at the CCTV footage and also at the still images submitted by the Council. These show Mrs Saeed's car making a left turn into Connell Crescent. There is an access road immediately after the left turn into Connell Road. There are two no entry signs for motor vehicles with a no entry restriction between 3pm and 7pm, Mondays to Fridays.
The Council correctly states that there is no requirement for advance warning of a no entry restriction. However, there is a requirement that the restriction is clearly signed at the point of entry so that the approaching motorist is alerted to the fact that there is no entry. That is not the case in Connell Crescent. The sign which will be seen by a motorist making the left turn is the one positioned on the left hand side of the road. This sign is set so far back from the junction that it will not be seen by a motorist making the left turn until it is too late.
The Council has said that moving the sign closer to the junction presented "financial and environmental impracticalities". That may well be the case but the result is, in my view, a sign placed in a position which is not adequate for the purpose of alerting motorists to the restriction.
-
I was at the tribunal again today. I had put in a comprehensive argument although it mainly focused on the location of signs in very similar words to the Drakard case (on which I drafted the arguments along with Adam & his lady).
Dastardlydick may be surprised to discover that the adjudicator had been through every decision for this contravention at this location in advance of me being in the room (reception know a week beforehand which my cases are as I tell them so that if I have multiple cases they can be listed in front of 1 or 2 adjudicators which saves time all round and as I am known for technical argument means that tricky points can be researched). As I had them to hand I was able to hand her copies of ones she was interested in to upload to the instant case as I too had them all logged and printouts of the relevant one. I also had the losing cases with me as my duty is to assist the tribunal, even if it hurts, but I agree with Bald Eagle that the arguments put forward were probabvly flimsy.
Today's case was 2150381544 (Bonfante) and the decision will be online tomorrow. I did win based upon the location of the signs and the doubtful position of the junction of Hanger Green and Connell Crescent. If the give way line is where it was drawn on the map, after the little entrance way (often mistakenly called an access road) rather than before it, then the planned point for signs and lines does not reflect what the TMO actually says which is, in terms, that a vehicle cannot proceed from Hanger Green into Connell Crescent. A more detailed map is needed.
The Drakard decision has had a request for a review but whether it will even be considered we do not yet know as it is in the to be looked at pile.
I am back there on Saturday morning for 3 cases for a resident of the road.
Today I moved seamlessly from London Tribunals to TPT to represent an Aunt who had parked with one wheel outside the bay in Lincoln. Had discretion been properly considered was in question and the parking man from Lincoln said that now he had more facts about the parking he was happy to accept 50% which was helpful as the decision the adjudicator made was to refuse the appeal but at £25 (so cheap, Lincoln). TPT are not as receptive to my technical arguments as LT are and the lack of a published decision register is a drawback.
-
Mr Mustard strikes again! :aplude: :aplude: :aplude:
-------------------------------------------------------
Case Details
Case reference 2150381544
Appellant Luigi Bonfante
Authority London Borough of Ealing
VRM LUI7626
PCN Details
PCN EA35988313
Contravention date 07 Aug 2015
Contravention time 17:59:00
Contravention location Connell Crescent, Ealing W5
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with veh. type prohibited sign
Decision date 02 Dec 2015
Adjudicator Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mr Dishman attended today to represent Mr Bonfante.
It is not disputed that the appellant’s car turned left into Connell Crescent and drove past two signs indicating a prohibition on motor vehicles proceeding in Hanger Green between 3pm and 7pm Monday to Friday.
The issue raised is the adequacy of the signing.
Mr Dishman referred me to the decision of Adjudicator Joanne Oxlade in the case of Drakard case reference 2150349698 and the decision of Adjudicator Jennifer Shepherd in the case of Capital Housing Associates 2150390250. Both Adjudicators allowed appeals in which the issue of signage. Having considered all the evidence in this case I agree with the decisions of both Adjudicators.
I find that the signage is inadequate because both signs and particularly the left sign are located after the commencement of the prohibition.
-
…………..I also had the losing cases with me as my duty is to assist the tribunal, even if it hurts………...
The campaigner equivalent of "I can beat you with one arm tied behind my back".
<Muahahaha>
-
Mr Mustard, well done sir......again.
When they know you're coming they should just <Surrender>
-
The thing that get's me about all this is that driving round Connell Crescent to avoid going along the slip road to Hanger Lane gains you nothing (except annoy the residents)! The residents park -quite correctly - outside their houses, so any other vehicle (except P2Ws) is forced to drive so slowly they might as well stay on the slip. Before anyone asks, yes, I've tried it.
-
Mustard strikes again! Thrice!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Details
Case reference 2150403217
Appellant Jacqueline Plumb
Authority London Borough of Ealing
VRM GK10TLV
PCN Details
PCN EA36000408
Contravention date 12 Aug 2015
Contravention time 17:25:00
Contravention location Connell Crescent, Ealing W5
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with veh. type prohibited sign
Decision date 05 Dec 2015
Adjudicator Christopher Rayner (Eta)
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mrs Plumb, as the registered keeper and owner of the car, is the appellant in these appeals. She has not attended today, but her son, who was the driver on each occasion, attended, with Mr Dishman as representative.
For each of the three penalty charge notices (PCN) with which I am dealing today Ealing council provide CCTV footage (from either a camera car or fixed camera) of Mrs Plumb’s car, GK10LTV driving into Connell Crescent, at times when entry is restricted by a traffic sign.
This restriction is recently imposed, and is primarily for the benefit of residents, such as Mr Plumb. The location has however given rise to a large number of PCNs, as evidenced by the response to the Freedom of Information request made by Mr Dishman. It has also given rise to a number of appeals to this Tribunal, which have not been dealt with consistently by adjudicators. Mr Dishman provided a helpful schedule of cases and results.
Mrs Plumb had raised a number of issues when dealing with the matter herself. Other than signage, I have not considered those matters. I note that my adjudicator colleagues in carefully considered decisions, have allowed appeals on the ground that the signs are not placed where authorised by the Traffic Management order, and/or are set back from the entrance to Connell Crescent, so that a contravention could be committed before crossing the timeplate: see 2150349698 (Adjudicator Ms Oxlade); 2150390250 (Adjudicator Ms Shepherd); and 2160381544 (Adjudicator Ms Brennan). Mr Dishman tells me that the first of those decisions is subject to a review application by Ealing council.
On reviewing the evidence from the TMO and the signs, I am persuaded by the adjudications of my colleagues (which I need not repeat here) that the signs are not correctly sited, and therefore no contravention has occurred. I therefore allow the appeal on that ground.
Mr Plumb is aware that this is not authority to ignore the timeplates and the restrictions that they impose.
-
That Bald Eagle swoops out of the sky and picks up your cases before you have even had time yourself (I was about to do this having had a right messy old day).
My next Conall Crescent case is not until 23rd December (Xmas? bah humbug)
-
Should we not be removing Mrs Plumb's VRM?
-
That Bald Eagle swoops out of the sky and picks up your cases before you have even had time
The early Eagle catches the worm. ;D
-
Well done Mr Plumb and to Mr Mustard! <Yes!>
-
It would appear that Ealing have moved the offending sign to the first right hand lamp post on Connell Crescent, and may now be compliant with the TMO/TRO. If this is the case they have negated the "incorrect signage" ground of appeal at adjudication. I noticed this yesterday (Friday) but don't know when the work was carried out, and couldn't get a photo as I was going past at some speed!
-
It would appear that Ealing have moved the offending sign to the first right hand lamp post on Connell Crescent, and may now be compliant with the TMO/TRO. If this is the case they have negated the "incorrect signage" ground of appeal at adjudication. I noticed this yesterday (Friday) but don't know when the work was carried out, and couldn't get a photo as I was going past at some speed!
The problem is not with the one on the right, it's the one on the left that needs moving.
-
Either way, they're now both at the start of Connell Crescent one on each side of the road - i'll try and grab a piccie next time I'm at work, but it looks to me like the incorrect signage appeal might be dead in the water :(
-
Either way, they're now both at the start of Connell Crescent one on each side of the road - i'll try and grab a piccie next time I'm at work, but it looks to me like the incorrect signage appeal might be dead in the water :(
Not quite true. Look at the position of the lines across the start of Connell Crescent in this image (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.527375,-0.2855429,3a,59.5y,300.03h,87.32t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWvUlCgeXrBPSQ65Rd1-u1Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656). The lamp-post bearing the sign is over 50 feet from the start of the road.
-
Hi all, so I too have had 2 PCN's for this offence on the 14 & 21/12/15.
Seen all the great work you have done and wondered what the opinions are of whether the signs are now valid or not?
My argument is that although the one on the right has now been moved there is numerous signs there and the one on the right is still too far back. Also they've seen fit to put a camera to catch people making the turn and make them money on the lamp post prior to the turn, could and should they not have put a sign there if they were not intending to use this as a cash cow for them?
Any thoughts and advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
-
Can anyone help with this please?
-
Welcome PaulBee. The most successful point of appeal for this location has been on the signage point, like the following example,
Case Details
Case reference 2150381544
Appellant Luigi Bonfante
Authority London Borough of Ealing
VRM LUI7626
PCN Details
PCN EA35988313
Contravention date 07 Aug 2015
Contravention time 17:59:00
Contravention location Connell Crescent, Ealing W5
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with veh. type prohibited sign
Decision date 02 Dec 2015
Adjudicator Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mr Dishman attended today to represent Mr Bonfante.
It is not disputed that the appellant’s car turned left into Connell Crescent and drove past two signs indicating a prohibition on motor vehicles proceeding in Hanger Green between 3pm and 7pm Monday to Friday.
The issue raised is the adequacy of the signing.
Mr Dishman referred me to the decision of Adjudicator Joanne Oxlade in the case of Drakard case reference 2150349698 and the decision of Adjudicator Jennifer Shepherd in the case of Capital Housing Associates 2150390250. Both Adjudicators allowed appeals in which the issue of signage. Having considered all the evidence in this case I agree with the decisions of both Adjudicators.
I find that the signage is inadequate because both signs and particularly the left sign are located after the commencement of the prohibition.
The other cases mentioned can be viewed online by visiting this link (https://londontribunals.org.uk) and entering the numbers into the 'case reference' field. <Hatoff>
<Welcome>
-
There is also a field where you can enter the location "Connell Crescent" that will help you find most of the winners and losers.
-
Welcome PaulBee. The most successful point of appeal for this location has been on the signage point, like the following example,
Case Details
Case reference 2150381544
Appellant Luigi Bonfante
Authority London Borough of Ealing
VRM LUI7626
PCN Details
PCN EA35988313
Contravention date 07 Aug 2015
Contravention time 17:59:00
Contravention location Connell Crescent, Ealing W5
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with veh. type prohibited sign
Decision date 02 Dec 2015
Adjudicator Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mr Dishman attended today to represent Mr Bonfante.
It is not disputed that the appellant’s car turned left into Connell Crescent and drove past two signs indicating a prohibition on motor vehicles proceeding in Hanger Green between 3pm and 7pm Monday to Friday.
The issue raised is the adequacy of the signing.
Mr Dishman referred me to the decision of Adjudicator Joanne Oxlade in the case of Drakard case reference 2150349698 and the decision of Adjudicator Jennifer Shepherd in the case of Capital Housing Associates 2150390250. Both Adjudicators allowed appeals in which the issue of signage. Having considered all the evidence in this case I agree with the decisions of both Adjudicators.
I find that the signage is inadequate because both signs and particularly the left sign are located after the commencement of the prohibition.
The other cases mentioned can be viewed online by visiting this link (https://londontribunals.org.uk) and entering the numbers into the 'case reference' field. <Hatoff>
<Welcome>
Thank you Ewan, that is most helpful. I've gone through all the cases to date that I could find here.
-
There is also a field where you can enter the location "Connell Crescent" that will help you find most of the winners and losers.
Thans Bald Eagle, I think!
I've gone through the cases and was just trying to get an up to date picture as I could not find anything since they have moved the sign
-
Just to make things clear Paul, the signs have not been moved since they were installed in July last year. Dastardly Dick was having a brain fart when he suggested they had been moved.
See this thread here: http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5797.msg34620#msg34620 (http://notomob.co.uk/discussions/index.php?topic=5797.msg34620#msg34620)
Sorry for any confusion DD might have caused.
-
No problem, had me worried for a bit!
Thanks for getting back to me and the link
-
Some certainty (hopefully) is imminent.
There is a consolidated hearing of 25 Appeals on 18 May. I will be representing half a dozen Appellants (mostly motorists who got stuffed with multiple PCNs with the odd person only getting one) and having a shoot out of every argument against probably 3 Ealing council staff. Must go now and work on the skeleton argument that I have to file by mid April. The council then get 3 weeks to reply. At that point I will probably blog both documents.
This will be make or break for the PCNs.
-
Some certainty (hopefully) is imminent.
There is a consolidated hearing of 25 Appeals on 18 May. I will be representing half a dozen Appellants (mostly motorists who got stuffed with multiple PCNs with the odd person only getting one) and having a shoot out of every argument against probably 3 Ealing council staff. Must go now and work on the skeleton argument that I have to file by mid April. The council then get 3 weeks to reply. At that point I will probably blog both documents.
This will be make or break for the PCNs.
Good work Mr Mustard!
I've got my hearing next Thursday, was planning to go in with all the relevant cases (that being all of then!) but I have not been asked for a skeleton argument, should I have done one?
-
If you phone the tribunal on 020 7520 7200 and say you have heard there is a consolidated appeal on 18 May and could your case please be added to it.
I am the only person asked to prepare a skeleton argument as I am an experienced representative and have a number of cases running. I doubt that any other motorist has put in the number of detailed arguments that I have. I'll email you directly to share them with you.
I've just come back from a motorbike ride to Ealing Town hall and served the skeleton argument on them. London Tribunals got their copy this morning.