52m - failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles)

[Tom Price]

Greetings.. hoped I wouldn't have to come back so soon... cant say I have ever seen this sign before.. and the driver obviously didn't realise... not really clear.. .. not sure if there is a challenge here.. your opinion is valued as usual...

 

Might be a challenge to get this one revoked..

 

https://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/14440294.mother-of-four-threatens-court-over-unfair-fines/

 

https://google.info/forums/forum/google-consumer-forums/welcome-forum/78743-penalty-charge-notice?view=stream

 

 

Cavendish Avenue - Redbridge_0001.pdf Penalty Charge Notice.pdf

[Michael Browne]

There have been 102 cases decided at London Tribunals for this location of which only 17 were allowed.

 

this is one based on lack of advanced warning signs and confusing no through road sign:

Quote

 

Case reference	2200530286

 

I am dealing with an appeal against a penalty charge notices (PCN) issued in respect of alleged contraventions in Cavendish Avenue. It is said the appellant’s vehicle was traveling in a section of road where restrictions were in force.

The Authority relies on CCTV footage that shows the appellant’s vehicle driving into a part of Cavendish Avenue where it says the restrictions in force were indicted by warning signs on either side of the road. The Authority says all the signs are clear and comply with statutory requirements. The CCTV evidence shows the appellant’s vehicle pass through what appears to be a part time gate which is open and past the signs at the entrance to the restricted part of Cavendish Avenue. The Authority says that the signs were adequate to warn the reasonable motorist.

No evidence of any advance warning signs were provided by the Authority. However the appellant provided pictures of a dead end sign, which is situated at the entrance to Cavendish Avenue. He says that the dead end sign is confusing because it does not warn motorists that vehicles are not permitted into part of the road ahead. I agree. A dead end sign is not the same as a no entry sign. The appellant also says that by the time the motorist gets to the restricted part of the road it is too late to take in the signs and they are committed to entering the restricted part of the road.

Having looked carefully at the CCTV evidence and the appellant’s photographs I am not satisfied that in the absence of adequate evidence of a clear warning sign, motorists would have time to read and take in the signs at the entrance to the restricted part of the road before finding themselves committed to entering the restricted part of the road. I am therefore not satisfied the Authority has shown that adequate signage was in place or that a contravention has occurred.

 

 

 

 

At various other entrances, Vernon Ave, Forest Approiach, St AlbansRd there are large advanced warning sins such as here:

https://goo.gl/maps/5Lufnm8YBy87BPYd7

 

There is no similar sign at Chateris Road

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Michael Browne

[Tom Price]

Thanks for the Info Mike.. seems to me its just to Make money.. greedy b'tards... the driver will have to cough up..

[Michael Browne]

Entirely your decision, it's your  money,

. If it were me, I'd take it all the way to adjudication, even though it's a gamble (£130 or nothing) based on the lack of advanced warning sign at Charteris road when there are signs at all the other possible entrances at Churchfields , St Albans Road, Forest Approach and Vernon Avenue. Plus the point about the confusing dead end sign as the adjudicator mentions in the case above.