PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Hackney Mare St - prohibited turn, New part-time no left turn from Mare St into Richmond Rd.
Enceladus
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 13:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Anyone got any suggestions on how to handle this Hackney postal PCN? There's at least one other exactly the same, which I'll post in a separate topic.
My friend the London cabbie has been caught out by the recently introduced part-time no left turn from Mare Street into Richmond Road. He simply wasn't aware of the change and missed the sign as you approach the traffic lights at the junction. GSV here is out of date as it doesn't show the sign, photo to follow.

The PCN has 2 pics, one shows a black cab which could be any London Taxi. The other is just a black square.
The location seems vague, Mare Street is a major road in Hackney, quite long and nothing on the PCN tells us where the contravention is alleged.
The PCN doesn't tell us anything about the type of turn, left or right or U, just a prohibited turn.
The PCN doesn't show any signs or the cab passing them.
Nor does the video show the signs or the cab passing, just a black cab making a left turn.

I'm told there are no markings on the carriageway and bus-lane to say ahead only, presumably as the prohibition is only part time.
Nor is there a no left turn sign on the traffic lights.
I also note that that the traffic light has full green signal as opposed to an ahead only arrow, also presumably as the prohibition is part time. Since this is a T junction traffic on Mare Street can only go left or straight ahead, there is no right turn option. So is the green light misleading?
However a right turn from Mare Street into Richmond is still permitted. There's a filter lane on the opposing carriageway.

Will Hackney re-offer the discount if we get representations in today, day 14?

All help appreciated.

Page1=
Page2=
Page3=
Page4=

This post has been edited by Enceladus: Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 13:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 46)
Advertisement
post Thu, 9 Aug 2018 - 13:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 16 Sep 2018 - 12:04
Post #41


Member


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



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 03:24) *
There isn't any requirement to re-offer the discount and a number of the adjudicators will simply say that once the initial statutory period has expired any further discount offer is entirely at the discretion of the EA. The Adjudicator has no power over the discount. That appears to have happened at one of the Mare Street cases recently heard and the appeals were refused.

There isn't any requirement to re-offer the discount, but if it is re-offered, that offer is binding on the council. If they resile from it, the amount demanded exceeds the amount due.


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 16:45
Post #42


Member


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



Looks like the critical sign was turned 45 degrees in July:-

2180328653

Miss Williams appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN) (QZ02189000), in respect of an alleged contravention of the prohibition on turning left from Mare Street into Richmond Road. The enforcement authority does not resist the appeals on the other 6 PCNs. I am well aware that this relatively new prohibition is controversial and has been reported on in the national press. I have not been influenced by this press coverage and I am certainly not persuaded by any argument that the introduction of this prohibition is some kind of revenue-generating exercise by the enforcement authority. I am also familiar with this prohibition, having decided now a number of cases on it. One such case was Economou v. LB Hackney, 2180298676, 5 September 2018. In that case, as Miss Williams has done, the appellant had diligently obtained evidence of the view of the signage on Mare Street from the perspective of a motorist turning right onto Mare Street from Brenthouse Road and then making the almost immediate left turn into Richmond Road. That is the route that Miss Williams also took, I find, the day before Ms Economou. Miss Williams has also established, through Freedom of Information Act requests, that the first sign on Mare Street indicating the prohibition was turned through 45° in July 2018 so as to be visible to motorists turning onto that street from Brenthouse Road. Although I am very grateful to Miss Williams for the evidence she has obtained, even in the absence of any such evidence it would be perverse to reach any other conclusion in her case as to the adequacy of the signage in respect of a motorist emerging from Brenthouse Road than the conclusion I reached in Economou. If either party wishes to understand my reasoning for deciding the signage was inadequate for such a motorist I would direct them to my decision in Economou, which is publicly available on the statutory register.

I find that the signage was, prior to the first sign being turned through 45° in July 2018, not adequate to convey information about the prohibition to road users emerging from Brenthouse Road, the contravention is therefore not proved and I allow this appeal.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 01:38
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 17:45) *
Looks like the critical sign was turned 45 degrees in July:-

2180328653

Anybody know when the advance sign was turned?

At last some lucky person has won on vague locus.
QUOTE
Case reference 2180300246

This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice for performing a prohibited turn.

Upon reading the papers in this matter and viewing the CCTV it is in first glance difficult to understand this appeal. The Appellant and Respondent make various comments about the Appellant performing a U-Turn. Where the CCTV shows the Appellant turning left.

The appeal became more much more clear when the Appellant appeared in person. The Appellant had received a PCN which has two images on it. Neither are particularly illustrative of the locus in quo. Likewise, the PCN particularises that the contravention occurred on Mare Street (D), this is something to which I will return.

The Appellant went about appealing thinking that the contravention was said to have taken place in an entirely different place (and indeed, an entirely different type of contravention). This is why the correspondence between the Appellant and Respondent makes little sense.

The Appellant received the papers for this hearing and suddenly realised that the allegation was in a completely different location and of a different type then he had realised initially.

Indeed, the Appellant then realised that the contravention had occurred and tried to pay the discount rate, it obviously being too late to do so.

This rather illustrates the problem in this case. Mare Street (D) is not illustrative to a motorist at all. Indeed, Mare Street (D) does not appear in The Hackney (Prescribed Route and 20 MPH Speed Limit) (London Field School Street - One Way, Pedestrian And Cycle) (Bus Gate) (Banned Left Turn - Richmond Road) (Experimental) Order 2018 at all. Instead (and the clue is in the title of the TMO), the TMO specifies a prohibited turn between Mare Street and Richmond Road.

In my view, considering how long Mare Street is, that is what the PCN ought to have specified. I am not clear why the letter, 'D', was inserted in parenthesis at all.

So whilst the contravention did occur, I am not satisfied that it was properly enforced. It follows that I allow the appeal.


This post has been edited by Enceladus: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 01:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 11:49
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,721
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Hackney have altered the traffic lights at the Mare Street / Richmond Road junction. They've added an illuminated no left turn light to the stanchions on the nearside corner and the traffic island. Lends further credence to the notion of inadequate signs, an argument that doesn't seem to hold any water with most of the Adjudicators.

Looks like they went live sometime in the last two weeks. Part time to match the restricted hours I imagine. Wonder what happens when BST ends?



This post has been edited by Enceladus: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 - 00:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 16:55
Post #45


Member


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



Has to be illuminated:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made

Richmond Road may be 20mph but Mare Street isn't.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 16:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 18:18
Post #46


Member


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



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 17:55) *
Has to be illuminated:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made

Richmond Road may be 20mph but Mare Street isn't.



Mare Street is 20 mph now - all of Hackney controlled roads are now bar a very small bit in the east.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 18:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 18:38
Post #47


Member


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



If that's the case, it'll earn more money although I notice the traffic light has an extra shroud with a lit NLT sign.

Mick
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 - 04:26
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