Council PCN through post. Very strange road layout

jgallcash

thanks Neil.

this is the most up to date wording. does anybody have any thoghts on this? I'm going to submit this and then wait to see what they say....am i right in thinking i will still be able to pay the reduced rate of £60 to Islington if they reject? I think the 14th day is next Friday (21st Dec)

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) measuring 2M wide against my cars width of 1.95M, I believe that it would be reasonable 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) Whilst the individual signs may be compliant, the use of so many signs in such an illogical manner renders them unclear. I have stated above the volume of signs to digest in such a short period and refer to (Carey v TfL and Grimwood v Croydon) in that signage must be clear.

3) 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 to be the case; 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.

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,

gingerbeardman

My girlfriend was stung in this, too

peter_the_piper

http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/story.aspx?brand=ISLGOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsislg&itemid=WeED02%20Dec%202009%2014%3A21%3A09%3A057
Latest news, might be worth looking at the paper and keep an eye on this.

gingerbeardman

Currently the top "news story" on the islingtongazette .co.uk website is:

Call for 13,000 drivers to have fines refunded
which detail this scam of a junction and how much money it has made the council. they trap 50+ people per day.

there is a campaign lead by councillors to have everybody refunded. but to be refunded you have to appeal.

Sorry I can't post links.

edit: snap!

gingerbeardman

There's also another article about the same road:

Anger as traffic camera collects £1.2m
17 September 2009

where it states in the last quarter they were trapping 60+ people per day

peter_the_piper

gingerbeardman wrote: »

Currently the top "news story" on the islingtongazette .co.uk website is:

Call for 13,000 drivers to have fines refunded
which detail this scam of a junction and how much money it has made the council. they trap 50+ people per day.

there is a campaign lead by councillors to have everybody refunded. but to be refunded you have to appeal.

Sorry I can't post links.

edit: snap!

Link above.

jgallcash

this has given me the confidence to appeal regardless. Thanks all

peter_the_piper

It appalls me that councils can be so venal that, when a measure like this is shown to be misleading, that nothing is done to remove it. The only changes they have made are mods to the central lines which were illegal and burning off the cyclists image, so that 2 means of appealing were erased. I suppose they would say that the rates would have to go up if they removed this means of taxing the motorist.

peter_the_piper

Latest chapter.
http://www.islingtongazette.co.uk/content/islington/gazette/news/story.aspx?brand=ISLGOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newsislg&itemid=WeED02%20Dec%202009%2014%3A21%3A09%3A057

biscuitdunker

Thanks peter, from that article:

A council spokesman said that "any motorist may appeal a ticket under our commonsense parking policy" and that each appeal will be "determined on an individual basis". He added that as the council had "no wish to issue penalties unfairly", and it would be "re-marking the central portion with a more visible material to make it clear it is not for general access".

So, there you go. They've not done anything to the central portion yet, so in effect, this council spokesman is agreeing that it's still confusing.