PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Interesting one?! 'No right turn' whilst reversing! Western Road, Romford, Was captured on a 'no right turn' camera whilst reversing
user69
post Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 23:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



Hi guys,

Long term lurker, love what you do.

The driver was captured on a no right turn camera but interestingly, there was no right turn. Rather, the driver reversed into the right turn (thereby turning left?).
I've viewed their evidence on the portal and the video shows the vehicle heading backwards.


I think it's pretty obvious that I should appeal stating that no contravention occurred but I wanted to check with people much smarter than me, first, in case I cock it up smile.gif
Would that be the correct course to take?

Could you let me know if it's appropriate to mention in the appeal the reason for the reversing, e.g. that the driver was stopping to use phone in a safe place (genuine reason)? Or would this be negated somehow by the double yellows? Would it be better to state that they were turning around? (I'm not sure if they would be able to retrieve further footage from the cam that day but fyi if they could they'd see the car stopping there for a short amount of time)

I did a pretty thorough search and could find no threads like this one so at the least I hope this is a new one for you!


Location: Western Road, Romford - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5787357,0...6384!8i8192
Video here: https://youtu.be/JlbY3pQx6k0
Redacted PCN (let me know if I've redacted too much/you would like more info):






Note: I have since emailed the email address stated on the back page (today, 17/04) with a message along the lines of 'this only shows the vehicle moving backwards. Please confirm this is the correct video and no contravention occurred and cancel the PCN or alternatively, please provide the correct video').
Note 2: I recognise I've left this quite late with my last day to appeal and still be eligible for the reduced rate being on the 21st April. Any speedy replies would be greatly appreciated (although I doubt I'll get a reply from the email address regarding the above before the 21st).


Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance smile.gif

This post has been edited by user69: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 23:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 55)
Advertisement
post Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 23:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
user69
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 17:21
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 15:44) *
The tribunal building is shut for normal business - personal hearings are currently by phone and usually don't take longer than 10-15 mins.

Wow, if so, that's a poor show by them as all the correspondence I've received implies it isn't, e.g.: the letter sent to me after appealing ('ETA Schedule Personal Notification') 'Please bring this letter with you when you come for your hearing, as you will need to show it to reception.', as well as the address and other wording in that letter, etc.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Mon, 29 Jun 2020 - 17:23
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



In person hearings are starting up again by the end of July I think. If in doubt phone up and ask.


--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 12:49
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



Welp, I've just received a letter stating it is indeed over the phone!
Thanks for clarifying guys
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 13:48
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (user69 @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 13:49) *
Welp, I've just received a letter stating it is indeed over the phone!
Thanks for clarifying guys


wait until i do the draft i have planned for you. You can ten decide if you want to have a hearing over the phone or allow the adjudicator to decide on the papers


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 14:08
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 14:48) *
QUOTE (user69 @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 13:49) *
Welp, I've just received a letter stating it is indeed over the phone!
Thanks for clarifying guys


wait until i do the draft i have planned for you. You can ten decide if you want to have a hearing over the phone or allow the adjudicator to decide on the papers

Sure thing. Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 13:29
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 14:48) *
QUOTE (user69 @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 13:49) *
Welp, I've just received a letter stating it is indeed over the phone!
Thanks for clarifying guys


wait until i do the draft i have planned for you. You can ten decide if you want to have a hearing over the phone or allow the adjudicator to decide on the papers


Hey PMB, just a note that we're approaching the 11th which I think is my last day to upload evidence smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 14:30
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (user69 @ Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 14:29) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 14:48) *
QUOTE (user69 @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 13:49) *
Welp, I've just received a letter stating it is indeed over the phone!
Thanks for clarifying guys


wait until i do the draft i have planned for you. You can ten decide if you want to have a hearing over the phone or allow the adjudicator to decide on the papers


Hey PMB, just a note that we're approaching the 11th which I think is my last day to upload evidence smile.gif


I know. I have had a pretty rough couple of weeks but am up to snuff now. I have yours and one other to do today and tomorrow and will do so check back tomorrow night


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 12:12
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 15:30) *
QUOTE (user69 @ Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 14:29) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 14:48) *
QUOTE (user69 @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 13:49) *
Welp, I've just received a letter stating it is indeed over the phone!
Thanks for clarifying guys


wait until i do the draft i have planned for you. You can ten decide if you want to have a hearing over the phone or allow the adjudicator to decide on the papers


Hey PMB, just a note that we're approaching the 11th which I think is my last day to upload evidence smile.gif


I know. I have had a pretty rough couple of weeks but am up to snuff now. I have yours and one other to do today and tomorrow and will do so check back tomorrow night

I knew you hadn't forgotten biggrin.gif Sorry to hear that, if there's anything I can do to help just shout
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 12:39
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (user69 @ Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 13:12) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 15:30) *
QUOTE (user69 @ Wed, 8 Jul 2020 - 14:29) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 14:48) *
QUOTE (user69 @ Tue, 30 Jun 2020 - 13:49) *
Welp, I've just received a letter stating it is indeed over the phone!
Thanks for clarifying guys


wait until i do the draft i have planned for you. You can ten decide if you want to have a hearing over the phone or allow the adjudicator to decide on the papers


Hey PMB, just a note that we're approaching the 11th which I think is my last day to upload evidence smile.gif


I know. I have had a pretty rough couple of weeks but am up to snuff now. I have yours and one other to do today and tomorrow and will do so check back tomorrow night

I knew you hadn't forgotten biggrin.gif Sorry to hear that, if there's anything I can do to help just shout


Let me know the case number please


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 20:41
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



At last add the required detail at the top and download to the portal

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppV0S7RNxF...chWEYR?e=gI2b9f


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Mon, 13 Jul 2020 - 14:23
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 9 Jul 2020 - 21:41) *
At last add the required detail at the top and download to the portal

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppV0S7RNxF...chWEYR?e=gI2b9f

Sorry, forgot to come back to you on this. Just wanted to say thanks for your time, it's an impressive doc - looks it took some real effort to put together. I now know that kindness on the internet does exist!

Just a few days to go now, I'll be back soon to let you know the outcome.


If you still need it, the case number is 2200214934
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 19 Jul 2020 - 11:30
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



2200214934



Mr. appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in respect of an alleged prohibited turn, the turn in question being a right turn from Western Road, Romford, into a ‘loading area’ opposite to the Romford United Reformed Church Building. The prohibition is created by Article 4 of, and item 18 of Schedule 3 to, The Havering (Prescribed Routes) (No.1) (Consolidation) Traffic Order 2015 (“the Order”). The Order has led to a number of appeals and, in my view, some re-drafting is required.

Mr. raises a number of interesting and, in my view, meritorious, grounds of appeal but I can decide the case on two straightforward grounds.

I should add that, had Mr. not provided evidence of the signage at the location in question, there would have been no evidence of signage at all. It is axiomatic that proof of an allegation of performing a prohibited turn requires evidence of signage adequately informing motorists that a turn that is physically available them and which they might be contemplating is prohibited; without evidence of such signage an EA has no hope of proving a contravention of the prohibition.

The EA says in its case summary:

“The keeper of the vehicle has a local address and therefore is likely to have been to this location before, therefore being aware of the restrictions in place.”

This is no answer to the lack of evidence of signage. It flies in the face of the decision of Adjudicator Mr. Anthony Chan in the case of Judge v. LB Camden (216028611A, 1 August 2016) in which he said:

“Contravention [of a prohibition on a turn] is based on a non-compliance with signage and not personal knowledge.”

This is obviously correct. Therefore, the EA would not, without Mr. assistance, have had sufficient evidence to prove its case. As it happens, Mr. photographs provide evidence of ‘no right turn’ signage facing motorists in the south-west bound lane of Western Road. The sign informs motorists approaching the sign that the right turn that is ahead is prohibited. An appellant should not be in a position of providing evidence against her or himself but I have nonetheless had regard to that evidence.

The CCTV footage begins with Mr. car across the broken white line in the middle of Western Road, facing north-east. The right side of the car is in fact in the south-west bound lane. The vehicle is reversing and the footage shows it continue to reverse across the north-east bound lane and the footway, which has a dropped kerb, and into some kind of access road or service road. I am against Mr. argument that he did not perform a right turn. The evidence shows, and I find, that the vehicle did turn right. The fact that it performed the manoeuvre in reverse does not alter that fact.

There is no evidence, however, that the vehicle must have passed the ‘no right turn’ sign to get into the position in which it is seen in the CCTV footage. I compared the photograph provided by Mr. , showing the sign in question and some bus stop clearway markings, with the CCTV footage which also show those bus stop clearway markings. This demonstrates that, at the point the footage commences, the vehicle is to the south-west of the sign. Indeed, facing the way it is shown at the beginning of the footage, namely north-east, it is very unlikely that the car did pass that sign at any point in the course of the manoeuvre. Rather, based on the evidence provided by the EA and Mr. , the vehicle would at all times have been facing the rear of the ‘no right turn’ sign that faces traffic travelling south-west, for whom a right turn is prohibited’.

The EA’s case summary makes the point:

“The signage is illuminated at night and would have been visible in the appellant’s rear view and wing mirror.”

This is not correct. The sign would have been visible to Mr. through the windscreen. After all, his vehicle was pointing towards it. The vehicle, and its driver, were, however, facing the rear of the sign and not the front. In order to see the ‘no right turn’ sign itself, there would have to have been a mirror placed in the road, further north-east of the sign and facing to the south-west, so that the sign would be visible via this additional mirror in the road. There is no evidence of such an additional mirror and it is absurd even to contemplate the possibility that it exists.

Put shortly, there is no evidence that the vehicle passed the ‘no right turn’ sign, or that the driver was otherwise able to see anything but the rear of that sign. To quote from the decision in Judge v. LB Camden above:

“One cannot fail to comply with a sign that one was not in a position to see.”

Again, that is obviously correct. In those circumstances the contravention is not proved.

Further, there is no evidence that the vehicle entered a loading area. The loading area is visible in an aerial photograph provided by the EA. It is accessed via the service road into which Mr. car reversed, and then by crossing a marked area, but the footage does not show the vehicle entering a loading area. I would be very surprised if the loading area was part of the road to which the EA’s jurisdiction under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 extended; it has the appearance of private property to which the public do not have access. It may be that the Order is, to that extent, ultra vires. But that is not a point I need to decide because there is no evidence that the vehicle turned right into a loading area. The contravention, based on the terms of the Order, is not proved. That is consistent with the decision of Mr. Chan in the case of Lucchesi v. LB Havering (2190222954, 8 July 2019) which deals with the same alleged contravention on similar facts.

I do not have to decide the other points raised by Mr.

Authority Response


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 19 Jul 2020 - 11:33
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



In order to see the ‘no right turn’ sign itself, there would have to have been a mirror placed in the road, further north-east of the sign and facing to the south-west, so that the sign would be visible via this additional mirror in the road. There is no evidence of such an additional mirror and it is absurd even to contemplate the possibility that it exists.

LOL - the adjudicator had some fun with this one. Must be nice to get the odd one that breaks the tedium.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 19 Jul 2020 - 11:45
Post #54


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP---Well done for seeing it through.

What's other members views on a costs submission?

For future cases in Western Road this has to be considered (my bold):-

"I would be very surprised if the loading area was part of the road to which the EA’s jurisdiction under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 extended; it has the appearance of private property to which the public do not have access. It may be that the Order is, to that extent, ultra vires".

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sun, 19 Jul 2020 - 11:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 19 Jul 2020 - 17:38
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Mad Mick V we don't want to push this point: we know that the order submitted in the evidence pack is out of date and has been replaced, and if the council clocks on to this and starts submitting the current order in its evidence packs, the whole "loading area" defence disappears.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Fri, 31 Jul 2020 - 11:18
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



Thanks again PMB and everyone else who commented - I'm very grateful smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:36
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here