3 point turn at entrance to one way street |
3 point turn at entrance to one way street |
Mon, 16 Mar 2020 - 17:30
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 25 Sep 2019 Member No.: 105,909 |
Apologies for bringing this to the Forum at a late stage.
My daughter was issued with a PCN for “Failing to drive in the direction shown by an arrow on a blue sign (proceeding in the wrong direction)”. She used the entrance to a one way side street to do a 3 point turn so as to safely go back in the opposite direction on the main road. She appealed on this basis. Her appeal was rejected. Below is the Notice of Rejection, 4 photo’s and the video. NOR P1 - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1l5aRQEmLW...b6gD-oLteiyf9Jc NOR P2- https://drive.google.com/open?id=1NE1TSVXeb...LA_LaoxGJRQJbBH https://drive.google.com/open?id=1woTzMA00e...n99lUFnRe_okyOC https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zbeerGXq_...4jIA9hnt3Yacvee https://drive.google.com/open?id=1fxVAlajKf...kyToJOtkb3mKgtL https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sie4ebBcZ...Ppdh8LkGxMOAtH9 Video - https://drive.google.com/open?id=16yiy-hhyN...nwFnmdOE9U4eC-y Google map https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5547505,0...33;8i8192?hl=en I think there are 2 grounds for appeal at London Tribunals. My daughter had driven past the rectangular one way signs whilst proceeding in the correct direction. She than did a 3 point turn and proceeded in the wrong direction, however there are no visible signs when proceeding in the wrong direction. She cannot have committed the offence of "F"ailing to drive in the direction shown by an arrow on a blue sign" if the signs were not visible (they were facing the other way). The 4th paragraph of the Notice of Rejection states that “The sign has a white arrow on a blue circle”. It does not, the signs are white arrow on a blue rectangle. There are no circular signs and no evidence of any. This incorrect statement on the appeal shows that London Borough of Newham have not wholly and correctly considered her appeal. Instead, they have sent out a generic rejection containing wrong information. What would be the formal basis of appeal here? Should she appeal on both of these bases? This post has been edited by NaughtyBoy12: Mon, 16 Mar 2020 - 17:31 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 16 Mar 2020 - 17:30
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 06:57
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
Have a look at this one and the following two posts:-
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1267351 Because the stuff is online, the only thing to be argued is that there is prejudice in that your daughter cannot be expected to wade through and absorb the Council's evidence in the time given. Depending on the adjudicator, they might adjourn or might conclude that her right to a fair "trial" has been compromised. Mick This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 07:00 |
|
|
Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 07:56
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 4,308 Joined: 9 May 2014 Member No.: 70,515 |
1) You could phone today and ask for an adjournment: LT are usually sympathetic.
2) You could post Newham's submission here for the experts to look at. Begin with the list of contents and the 2-3 page summary sheet as to why Newham think the appeal should be dismissed. |
|
|
Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 08:33
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 25 Sep 2019 Member No.: 105,909 |
Thank you Mick. I think the Evidence should help her case as it includes the original PCN which had been lost. The PCN shows Contravention Code 32d (proceeding in the wrong direction), which is failure to obey a proscribed sign. Whereas the Evidence shows there is no proscribed sign, rather there are only information signs indicating a Traffic Order is in place. The Contravention Code should have been 32w (One way traffic).
|
|
|
Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 10:19
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
We seem to have gone from making representations to the council to appeal hearing tomorrow. What happened in between and where are the documents? If we are to help I think you need an adjournment
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 10:28
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Closed Posts: 9,710 Joined: 28 Mar 2007 Member No.: 11,355 |
@PMB
With respect, if the Council has cocked up why should they be dug out of a hole of their own making? Either the adjudicator adjourns anyway or the appellant wins because of late submission of evidence. I cannot see any other outcome. I can see your point on advice and seeing the documents so the best case possible is put forward but we have an opportunity here which should not be missed IMO. Mick |
|
|
Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 10:57
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Didn't notice that Mick
OP send this later today to the tribunal via the portal fill in the date wher I have put DD/MM/YY QUOTE A collateral challenge under the ground that
The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case If the authority fail to fulfil the requirements of the relevant regulations then the only penalty that could be demanded is nil The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993require at regulation 4(2) that (6) Where the local authority delivers representations to the proper officer under this regulation, it shall at the same time send a copy of the representations to the appellant. (2) Upon receipt of a copy of a notice of appeal sent under this regulation, the local authority shall within 7 days deliver to the proper officer a copy of— (a) the original representations; (b) a copy of the relevant charge notice (if any); and © a copy of the notice served under section 71(6) of, or (as the case may be) paragraph 2(7) of Schedule 6 to, the Act. This appeal was registered on the DD/MM/YY, the authority submitted no evidence to the portal until the 1st if June. For a hearing scheduled on the 3rd of June allowing only one clear day for my perusal and submission of any evidence or rebuttal to that evidence causing prejudice to my conducting of the case. Nor have the authority complied with the requirements of regulation 5(6) (6) Where the local authority delivers representations to the proper officer under this regulation, it shall at the same time send a copy of the representations to the appellant. This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 - 10:57 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 08:03
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 25 Sep 2019 Member No.: 105,909 |
My daughter won on the basis of inadequate signage.
The Adjudicator kindly allowed me to speak on my Daughter’s behalf in order to avoid background whispering on the phone call. The appeal was made on the basis of late submission of evidence and an incorrect contravention code. 2200133989 Reasons “It is for the enforcing authority (the Authority) to prove a contravention has occurred on the balance of probabilities. The law is clear that an appellant does not have to prove anything. However if the Authority produces sufficient evidence to support its allegation and an appellant then makes factual assertions that it is said show a contravention did not occur, I will normally have to be able to identify sufficiently reliable evidence to support those assertions. The law is also clear that it is the responsibility of motorists to ensure they are aware of the restriction that operate in the areas they choose to drive and park. My power to allow appeals is limited. I can only allow an appeal if the Authority has acted illegally or failed to follow proper procedures. If an Authority has acted within the law I cannot allow an appeal merely because I feel the Authority has acted harshly, because I have sympathy for the motorist or because I would have given more weight to mitigating circumstances put forward by the motorist. Where a contravention has occurred and the motorist asks that it should not be enforced because of difficult or unfortunate circumstances relating to the contravention or because of his or her personal circumstances, only the Authority has the power to accept this mitigation and cancel the parking or other traffic penalty. Again, the law is clear, if having properly considered the motorists representations, the Authority decides the mitigation does not justify cancelling the Penalty Charge Notice (“PCN”), I have no power to interfere with that decision. This appeal was decided having heard evidence from the appellant over the telephone via her representative. The appellant's vehicle was parked near the entrance of a one way street. It seems she as unaware this was a one way street because she manoeuvred the vehicle out of the parking space, performed a five point turn and exited the road the wrong way. However the only evidence of signage indicating the street was a one way street I have been provided with is the CCTV which shows that there are two signs at the entrance to the street. However thee are facing outwards - away from the direction the appellant was driving. She could not possibly have seen them. Therefore the Authority has to show that there was other signage or markings that would have put the reasonable motorist on notice that they were or may be in a one way street. The Authority has failed to do this. No evidence of signage on the road itself was provided. I note there are road markings at the entrance to the street but these are faded and in any event would have been difficult for the appellant to see. I do not find they are sufficient to have put the appellant on notice that restrictions were or may have been in force. I have considered if I can infer that if the appellant's vehicle was parked in the street she must have passed the signs when she entered it. However I find this would be too speculative because I have no evidence about how her car came to be in the street or who was driving it when it entered the street. I therefore allow the appeal on the basis of inadequate signage. The appellant's representative also mounted a complicated and convoluted legal argument which I do not go in to in detail because it does not have any merit.” |
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 08:37
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
When did:
She used the entrance to a one way side street to do a 3 point turn so as to safely go back in the opposite direction on the main road and: used the space available at the beginning on a one way street to undertake a 3 point turn in order to safely return in the direction that I came from. The alternative would have been to undertake a U-turn across the main road. and: I was driving in a westerly direction on Romford Rd and turned left in a southerly direction into Sheringham Ave. Having proceeded into Sheringham Ave I undertook a U-turn in order to return to Romford Rd to turn right in an easterly direction, back in the direction which I came from. I did not see any signs prohibiting a U-turn. become: The appellant's vehicle was parked near the entrance of a one way street. It seems she as unaware this was a one way street because she manoeuvred the vehicle out of the parking space, performed a five point turn and exited the road the wrong way. ?? This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 08:39 |
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 09:22
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 25 Sep 2019 Member No.: 105,909 |
@hcandersen.
The Adjudicator alone!! Following his examination of the Authority Evidence after our appeal based on late Authority Evidence and incorrect contravention code. The items you quote are only in this discussion thread and are true. My daughter’s full evidence is as drafted in post #16 and was submitted with PMB modification in post #17. The appeal stated, “I was driving in a southerly direction on Sheringham Ave and undertook a U-turn in order turn right into Romford Rd to proceed in an easterly direction. I did not see any signs prohibiting a U-turn.” This post has been edited by NaughtyBoy12: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 09:47 |
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 10:38
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Sounds like the adjudicator was sent reinforcements and went to a dance.
|
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 10:48
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
So the basis of this comment is what exactly? The appellant's vehicle was parked near the entrance of a one way street. It seems she as unaware this was a one way street because she manoeuvred the vehicle out of the parking space, performed a five point turn and exited the road the wrong way. Anyway, unless the authority request a review and are successful it's all over. |
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 11:36
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
We helped the OP put their case in the best light for their purposes, the council did not provide sufficient evidence of signage, what we do isn't it? and regardless of the has no merit comment I would like to see the explanation as to why that is so
Well done OP -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 14:17
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
If evidence does not reflect the truth, and written submissions are evidence, then I'll reserve my congratulations. Two wrongs do not make a right.
The placing of the arrows on top of other signs - I seem to remember that there are maximum and minimum clearance limits - and the apparent absence of any advance warning signs - the relevance of which depends on which version of events is correct - should have been sufficient. |
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 14:35
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 60 Joined: 25 Sep 2019 Member No.: 105,909 |
Thank you to PMB, Mick, hcandersen, stamfordman and others who have taken an interest and responded. I have no experience or expertise in this area and could not have defended without your kind input and assistance.
We won, saving my daughter £130, which she would probably have borrowed from me anyway. She made an honest mistake and so did the Authority. The Adjudicator was professional and allowed sufficient time for all of points to be exercised and understood. In fact, he was running 15 minutes late for his next Adjudication when the call was concluded. Phone based evidence is not an ideal solution to what would normally be a face to face conversation with screens and paperwork to be jointly consulted upon. The Adjudicators position was adversarial and one sided in every respect. None of the arguments we made were accepted. If he was a barrister appointed by the Authority to argue their defence, he could not have done a better job. In conclusion, he made his own mind up based on evidence from the Authority, or lack of it, and we had no idea it would go our way until the adjudication was published. |
|
|
Thu, 4 Jun 2020 - 14:41
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
If evidence does not reflect the truth, and written submissions are evidence, then I'll reserve my congratulations. Two wrongs do not make a right. The placing of the arrows on top of other signs - I seem to remember that there are maximum and minimum clearance limits - and the apparent absence of any advance warning signs - the relevance of which depends on which version of events is correct - should have been sufficient. So in your opinion people should incriminate themselves. Get real will you the whole legal system is based upon people presenting their evidence in the best light The OP did, try reading their submission they told no lies . The council failed to present evidence to the standard required by the adjudicator This OP had a telephone hearing and placed themselves under the scrutiny of the adjudicator. We don't know what questions were asked or how they were answered, but we do no that the adjudicator did not accept that based on the evidence before them that the OP had seen the signs, The adjudicator did consider the prospect that given the position of the car they must have but felt unable to find that so to the required standard of proof. Wouldn't it be nice if councils to a leaf out of your book -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Fri, 5 Jun 2020 - 10:03
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
If evidence does not reflect the truth, and written submissions are evidence, then I'll reserve my congratulations. Two wrongs do not make a right. In our legal system judicial office holders make findings based on the evidence placed before them. As one High Court judge recently commented, a search for the "truth" is best reserved for philosophers. I also can't recall a single instance where someone won a case on a basis you disagreed with and you didn't "reserve [your] congratulations", generally if a case doesn't go "your" way you either ignore it, or make some begrudging comment about how the OP mislead the tribunal, or the adjudicator got it wrong. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 00:43 |