notomob.co.uk

Council Specific & Schunt Reports => Ealing => Topic started by: msa969 on 05 August, 2018, 12:12:26 PM

Title: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: msa969 on 05 August, 2018, 12:12:26 PM
I received a penalty charge from ealing council which informs me of alleged contraventions 52JM on Connell Crescent. However on the day I was  driving on Connell Crescent there was a large building work with high fencing to the right. The building had a large wooden fence that obscured the full vision into this road. I was unable to see the signage, had I seen the signage in clear view I would not have carried out this manoeuvre. My main complaint is the way the signage is mounted is not clear, further to this the obstruction of the large high fencing due to work being done on entry to the road right next to the signage obscured my view.  I have attached images of the fencing and signage.
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: DastardlyDick on 05 August, 2018, 06:41:58 PM
Hate to say this, but I can clearly see the sign in one of your photo's, and the angle suggests it wasn't taken from the road. I take it that you didn't see the sign on the other side of the road?

I can't see a defence here - I suggest paying at the discounted penalty.
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: msa969 on 05 August, 2018, 10:13:35 PM
ok.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 06 August, 2018, 09:12:51 AM
@msa969

Before paying this I have a few questions.

1. When did this happen?
2. Is the hoarding still there?
3. Can you see the hoarding in the picture on the PCN and/or on the online video footage?
4. Do you have any photographs taken from other angles?
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: msa969 on 06 August, 2018, 10:24:35 AM
1. When did this happen?

Hi Bald Eagle (I feel like I am speaking to myself, my nomer back in school was this due to my appearance, all bald and sharpish beak),
it happened on 26 07 2018 at 17:59. On the day of the alleged offence I was just driving at slow speed on nearby roads leading to connell crescent. The road to the side of the hoarding is called Heathercroft and there is a road besides this called Hanger Green which i had parked up and waited for about 15 minutes.
2. Is the hoarding still there?
I am not sure, i live about 45 minutes drive away.
3. Can you see the hoarding in the picture on the PCN and/or on the online video footage?
You can see the hoarding on the PCN and on the online video

4. Do you have any photographs taken from other angles?
No more photographs but I am certain that if you were driving into connell crescent from Heathercroft and you were to do a left you would not see the signage before it is too late because the hoarding would be too large and the signage would be on your left. On the day I was driving around the vicinity for long periods and on Heathercroft.
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 06 August, 2018, 10:57:03 AM
Please hold fire on paying this PCN until such time as we have had time to research it.

Also, please see your PMs.  ;)
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: msa969 on 06 August, 2018, 11:10:38 AM
Sorry to be a nuisance but I am unable to find how to get to my PM.

Thank you in advance.
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 06 August, 2018, 11:13:22 AM
Top of the page "My Messages".  :D
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: Coco on 06 August, 2018, 05:36:50 PM
It looks to me as though you took the photographs whilst standing up i.e. at a higher point than if you were driving a normal car. If this is the case you would almost certainly not have been able to see the left-hand "flying motorbike" sign. Also if you were following a tall vehicle such as a bus or lorry the right-had sign would also have been obscured.
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: DastardlyDick on 06 August, 2018, 11:48:05 PM
I'll have a look at the hoardings tomorrow if it will help, but I'm fairly sure they're no longer there.  Connell Crescent is not a bus route AFAIK, but I take your point re. lorries.

Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: Coco on 07 August, 2018, 11:12:56 AM
I'll have a look at the hoardings tomorrow if it will help, but I'm fairly sure they're no longer be there.  Connell Crescent is not a bus route AFAIK, but I take your point re. lorries.

Whilst no bus route uses Connel Crescent, Park Royal Station is served by routes95, 226 and 487 which all use Hangar Green. At around 18:00 when msa969 was photographed the A40 would probably have been very busy causing a tailback towards the station.
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: The Bald Eagle on 07 August, 2018, 01:43:00 PM
I took some photos this morning and it's worse now than when msa969 went though at the end of July.

Discuss.


P.s. Click on photos to make them bigger
Title: Re: Connell Crescent Ealing large high fence obstructing signage
Post by: DastardlyDick on 07 August, 2018, 11:47:23 PM
Having re-read the consolidation hearing from 2016, I don't fancy the OPs chances either with the Council or at Adjudication for the following reasons:-
1. Ealing have special authorisation from the DfT to only have one "flying motorcycle" sign instead of the usual two - despite this, they have two, both illuminated at night.
2. 3 Adjudicators have found the signage to be "substantially compliant" and "clear and unambiguous....for enforcement purposes".
3. The real "killer" is para. 9.36 - "While I accept that some motorists may not have seen the signs, or realised that the restrictions were in force, I am satisfied that the Council has discharged the burden upon it to prove that overall the signage at the restriction is substantially compliant with the legislative requirements, and moreover is adequate to convey the restriction to the objective motorist".

Obviously, it is the OPs decision, but I wouldn't want to risk another £65 in the face of that decsion.

My suggestion would be to appeal to the Council on the restricted visibility, they will no doubt reject this, but will re-offer the discount which (IMO) the OP should then pay. I know this goes against the ethos of this forum regarding revenue driven enforcement, but I think this is a "damage limitaton" exercise - damage to the OPs bank balance.