PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

The Bridge PCN - prohibited No Right Turn
tburn
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 13:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



There are a few of those around, some input would be much appreciated before my tribunal appeal.

Most of the information is already included at the start of this case:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...95433&st=20

I am contesting the case on inadequate signage, if not to say a con.

The PCN was issued in March, the contravention took place in February. I received an NtO for my reps on inadequate signage and now taking the case to the tribunal in June. The appeal will be submitted before the deadline once I add all my points.

Harrow issued an evidence pack in just 2 days after submitting to PATAS, sounds like big business,

The evidence pack:

  • PCN and NtO -- upload to follow
  • TMO -- will need to scrutinise, e.g Schedule2 refers to location as "The Bridge, south-eastbound" not as in the PCN "The Bridge jct to A409"
  • CD with footage - the footage shows car from the point of moving forward on the signal for a few seconds - it does not show how the car arrived at the signal i.e how the contravention came about
  • 5 photos - 4x of a stationary vehicle and 1x reg no.
  • witness statement
  • 2 library photos and several google maps dated from last year


The council argument is pretty standard, everything is in compliance with TSRGD 2002, there is a direction sign on the wall before the junction and later on a camera sign. Adding at the end that there are circular prohibited right turn signs under the signals.

There is no CCTV certificate in the evidence pack. I have already requested this in a FOI.

Due to a printing error(?) their submission is missing a full line at the start of my formal reps:
"The signage at the location is inadequate to alert a driver that turning ahead is prohibited whilst approaching the traffic lights at the The Bridge/A409 junction"

Also, in all the photos they submitted the prohibited turn sign and exemption are clearly not illuminated.
I have read about cases upheld because internal illumination of these signs is considered a requirement.

I will post up docs and pics soon.


The basis of my appeal:

Inadequate signage, this is not a case where the driver has any option but to move forward by the time they arrive at the restriction. A direction sign is not the same as a restriction sign. I have never seen a directional sign or any traffic sign affixed on a building wall away from the curb like a shop sign. I cannot imagine how this is compliant but I can certainly assume adjudicators will find it "substantially compliant". The next thing is that a camera sign does not necessarily suggest a restriction let alone a prohibited turn. The sign is also a few meters before. All these points from the council appear weak to my end.

The layout of the road is further confusing, especially as you can easily miss the direction sign on the wall and follow the only illuminated blue directional arrow on the island box on the right. It is further not uncommon to observe no-right turn signs under signals at junctions to prevent drivers from turning on the wrong lane, to collide with oncoming traffic. Plus traffic can be seen moving to both directions of A409.

The only way a driver is aware of the restriction is by reaching the signals and reading the non-illuminated signs. They have no option but to either reverse and cause a potential accident or turn left in multiple maneuvers due to the layout of the road.In my view this is a ridiculous contravention.

The council feels more inclined in spending money for a CCTV penalty system than place a no-right turn sign before the junction. Speaks for itself.

I have one question about submitting my own video evidence. I recorded dashcam footage (not from the incident unfortunately) that shows how tricky it is to observe those signs from the driver point of view. I am in a quandary because it can become a boomerang. In a past case the adjudicator found my photos "substantially compliant" on utterly faded markings. So perhaps it is best to argue the case on the council evidence...
I can post a link for feedback on this.

Thanks

This post has been edited by tburn: Thu, 17 May 2018 - 14:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 13:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 16:21
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,231
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Not seen one here for a while, but check out the tribunal register there are a lot of wins on signage.

https://londontribunals.org.uk/

These two to start

2170263507 2170162394

Also check this one re consideration of reps and the reliance on TSRGD 2002

2180132152
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 07:19
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 17 May 2018 - 17:21) *
Not seen one here for a while, but check out the tribunal register there are a lot of wins on signage.

https://londontribunals.org.uk/

These two to start

2170263507 2170162394

Also check this one re consideration of reps and the reliance on TSRGD 2002

2180132152


Thank you for the cases, very useful!

I am curious finding the letter mentioned in 2170162394 to the local MP.

Regarding reps consideration in 2180132152, can you please elaborate a little?
Is it arguing the authority is invoking an outdated TSRGD and therefore no proper consideration was given to the reps?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 07:36
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



Some uploads, the PCN, NoR and case summary of the council

[attachment=55626:PCN_NEW.pdf]

[attachment=55627:NoR_NEW.pdf]

[attachment=55628:Tribunal...mary_NEW.pdf]

This post has been edited by tburn: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 07:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 11:43
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,092
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (tburn @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 08:19) *
Regarding reps consideration in 2180132152, can you please elaborate a little?
Is it arguing the authority is invoking an outdated TSRGD and therefore no proper consideration was given to the reps?

Yes, exactly that.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 15:29
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 12:43) *
QUOTE (tburn @ Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 08:19) *
Regarding reps consideration in 2180132152, can you please elaborate a little?
Is it arguing the authority is invoking an outdated TSRGD and therefore no proper consideration was given to the reps?

Yes, exactly that.


In this case does this fall under a procedural impropriety I presume?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 15:42
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



This is footage from a later date through my dashcam,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwCf8ay0ih0

To avoid misinterpretations, I have not claimed that a bus was in front of me at the time.
It is only to show things from the driver's point of view when approaching those signals.

Things are very quiet at the time of the clip but you can still see how easily the direction arrow can be missed on the wall.

It is also impossible to assume you are not allowed to move towards the right hand signals until you have actually driven on them or through them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 18:57
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,092
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



IMO the signage is inadequate based on what's seen in the dashcam footage, but I' d like to see the council video.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 07:20
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



The footage of the council just shows the car moving forward from the signal and moving to the only allowed direction - right. I will upload this as well.

However I have the information requested now and it reveals some concerning facts that I will be taking to the tribunal

27,000PCNs have been issued at the location to date!!

The Average monthly income at the location is approx. £33,000!

How can the council argue the signage is adequate when they have to issue so many fines??


I also received a certificate of approved devices, although it is not specifically mentioning the location or the device. It is generally approving a number of models for the council to use.

This post has been edited by tburn: Wed, 6 Jun 2018 - 07:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 16:30
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 19:57) *
IMO the signage is inadequate based on what's seen in the dashcam footage, but I' d like to see the council video.


would you take this footage to adjudication?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 17:34
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,092
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (tburn @ Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 17:30) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 3 Jun 2018 - 19:57) *
IMO the signage is inadequate based on what's seen in the dashcam footage, but I' d like to see the council video.


would you take this footage to adjudication?

Yes, but I can't say how strong your case is without seeing the council video. Also don't forget the procedural impropriety that they considered the wrong regulations.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Thu, 7 Jun 2018 - 22:49
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



Added a link, the council footage pretty much shows the "contravention" but it does not show how it came about

https://youtu.be/eTwjlZuAUZU

I was also following my satnav on the day which guided me right - although this does not matter.

I did not see the directional sign and trusted the direction arrow on the island, when at the signal it was only one way...

To be truly pedantic, the "contravention" stamp added on the video is at the wrong time, because the car is moving straight. It has not been defined as a "right turn" at that point. Trivial details but...

This post has been edited by tburn: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 07:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 12:05
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,092
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The timing of the contravention stamp is irrelevant, don't mention it. However, I would appeal on the basis identified by PMB in post 2, I would also draw the adjudicator's attention to the fact that the council had committed itself to "investigate the feasibility of moving the signage" but there is no evidence this has been carried out. Don't forget that not only is the signage inadequate, but they quoted the wrong regulations.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 12:05


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 18:27
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



Yes, this was purely a note for our entertainement.

I will try to approach the adjudicator with more valid arguments.

The sign has actually been moved. I have obtained the plans with my request and the sign was repositioned forward to where it is now.
Although it can be argued this is much worse, signs and other obstructions, lamp post etc.
Also my earlier note about a requirement to self illumination of the right turn signs seems to apply to night time, so this is out too.

I don't remember the sign and I don't remember if someone was in front of me before I stopped at the red signal.


This post has been edited by tburn: Fri, 8 Jun 2018 - 19:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 14:34
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



Could anyone clarify whether the internal illumination required for signal affixed signs is supposed to be visible throughout the day and not just night time?

The council are at day time, either early morning or late afternoon but the signs are clearly not internally illuminated in their own evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 9 Jun 2018 - 16:14
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,092
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I'm not aware of any signs that need to be illuminated 24/7 if that's what you're asking.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 14:42
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



I looked into this a little more and it appears that under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 as per the Council rejection, there is a point in the following case:

216007371A

I note that it is a requirement under schedule 17 of the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2002 that where a no right turn sign is
affixed to light signals "it shall be eliminated by means of internal lighting at
all times".


under SCHEDULE 17 - ILLUMINATION OF SIGNS

6. Where the sign is fixed to light signals prescribed by regulation 33, it shall be illuminated by a means of internal lighting at all times except when the light signals to which it is fixed are being maintained or repaired.


All the photos supplied by the Council of 2017 show half the bulbs blown out while some are there i.e "except buses".
I am not considering this as a strong point but may present on the basis of the legislation invoked by the Council. In this way if the procedural impropriety is not accepted as a valid point then the signs are not compliant to the legislation being used.

This post has been edited by tburn: Fri, 15 Jun 2018 - 14:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 00:39
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



Have you guys ever had the same adjudicator on two cases one year apart from each other?! blink.gif glare.gif

I will add more information shortly but there are two issues.

Firstly the adjudicator suggested that I should have reversed my car on the signal. This is a first for me, adjudication supporting to manoever with reverse on a main road.

The second is that they do not consider the wrong legislation quoted in both NoR and summary as material to the case. Except that they missed addressing my point which wasthat the authority had not satisfied the duty of proper consideration.

This is the second time I find the same adjudicator dismissing serious mistakes in the coucil literature.

Is there any ground to appeal on the decision?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Thu, 21 Jun 2018 - 09:52
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



contravention footage
https://youtu.be/dLiGJ4WI3ss

dashcam footage
https://youtu.be/3uERdtzXl_w

the apppeal
[attachment=56193:pepi_Appeal_Final.pdf]

the decision
[attachment=56192:decision.pdf]

How does this decision address my considerstion point on the council statutory duty?

The adjudicator has left points raised in the appeal and hearing outside of the decision. It was clearly stated the material is not whether tsrgd2002 vs 2016 are different on signage, although I raised that under 2002 the signage illumination would be incompliant.

The direction sign position is back from the street and obstructed by street objects, I did not raise any points of parked vehicles. It appears to me that no matter what points are raised they will be ignored in a very eloquent manner.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 08:35
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



I am running out of time so wanted to ask senior members here of your thoughts, are there grounds to ask for a review of the decision to the tribunal manager?

The specific adjudicator has let authorities off the hook on previous cases with defective literature. I now see a pattern purely from personal experience but would not present it this way.
My only point is to ask for review on the issue raised for defective paperwork, it cannot be examined just on its own merit in this case when it matches a previous decision on the very same subject that was upheld by the Tribunal.

As Pastmybest said in their first post,

Case 2180132152

In my view, it would be wrong for this Tribunal to find that the Respondent
has fulfilled its statutory duty to consider representations when it has
referred to the incorrect statutory framework


The essence of my raised point is not being addressed by the adjudicator.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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: Tuesday, 21st August 2018 - 20:27
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.