Ranelagh Bridge appeal
IN THE PARKING AND TRAFFIC
APPEALS TRIBUNAL CASE NO. 907035116
BETWEEN
DR THOMAS BOSTOCK Claimant
AND
TRANSPORT FOR LONDON Respondent
APPELLANT’S SUBMISSION
1. My appeal is made on the basis that no penalty is payable under the Charging Scheme, because I submit that the one-way slip-road in question cannot either properly or safely have been intended to be included in the congestion zone as extended earlier this year, and accordingly the warnings and signage were misleading, illogical and consequently misunderstood by significant numbers of motorists, including myself on three separate occasions for which penalty notices were issued.
2. I have been driving along Gloucester Terrace for many years in order to obtain access to the Westway, because it was the only way to get on to the outbound carriageway when leaving London from the area north of the Paddington roundabout/flyover complex. It would not have been necessary for drivers to research a suitable alternative means of accessing the Westway when the Congestion Zone was extended, unless TfL had mistakenly included a short stretch of one-way slip-road by allowing the original slip-road to remain open, thus unwittingly “trapping†law-abiding drivers.
3. There is no dispute as to Tfl’s duty under the regulations to give adequate warning of affected roads. It was not clear from the signs put in place that drivers would have to enter the Congestion Zone just for a few yards in order to get on to the Westway to drive out of London from outside the Zone. It is submitted that no such anomaly exists anywhere else within the Scheme. It is suggested that this anomaly may have resulted from a genuine and unwitting planning error on the part of TfL.
4. Drivers cannot be responsible for planning errors under the Scheme. To have attempted to avoid the Zone at the point where the signage was placed or even worse, once already on the slip-road, would have constituted a clear and serious danger to fast-flowing traffic. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that the fault for any alleged breaches should be accepted by the Authorities (who have unfortunately chosen not to exercise their discretion, however, to waive the charges where it would be equitable to do so) but drivers should nevertheless not be penalised under the rules, and it is submitted that this and other similar appeals should therefore be allowed.
Thomas Bostock
25 June 2007
