Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: FawkesU3 Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 22:47
Post #1505552

Evening All

Received a TFL PCN with the alleged contravention 50L turning left into a road with a no left turn prohibition.

Circumstances were that not being familiar with the area, I was trying to park in the street previous (Balfern Street) to the one in question (Stanmer Street). (I was heading along Battersea Park Road towards Battersea Park from Wandsworth). Balfern Street was no entry so took the next left. Neither myself or my passenger saw any no left turn sign.

I requested CCTV footage of the contravention from TFL as well as information on the relevant signage.

Below is the original PCN:



The CCTV footage can be accessed here:

https://youtu.be/5q3hZxuNdBE

The vehicle turns left into Stanmer Street at 1:07 to 1:24 in the video

The letter subsequently received from TFL with a photograph dated 8/11/2018 showing the signage is below:





Google streetview of the location is as follows:

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.471722,-0.1670662,3a,75y,0.05h,103.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0Mdaju4dha3ZAs3pfwFlRg!2e0!5s20180501T000000!7i16384!8i8192


Given the information they have now presented me with, it does not look like I have much of case to make for what was a genuine failure to spot the 'no left turn' sign.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks.

Posted by: stamfordman Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 22:59
Post #1505554

if you look back in time there was 'Ahead only' in the left lane and the solitary sign was on a yellow background, so more obvious.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4717716,-0.167109,3a,75y,42.48h,90.6t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sdB6VLnuVleAz0GKB7cWBmg!2e0!5s20080701T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Posted by: FawkesU3 Tue, 6 Aug 2019 - 15:44
Post #1505725

Hi Stamfordman, thanks - that is a good spot. Given that the "Ahead Only" in no longer painted in the lane prior to the left turn and the signage is without the yellow background as you point out, would that give any weight to the argument that I did not spot the current sign?

or is this all irrelevant as far as TFL concerned as they have provided evidence that a no left turn sign exists at the location?

Posted by: FawkesU3 Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 07:28
Post #1506149

Good monring

Does anyone feel that I may have grounds to contest this one based on the change to the no left turn signage and street markings pointed out by Stamfordman visible on street view or should I bite the bullet and pay in the discount period?

Thanks

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 09:35
Post #1506175

I think I would be arguing that the signage is inadequate. There is only the one sign on the left and it is likely that a clear view of it was obstructed by the scaffolding that is visible in the CCTV The photo they sent to confirm the signage is meaningless as it is a year old

Posted by: Mr Meldrew Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 09:56
Post #1506178

I agree on the signage. There is evidence from GSV that TfL previously saw the need for an outstanding yellow border on the solitary sign and supplementary “Ahead only” road markings. You have grounds to argue that the current arrangement, i.e. the absence of either but no less visual clutter, has become inadequate since the prohibition is not conspicuous against a very busy backdrop. Not sure on the scaffolding point though as I think it could be nearer the camera than the sign.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 11:35
Post #1506220

QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 10:56)

Posted by: FawkesU3 Thu, 8 Aug 2019 - 11:57
Post #1506226

Thanks for your feedback. The scaffolding I think may be after the turn itself but in the camera's line of sight but in any event the sign is not obvious.


Neither myself nor the person in the passenger seat saw the sign and we were both looking towards the side road to check that is was not a 'No entry' street like the previous one where we were actually trying to park.

Posted by: FawkesU3 Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 13:37
Post #1514753

Hi All, have now received a Notice of Rejection (see below) but with some inaccuracies in the response from TFL. There was no dispute that the vehicle turned left but the representation referred to inadequate signage and how in the past the sign has a yellow background and "AHEAD ONLY" markings on the road (GSV 2009). TFL is stating that "carriageway markings are in place". This is not born out by the video evidence (only Keep clear signs on the road). The last Google Street View (2018) does not show these either nor does the photo signage provided by TFL themselves dated Nov 2018 - just the no left turn sign.

https://ibb.co/6vj0W1v
https://ibb.co/xXPdPHj


I am minded to go to appeal to argue this point. Any further thoughts?

Thanks again.

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 13:59
Post #1514757

We need to see your representation to give proper advice but on refamiliarizing myself with the thread I would be going to adjudication

Posted by: FawkesU3 Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 19:02
Post #1514832

Apologies. I am now providing below a copy of the representation sent to TFL:

https://ibb.co/Nnq56CD

Posted by: PASTMYBEST Thu, 12 Sep 2019 - 22:23
Post #1514888

Good there is plenty to go on, you got all the points in and TFL did not consider them a strong appeal can be made

Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 13 Sep 2019 - 17:38
Post #1515100

Well TFL has clearly failed to consider its own evidence so I would go for it.

Posted by: Mr Meldrew Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 00:27
Post #1515171

You could consider this which could form the basis of an appeal if converted to first person, then seek further opinion before deciding what to do.

The relevant duties placed on an enforcement authority when dealing with your representations against the imposition of the penalty charge are contained in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the Act”). Schedule 1, Provision 1(7) requires that:

“It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—
(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides”

The Notice of Rejection issued by the authority summarises this requirement:

“When considering representation and appeals, we fully consider all the circumstances present including any mitigating factors and whether it would be appropriate to apply our discretion over the enforcement of a PCN.”

The significance of the duty to consider representations relates to your opportunity to pay the discounted penalty charge if your representations are rejected. Therefore, the duty to consider representations fully is highly significant in terms of the payment of the penalty, in addition to your reasonable expectation that your representations would be properly considered.

There were significant failings in the authority’s consideration of your representations, which can be summarised thus:

- There was no recognition that the signage shown in the photo supplied was claimed to be inadequate to meet statutory requirement in the context of the very busy visual backdrop at the time of the alleged contravention.

- Neither was it recognised that the backdrop of scaffolding at the time and general visual clutter rendered the sign less obvious, and that images from the past illustrated that previously it was deemed necessary to have a yellow-backed sign to aid visibility, yet the general visual clutter has not improved nowadays, and that previously ‘Ahead Only’ road markings allowed no room for doubt that vehicles could not turn left.

- The authority explained that carriageway markings were in place informing drivers that they may only travel straight ahead. This is erroneous and not born out by the moving and still images even though the authority gave material weight to it.

- There has been no suggestion by you that you did not see the signs because you were inattentive or did not understand them, yet the authority still explained that the onus is on the driver to be aware of road signs and the Highway Code.

- The only part of the letter that attempted to address the adequacy of the signage was a short sentence that stated, “The signage in place at this location gives clear and sufficient information and meets statutory requirements.”

Therefore, the only reference to your clear challenge to the adequacy of the sign in the context of the very busy visual backdrop was as stated immediately above, with no reference at all to the backdrop or the earlier need for a yellow-backed sign and ‘Ahead Only’ road markings. Just the brevity of the statement provides evidence that the authority has failed to demonstrate that they identified and properly considered the points set out in your representations. Instead of indicating which of your points had been considered, the letter demonstrates an inflexible, and in my view fettered position, which appears to have been adopted because the authority has determined that, “Your vehicle was observed carrying out a left turn when unpermitted”.

In my view, the letter demonstrates that the enforcement authority neither carefully considered your clear representations nor did they properly consider the “circumstances present” as they purported to do, and their duty required. Consequently, I believe that the authority has failed to fulfil their duty to consider your representations pursuant to Schedule 1, Provision 1(7) of the Act, or in accordance with the general principles of public law.

Posted by: Mr Meldrew Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 10:30
Post #1515374

Putting aside failure to consider for a moment, I think the authority’s photograph above dated 8/11/2018 and showing the signage against the clear sky actually helps, and I would be making a bee-line for the adjudicator clutching it in my sweaty palms. You were not on the pavement and that was not your view of the sign. Notice the clutter of signs and busy shop frontage, now add into the visual chaos the unknown effect of the backdrop of scaffolding and imagine moving the viewpoint to where you actually were on the road. Relying upon the sign in the image to deliver the message in the circumstances of the actual viewing perspective against that lot really is inadequate in my opinion, but more importantly I would argue that this was once also the opinion of the authority as past GSV images show that it was deemed necessary to add a yellow backing board to the sign and ‘Ahead Only’ on the road. Fast forward to today and the visual scene has not changed significantly, except that the supplementary signage has gone.

Failing to consider clearly includes no consideration of "the circumstances present” which they promised to do, and their duty required.

Posted by: FawkesU3 Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 23:02
Post #1517962

Evening All - thanks for the advice so far. I am about to submit the Appeal to the Adjudicator for a hearing in person.

I have tweaked the suggested draft provided by Mr Meldrew as follows:

-------------------

I dispute the fact that in this case the enforcement authority has properly discharged their duty under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the Act”). Schedule 1, Provision 1(7) to consider representations and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides.

The Notice of Rejection issued by the enforcement authority summarises this requirement:

“When considering representation and appeals, we fully consider all the circumstances present including any mitigating factors and whether it would be appropriate to apply our discretion over the enforcement of a PCN.”

However, despite this statement, there were significant failings in the authority’s consideration of my representations, which can be summarised as follows:

- There was no recognition that the signage shown in the stock photo supplied by the authority was claimed to be inadequate to meet statutory requirement in the context of the very busy visual backdrop at the time of the alleged contravention.

- Neither was it recognised that the backdrop of scaffolding at the time and general visual clutter rendered the sign less obvious, and that images from the past illustrated that previously it was deemed necessary to have a yellow-backed sign to aid visibility, yet the general visual clutter has not improved nowadays, and that previously ‘Ahead Only’ road markings allowed no room for doubt that vehicles could not turn left.

- The authority explained that carriageway markings were in place informing drivers that they may only travel straight ahead. This is erroneous and not borne out by the moving and still images even though the authority gave material weight to it.

- There has been no suggestion by me that I did not see the signs due to being inattentive or not understanding them, yet the authority still explained that the onus is on the driver to be aware of road signs and the Highway Code.

- The only part of the letter that attempted to address the adequacy of the signage was a short sentence that stated, “The signage in place at this location gives clear and sufficient information and meets statutory requirements.”

The only reference in the Rejection to my clear challenge to the adequacy of the sign in the context of the very busy visual backdrop was as stated immediately above, with no reference at all to the backdrop or the earlier need for a yellow-backed sign and ‘Ahead Only’ road markings. Just the brevity of the statement provides evidence that the authority has failed to demonstrate that they identified and properly considered the points set out in my representations. Instead of indicating which of my points had been considered, the letter demonstrates an inflexible position which appears to have been adopted because the authority has determined that, “Your vehicle was observed carrying out a left turn when unpermitted” -something which has not been disputed.

----------------------------

I propose to enclose the video footage, the 3 GSV images and the authority's stock photo of the location from a year ago with the appeal.


Any further suggestions/comments appreciated....

Posted by: Mr Meldrew Wed, 25 Sep 2019 - 11:09
Post #1518036

Suggestion:

Posted by: London-Route101 Fri, 1 Jul 2022 - 12:35
Post #1720895

Worth fighting this, and for the reasons shown in this thread. I went to the Adjudication Tribunal but Transport for London (who issued the 'red route' PCN fine and rejected my mitigation, has just cancelled, so I have won:
"The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest your appeal against the
Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated above.
The Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering the evidence or any details of
the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated
above and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority."

Here is the case I used:

Previously the sign had a yellow border to ensure it was more visible: as shown clearly in this image from 2014
[USE THE LINK FURTHER UP IN THIS THREAD - The one that allows you to see previous Google Streetview of the junction approach]

[Then I used an image (attached) of the street to show: Pedestrian crossing, with traffic lights, Bus, taxi and cycle lane to your left, junction tonight, with cars emerging, Oncoming traffic, some of it crossing INTO STANMER ROAD!]

 
There is clear evidence that TfL previously saw the need for an outstanding yellow border on the solitary sign and supplementary “Ahead only” road markings. The current arrangement, i.e. the absence of either but no less visual clutter, has become inadequate since the prohibition is not conspicuous against a very busy backdrop. (See above)
- There was no recognition in the TFL “rejection of representation” that the signage shown in the photo supplied was claimed to be inadequate to meet the statutory requirements in the context of the very busy visual backdrop at the time of the alleged contravention.

- Neither was it recognised that the backdrop and general visual clutter rendered the sign far less obvious, and that images from the past (see above) illustrated that previously it was deemed necessary to have a yellow-backed sign to aid visibility, yet the general visual clutter has not improved nowadays, and that previously ‘Ahead Only’ road markings allowed no room for doubt that vehicles could not turn left.

- The TFL authority explained that carriageway markings were in place informing drivers that they may only travel straight ahead. This is erroneous and not born out by the moving and still images even though the authority gave material weight to it. The carriageway markings say “KEEP CLEAR” and there is NO RED ROUTE DOUBLE RED LINES FOR OVER 30m BEFORE THE JUNCTION DUE TO THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING LIGHTS AND “no overtaking” CROSS-HATCHES.
... ends...

Good luck.