Council PCN through post. Very strange road layout

real1314

If drivers are not supposed to use the middle section (as per the white arrows on blue circle), then why are the lines leading to the central section broken?
If they should not be crossed, they should be solid white lines surely?

I've heard before that the central bit is for emergency vehicles - who would presumably be ok to cross a solid white line.

jgallcash

my point exactly. As I have said, i'm not trying to wriggle out of paying, it's just annoying how ambiguois the signage is. I'm going to take a closer look tonight including measurements. (how stupid will i look measuring roads)

Coupon-mad

jgallcash wrote: »

my point exactly. As I have said, i'm not trying to wriggle out of paying, it's just annoying how ambiguois the signage is. I'm going to take a closer look tonight including measurements. (how stupid will i look measuring roads)

Edited, sorry, apparently info was wrong (see Neilb's posts).

jgallcash

I have written the following. Could someone check if this holds any water.


Islington Parking Services
PO Box 4650
Worthing
BN11 9FD


3rd December 2009

Dear Sir / Madam

PCN No: Vehicle Reg:


I am writing to request that you cancel the above PCN on the following points:


1) The calming measure in question is less than 20 meters from the very busy and well used Green Lanes Road. Given that the Highway Code specifies 23m as a typical stopping distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour I would argue that that it is not reasonable to turn into Riversdale Road from a busy 30 mph zone and have less than 20 meters to comply with the following signage:

• A fairly new speed restriction
• CPZ sign
• A width restriction
• A blue arrow
• Double yellow lines in what I have previously known as a cycle lane

Moreover the alleged exclusion area has no block white lines that clearly indicate no entry. Given the very short amount of time to react to these measures and the left lane (previous cycle path) measureng 2M wide against my cars width of 1.95M, I believe that it would be resonable to assume that the middle of the measure was the compliant route. I also trust that my confusion and reluctance in this matter would be clearly demonstrated in the alleged video evidence that you have, although I am unable to access this via your website.


2) I believe your councils PCN to be invalid as you have calculated the date for payment and the period to appeal from the date of the PCN whereas Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires the date to be calculated based on the date of service. In effect I believe you have shortened the legal period that I have to pay or appeal.

I trust that in consideration of the above you will take no further action in respect of this alleged contravention.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

That looks good! Wait and see what others say though, and on pepipoo give the experts a day or two to add anything useful before you put your appeal in the post (if you have good time allowing for Xmas post delays). Or can you appeal online?

I am still a comparative newbie to these boards. But FWIW, all I would think may be worth adding, is in point 2 you could refer to a specific adjudication (name the parties if you can find the info) which found that the PCN wording in question indeed rendered it unenforceable.

Maybe also finish with something like:
'Bearing in mind that I have discovered that Islington is already well aware of issues with this traffic-calming layout being very unclear - and in addition, you should already be aware that at least one adjudication has already found this PCN wording to be non-compliant - I would consider a rejection of my appeal to be vexatious and unreasonable. As such, if you decide not to cancel this PCN based on my representations at this early stage, then I will have no hesitation in putting my appeal before the adjudicator, and will include a request for any costs I incur.'

...(that's because I believe you can make a request for costs if the Council has been 'vexatious' so IMHO it would be good to spell it out now).

If someone else like Neilb - or other experts on pepipoo - come up with better wording then I would bow to their much greater experience of course.

Keep all your paperwork but I don't think Islington will let it go to adjudication.

flyingscotno1

jgallcash wrote: »

1) The calming measure in question is less than 20 meters from the very busy and well used Green Lanes Road. Given that the Highway Code specifies 23m as a typical stopping distance for a speed of 30 miles per hour I would argue that that it is not reasonable to turn into Riversdale Road from a busy 30 mph zone and have less than 20 meters to comply with the following signage:

• A fairly new speed restriction
• CPZ sign
• A width restriction
• A blue arrow
• Double yellow lines in what I have previously known as a cycle lane

Moreover the alleged exclusion area has no block white lines that clearly indicate no entry. Given the very short amount of time to react to these measures and the left lane (previous cycle path) measureng 2M wide against my cars width of 1.95M, I believe that it would be resonable to assume that the middle of the measure was the compliant route. I also trust that my confusion and reluctance in this matter would be clearly demonstrated in the alleged video evidence that you have, although I am unable to access this via your website.

I don't believe the Fiat is that wide to be honest, but I'd double check it rather than stating a dimension. 2m is very wide as cars go these days- remember not to include the wing mirrors as nothing will be obstructing them essentially. I wouldn't bother with 30mph and signage as I can tell you the council will say you should be driving at appropriate speed etc. etc.... Just state information overload.

real1314 wrote: »

If drivers are not supposed to use the middle section (as per the white arrows on blue circle), then why are the lines leading to the central section broken?
If they should not be crossed, they should be solid white lines surely?

I've heard before that the central bit is for emergency vehicles - who would presumably be ok to cross a solid white line.

The markings being broken lines is correct. Solid single lines shouldn't be used in such circumstances (from memory only permitted on motorway and HQDC) and double white lines are messy solution with road studs. Personally I'd have hatched the area in the middle out to make it clearer. Whilst emergency vehicles can cross solid lines, dust carts cannot meaning no rubbish collections!

usignuolo

I have been reading up about this particular junction and the general line from the council goes that they put the barrier in to prevent lorries using the road as a rat run but of course had to leave room for emergency vehicles hence the section in the middle.

I suspect, with no proof, that the original road was a bit too narrow to accomodate two restricted car lanes and a central emergency lane, hence the tightness of the space. Plus council workmen painted a cycle sign on the narrow lanes which confused everyone still further and led to a large number of complaints so that was scrubbed out.

One thing which would be interesting is to know what the regulations are when a council installs some traffic restriction which is contrary to the regulations, probably due to a contractor getting confused or careless. There is a double yellow line at the end of my road on the corner junction with the next road which is twice as long as any other one I have ever seen. Originally it was shorter, probably too short, so the council set a workman round to extend it and he seems to have extended it twice as long as it needs to be to be on the safe side. But can we get the council to tell us how long it should be legally? No chance. All they will say is that it corresponds to traffic regulations.

Similarly not far away is a road full of huge square road humps, the size of small hillocks, it looks like the contractor had too much tarmac and just used it up laying them. But can we find out what the maximum height should be, to avoid damaging cars, again no chance.

If anyone can point me in the direction of the regulations governing the road markings and obstacles and what size these should be, assuming there are any, I should be very grateful.

Neil_B

biscuitdunker wrote: »

Also, your PCN should say "28 days from the date this notice is served" but it clearly says "28 days beginning with the date of this notice", making your PCN non-compliant, for starters.

You have that confused. The PCNs used to be flawed -- as in the 'Thomas K' case here for a similar Engelfield Road set up.

Now they are substantially compliant with 'date of notice' for payment and 'date of service' for appeal.

Neil_B

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I'm not an expert either but biscuitdunker is right IMHO. :T

Although Islington isn't mentioned on this thread on pepipoo, the wrong wording on the PCN is the same IMHO which would make the PCN unenforceable):

No he isn't and no the wording is not flawed.

Neil_B

jgallcash wrote: »

2) I believe your councils PCN to be invalid as you have calculated the date for payment and the period to appeal from the date of the PCN whereas Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires the date to be calculated based on the date of service. In effect I believe you have shortened the legal period that I have to pay or appeal.

It clearly complies where required in relation to the appeals deadline.

---

The one place it fails is that it fails to specifically make reference to 'Schedule 1' which is mandatory content noted by the main body of the Act. It does, however, then include all of the necessary information from Sch 1.