PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

TFL PCN turning in wrong direction
rickyk
post Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 09:33
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 8 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,368



My Father in law received a PCN from TFL for doing a u-turn at a set of traffic lights where there was a blue sign with a white arrow pointing to the right. He appealed it using a standard letter drafted by a local shop which they say has won in every case at that junction. As far as I can tell these cases have got to PATAS but not been contested by TFL. I don't have a copy of the letter to hand but it basically said that there was no no u-turn sign at the traffic lights and the driver did initially drive in the direction indicated by the arrow but then did a further right turn back up the A12 eastbound. I don't think this is a valid appeal point but would welcome your views - it may depend on the exact wording of the TRO which I've requested.

He has submitted the letter to TFL and got a NOR. He wants to appeal to PATAS and has asked for my advice. He is happy to gamble the extra £65. I think there are a few more possible appeal points:-

- the PCN refers to contravention 32T and describes the contravention as "Turning in the wrong direction". I think given the sign in question is 606 this should in fact have been 32D with a description "proceeding in the wrong direction".

- The PCN incorrectly conflates the time periods for paying and making reps (looking at other posts, this point seems to be randomly allowed and refused by PATAS)

- the photos on the PCN don't show the contravention taking place - the second photo doesn't even show the car. I don't think there are any requirements for the photographic evidence to be complete under LLA 2003 but given the PCN doesn't mention the right to view video evidence it would be quite hard to establish what exactly happened based on the PCN alone.

- The payment slip says total amount due £65 which could be misleading. I don't think this forms part of the PCN though?

- the wording on paying the charge in the NOR (2nd page) looks wrong. The letter is dated 16th September. Option 1 is to pay the charge by 30 September. Surely the charge could be paid up to 14 days later if paying at the higher rate? Only later does it mention the right to pay the penalty charge within 28 days of the date of service.

I'd be grateful for any views on this.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 09:33
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 18:23
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



The PCN does not mention the amount of discount available merely a percentage. The regulations require that an amount is stated.

The Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 indicates at 1(h) --that if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount .

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
clark_kent
post Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 18:33
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,964
Joined: 27 Aug 2007
From: Brighton
Member No.: 13,358



QUOTE (MAD MICK V @ Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 19:23) *
The PCN does not mention the amount of discount available merely a percentage. The regulations require that an amount is stated.

The Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 indicates at 1(h) --that if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount .

Mick


huh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 18:39
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



vague location and probably wrong or incomplete contravention code, if no u turn allowed should be signed.


What st. is WBND?


Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign, proceeding in the wrong direction, right turn only.

is correct.


General suffixes:–
a) temporary traffic order b) business bay c) buses only d) doctor’s bay
e) car club bay f) free parking bay g) motor cycle bay h) hospital bay
i) wrong type of voucher j) camera enforcement k) ambulance bay l) loading place
m) parking meter n) red route o) blue badge holder p) pay & display
q) market traders’ bay r) residents’ bay s) shared use bay t) voucher/P&D ticket used in permit bay
u) mobile phone parking v) voucher w) wrong parking zone x) incorrect VRM
y) obscured / illegible permit z) out of date permit 0) local buses / trams only 1) electric vehicles bay
2) goods vehicle loading bays 3) bicycle bay 4) virtual permit
Footway parking (codes 61, 62, 64, 65 and 66) only:–
1) one wheel on footway 2) partly on footway 4) all wheels on footway
c) on vehicle crossover g) on grass verge



Moving traffic contraventions only:–
32 d) proceeding in the wrong direction t) turning in the wrong direction w) one way traffic
33 b) buses only c) buses and cycles only e) buses, cycles and taxis only f) buses and taxis only
g) local buses only h) local buses and cycles only i) local buses, cycles and taxis only k) local buses and taxis only
q) tramcars and local buses only r) tramcars only s) tramcars and buses only
38 l) must pass to the left r) must pass to the right
50 l) no left turn r) no right turn u) no U-turn
52 g) goods vehicles exceeding max gross weight indicated m) motor vehicles s) solo motorcycles
v) all vehicles except non-mechanically propelled ones being pushed x) motor vehicles except solo m/cycles

This post has been edited by EDW: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 18:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 19:24
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,919
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



I must be tired c_k !!!!

A moving traffic incident no way equates to parking!

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

4(8)
A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a)state—
(i)the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi)the amount of the increased charge;
(vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and
(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and
(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

Mick

This post has been edited by MAD MICK V: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 20:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rickyk
post Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 08:43
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 8 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,368



Thanks for your responses. I'll add vague location to the list of appeal points.

I'm still not completely clear that a no u turn sign is needed - I can't find any relevant cases and it may depend on what the TRO says? It seems that TFL are starting to put explicit no u turn signs up at nearby junctions so that would indicate they think the signing needs to be clearer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
qafqa
post Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 11:19
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,032
Joined: 5 Mar 2011
Member No.: 44,816



This is pasted from another thread as an example of how TfL have been
caught conflating alleged offences and shows how they
should be prompted in the Representation to fully explain in the NOR
why the right turn after the sign resulted in a PCN.
Someone may have believed 'you can't do that' and possibly conflated
the right turn/U turn so you need to see what they have to
support their claim.

211046700A
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: The allegation on the Penalty Charge Notice is that this vehicle was parked in contravention of the footway parking ban. The Authority makes reference however in its Case Summary to red route restrictions at this location providing a red route Traffic Management Order and a map of the area showing the red route in support. The Appellants do not face an allegation that they contravened a red route prohibition on stopping and by apparently conflating these two different contraventions the Authority I find potentially prejudices the Appellants in the conduct of his case. Enforcement may not for this reason be pursued. I accordingly allow the appeal.


2120054174
I am satisfied that the authority in its case summary has sought to conflate the contravention alleged in this case - stopping on a red route where prohibited - with that which occurs when a vehicle parks on the footway potentially prejudicing the appellant I find in the conduct of her case. I am not satisfied in the absence of any site check report or library photographs that the authority has properly addressed the submissions made by the appellant as to red route carriageway markings being confusing and am not satisfied on the evidence before me that the prohibition is marked in accordance with the legal requirements. I am not satisfied against this background that the contravention occurred. I accordingly allow the appeal.


This post has been edited by qafqa: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 11:38
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 25 Sep 2013 - 11:36
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,479
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Well, I've looked at this, and have to say they have been a bit devious, frankly. Near me there is a similar junction with separate lanes and arrows, but this has a "No U-Turn" sign as well as the arrow, so I don't think the signs are at all clear. If I have time, I'll take a photo and post it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
!nsomniak
post Sun, 6 Oct 2013 - 08:49
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



Hi, just wondering what the outcome was with this case as I have now got a PCN for doing a U-Turn at the exact same junction.

My PCN reads exactly as the one you posted, I will be sending an appeal in as I note that about a mile further down the same road (A12) at another junction there is a "No U-Turn" sign before the lights and where the right hand turn lane again has it's own dedicated lane, but on the traffic lights instead of a blue sign/white arrow they have the No U-Turn sign again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rickyk
post Sun, 6 Oct 2013 - 17:16
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 8 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,368



Hi Insomniak,

The PATAS appeal has gone off using the appeal points above - key point being contravention didn't occur as u-turns are not explicitly prohibited by the sign in question. Also mentioned the other procedural points. I'll let you knwo how we get on. I understand TFL generally don't contest these appeals.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
!nsomniak
post Mon, 4 Nov 2013 - 09:36
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15
Joined: 8 Feb 2012
Member No.: 52,986



Hi, just wondered if you had heard anything back yet from PATAS and what the outcome was?

I appealed mine under the fact the signs are confusing and contradictory along that route and also due to the fact that junction has no signs prohibiting a u-turn. I got a rejection letter the other day, just wondering if its worth appealing via PATAS, or just paying the £65 now.

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Mon, 4 Nov 2013 - 11:02
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



QUOTE (rickyk @ Sun, 6 Oct 2013 - 17:16) *
Hi Insomniak,

The PATAS appeal has gone off using the appeal points above - key point being contravention didn't occur as u-turns are not explicitly prohibited by the sign in question. Also mentioned the other procedural points. I'll let you knwo how we get on. I understand TFL generally don't contest these appeals.

Thanks


I have sent you a letter by PM. Have you chosen postal or personal hearing? If the former, I suggest you add that letter to your appeal application. as you are at PATAS now, take out the last but one paragraph.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 4 Nov 2013 - 11:03


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rickyk
post Tue, 5 Nov 2013 - 11:00
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 8 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,368



Hippocrates - thanks for the PM. I'll get this off to PATAS - I'd already mentioned the conflation issue with a couple of case references but your draft gives a lot more detail and background.

The PATAS case has been rescheduled to the end of November. My Father in law didn't want a personal hearing as he's well into his eighties and didn't want an unnecessary trip to London - hopefully the written appeal will work.

I finally received the traffic order from TFL - I don't think it helps much - it's very clear that you have to turn right into Hainault Road. But the confusing and contradictory signs are still an issue I think (I submitted photos of the signage at this and nearby junctions with the appeal).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rickyk
post Fri, 15 Nov 2013 - 12:28
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38
Joined: 8 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,368



My father in law has now received the evidence pack from TFL - I haven't got time to scan anything at the moment but on the "conflation" point they are arguing (I think) that the date of service is the same as the date of the notice and therefore the 2 time periods are the same.

is this correct? and is there any point in making a further submission to contest this at this stage or just let the adjudicator decide?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 15 Nov 2013 - 13:11
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



https://www.google.com/url?q=http://forums....lNpJbTNHzBhAIoQ

PM me your details, please and date of the case. This is better handled personally and I am prepared to turn up as I am there on 28th late afternoon.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 - 13:24


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Fri, 15 Nov 2013 - 15:02
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Fri, 15 Nov 2013 - 13:11) *
https://www.google.com/url?q=http://forums....lNpJbTNHzBhAIoQ

PM me your details, please and date of the case. This is better handled personally and I am prepared to turn up as I am there on 28th late afternoon.



I have a recent case for here.



This post has been edited by EDW: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 - 15:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Wednesday, 19th December 2018 - 10:30
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.