Hackney 52m Woodberry Grove junction of Seven Sisters Road |
Hackney 52m Woodberry Grove junction of Seven Sisters Road |
Wed, 1 Feb 2023 - 14:05
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 252 Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Member No.: 64,626 |
Hi all,
I received a ticket for turning into a bicycle only lane. I was on my way to a wedding in Stamford Hill. A bus made a u-turn on Seven Sisters Road, causing the car in front of me to swerve and burst his tyre. That car therefore pulled over to the side of the road. As I drove past, I saw that the car belonged to the grandparents of the bride, on their way to this same wedding. I wanted to stop to assist them but was already too far ahead of them. I therefore turned at the next lights to go on Woodberry Grove, which links back to Green Lanes and would enable me to come back on Seven Sisters Road. In the past (a number of years ago), it had been OK to drive on Woodberry Grove and I did not know that this had changed. It was dark and I did not notice the signs indicating that I could not turn onto that road. I have now received a ticket in the post. The link for where this occurred is here: https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5724003,-0....6384!8i8192 Are there any grounds I can appeal on, other than compassionate? Thank you very much. Mo |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 1 Feb 2023 - 14:05
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Wed, 1 Feb 2023 - 20:16
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I think you only have discretion to ask for. There is an advance traffic sign, followed by a no left sign followed by three no left signs at the lights so the fact that the restriction signs cannot be seen from Seven Sisters Road until you are about to turn is not likely to sway an adjudicator.
But given the situation that you were focusing on going back there may be a chance with Hackney and no ask no get. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5718991,-0....6384!8i8192 This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 1 Feb 2023 - 21:53 |
|
|
Mon, 6 Feb 2023 - 22:00
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I might have a bomb-proof appeal for you, but first can we please have the PCN number and number plate, I'd like to have a look at the video.
Stamfordman,the clus is in the red lines, Hackney isn't the highways authority for that bit of the road. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 6 Feb 2023 - 22:09
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
|
|
|
Mon, 6 Feb 2023 - 23:37
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 643 Joined: 21 Nov 2012 Member No.: 58,447 |
The AWSs and the NMV signs aren't illuminated, 30mph road, at night.
Might be worth getting the traffic order, I've seen wedding parties being an exception in one or two of them. -------------------- Please read the sticky here http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1755543 before posting a new case, or possibly after you posted it so that you can edit it. In any event, please read it.
Thanks Never, ever go for a postal decision. |
|
|
Tue, 7 Feb 2023 - 14:12
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 252 Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Member No.: 64,626 |
Thank you all.
The PCN is QZ13452924 VRN is LK06 ULD I think my last day to appeal at the reduced rate is tomorrow. Thank you very much! Mo |
|
|
Tue, 7 Feb 2023 - 14:27
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Looks like they've put the camera in their bit of the road but the restriction itself is on TFL red lines.
|
|
|
Tue, 7 Feb 2023 - 18:18
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Wait for CP to have a good look - I'm sure he will draft you a short challenge later. I'm in two minds.
|
|
|
Wed, 8 Feb 2023 - 10:57
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Well I don't want to alert the council to the issue, which is explained in William Samuel v London Borough of Lewisham (2220837736, 13 December 2022).
For now I would just go with a basic challenge: Dear London Borough of Hackney,Of course, I accept there is a small chance that Hackney has obtained written consent from TFL to enforce at this location, but IMO the odds of that are remote in the extreme. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 8 Feb 2023 - 10:59
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 252 Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Member No.: 64,626 |
Thank you. I will do so.
Is there any point in adding the details of the circumstances? |
|
|
Wed, 8 Feb 2023 - 20:05
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Thank you. I will do so. Is there any point in adding the details of the circumstances? It can't hurt, but maybe post a draft on here first. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2023 - 10:30
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 252 Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Member No.: 64,626 |
I have now received a letter of rejection from Hackney.
My appeal was as follows: The driver was on their way to a wedding when a bus made a u-turn on Seven Sisters Road, causing the car in front of them to swerve out the way and burst a tyre. That car therefore pulled over to the side of the road.When our driver drove past, they noticed that the car belonged to the elderly grandparents of the bride, on their way to this same wedding. The driver wanted to stop to assist them but was already too far ahead of them.They therefore turned left at the next lights to go on Woodberry Grove, to circle back to Green Lanes and Seven Sisters Road. The driver had not driven this way in a number of years and was unaware that this turn was now prohibited. It was dark and they did not notice the signs indicating that they could not turn onto that road. I challenge liability for the penalty charge because the signs do not comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Specifically there is a requirement for diagram 619 signs to be illuminated, but they are not and a thus far less visible than they should be. I believe that if the signs had been illuminated as they are required to be by law, the driver would not have missed them. I therefore ask that you please cancel this Penalty Charge Notice. Thank you I attach a copy of the response. Thanks Mo This post has been edited by mothepro: Mon, 27 Feb 2023 - 10:31 |
|
|
Mon, 27 Feb 2023 - 23:48
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Would you like me to represent you at the tribunal?
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 28 Feb 2023 - 02:35
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 252 Joined: 22 Aug 2013 Member No.: 64,626 |
If you would be willing to do, that would be amazing!
|
|
|
Fri, 31 Mar 2023 - 14:07
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 14 Feb 2023 Member No.: 119,128 |
I would appeal on the basis the no motor vehicles sign is not illuminated.
The road traffic signs regulations for this sign. Diagram 619 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made Part 4, 4 applies which is 4.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) to (5), where the sign is placed on a road subject to a speed limit greater than 20 mph, and is within 50 metres of any lamp which forms part of a system of street-lighting, the illumination requirements for the sign are— (a)where that system of street-lighting is illuminated throughout the hours of darkness, the sign must be illuminated by internal or external lighting for so long as that system is illuminated and may also be reflectorised; or (b)where that system of street-lighting is not illuminated throughout the hours of darkness— (i)the sign must be illuminated by internal or external lighting for so long as that system is illuminated and must also be reflectorised; or (ii)the sign must be illuminated throughout the hours of darkness by internal or external lighting and may also be reflectorised. (2) Sub-paragraph (1) only applies to the sign at item 4 of the Part 2 sign table when being used as a terminal sign. (3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a sign mounted on a self-righting bollard. (4) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a sign placed temporarily to indicate road works or an obstruction. (5) Where the sign is mounted on a bollard fitted with a means of internal lighting, the sign must be illuminated The speed limit on the road you turned off was 30 mph and there are no signs indicating a change to this. Therefore the speed limit is 30mph and those signs need to be illuminated (A light) and reflectorised (I assume they are). Therefore there was no valid sign and no offence took place. |
|
|
Sat, 1 Apr 2023 - 12:25
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I would appeal on the basis the no motor vehicles sign is not illuminated. I wouldn't, the whole area is 20 mph so illumination is not required. There's a much stronger ground I am pursuing instead. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 16 Apr 2023 - 11:48
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Outcome: https://bit.ly/41uq7SX
-------------------- 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 - 01:50 |