A Croydon cabbie has won her fight with the council to overturn £650 worth of fines after the council enforced a no-right turn rule on Addiscombe Road.
Croydon Council installed the no-right turn 14 years ago but had not put any law enforcement into place until recently.
In October 2013, with no notice or advertisement, the council installed CCTV to catch drivers turning right onto Cherry Orchard Road and the footage revealed many black cab drivers were using it as a shortcut to East Croydon taxi rank.
Victory for Colourful Cabbie
Denise Borg, famously known on the streets of Croydon for her pink London taxi, was amongst 230 taxi drivers who had been stung by the new rule. She appealed to the council on the basis that she had not been made aware that the rules had come into force.
She said: “We won on the grounds that they never advertised that they had changed the rules.
“You can’t let someone think they are doing ok for 14 years and then suddenly change it without changing any signage or notification.”
Council Advise Precedent Not Set
Croydon Council said that there had been 17 appeals officially lodged, only 6 of which have been approved.
A spokesman for the council, said: “The signs and road markings at the location in question have been in place for the past 14 years and clearly advise drivers to turn left.
“A small number of drivers have exercised their right to appeal to the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service after being issued a penalty charge notice for failing to comply with the directions.
“Of 17 appeals lodged, 10 have been refused and one is awaiting decision.
“While the council accepts that a small number have succeeded, it should be noted that the adjudicator stated that the road markings and signage are fully compliant and the decisions are determined on a case-by-case basis.
“The adjudicator further stated that the decision does not prevent the council from continuing to enforce this mandatory direction. In this instance, however, the appeal was allowed.
“The decision refers only to the appeals of the individuals in question and does not set a precedent regarding any other appeal nor, indeed, other penalty charge notices issued under similar circumstances.”