PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Two PCNs one junction, Code 50R at Junction twice in less than a week
Tiempo
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 19:55
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,167



Yes, it's me again!

As it says in the title - I didn't notice the no right turn at the junction, which is out of the line of sight and the road markings are almost rubbed out. It's Brent council, at Glacier Way CCTV.

Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image


I reckon the sign isn't compliant, and neither are the road markings.

By the way, it's my wife's car so she's received the PCNs

Any thoughts?

This post has been edited by Tiempo: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 19:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 19:55
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:38
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,578
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Post up the PCN please.

Since you were the driver I'll throw this one open for discussion as to wriggle room (my bold):-

2160306319

Contravention location Glacier Way
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail drive in direction shown by arrow - blue sign
Referral date 14 Jul 2016
Decision date 05 Nov 2016
Adjudicator Joanne Oxlade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction The EA do cancel the PCN
Reasons
The issue in the case is whether the Appellant as the driver of the vehicle has been in contravention of the requirement to drive the vehicle in a direction as specified on a sign.

The EA rely on the contemporaneous footage, and stills derived therefrom, and the DVLA details of ownership.

The Appellant's case is that he was in West Africa at the time, and has adduced in evidence his itinerary. He says that his vehicle was in the garage at the time, for works to be done, and has provided a note of the works to be done by them.

I accept the Appellant's account and in light of the TMO specifying that "every person" to comply with the requirement, it is a driver liability matter, not the registered keeper liability.

I therefore allow the appeal.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:41
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,120
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Hmm, I think you'll struggle as not only is there the sign, the whole road layout is built to indicate left-only, so the wear on the road markings will not win an adjudication. We have a very similar junction near us on the way into Crewe giving access to Bannatynes fitness gym. It is no right turn in, and no right-turn out and the road layout back this up. IMHO you'll not win at adjudication and are best paying the discount, unless the PCN contains fatal errors.

PS - of course where we are the council cannot enforce as the TMA 2004 provisions have not been extended to outside London, (yet !!), so everybody going in there breaks the law !

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tiempo
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 22:53
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,167



This is a transcription of the PCN - not sure if it's legible enough.

QUOTE
PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE (PCN) London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
To
PCN Number
Vehicle Registration Number
Date of this Notice: /2017
The London Borough of Brent believes that you are liable to pay a penalty charge with respect to the above vehicle, for the following alleged contravention
Contravention Code: 50R: Performing a prohibited turn (no right turn)
In Glacier Way CCTV on 2017 at hours
The alleged contravention was noted by an enforcement officer who was observing real time pictures from a road side camera at the time stated.
DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE
A penalty charge of £ 130 is now payable and must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If it is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this notice the amount payable is reduced to £ 65 . Payment should be sent to London Borough of Brent (Parking Services), P0 Box 210, Sheffield, S98 1NE (See overleaf for more details of how to pay).
OR, if you believe you have a good reason not to pay the penalty charge, you should write to us explaining why (see the Representations section overleaf). Although there are specific legal grounds for making representations, we will consider exercising our discretion and may cancel the penalty charge notice if there are suitable mitigating circumstances (i.e. if we believe that there is a good enough reason). We may disregard any representations received after the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this PCN.

Please make sure the PCN number is written on all correspondence.
If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge of £ 195 may be payable. We may then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount.

ARRANGEMENTS TO VIEW A RECORDING OR OBTAIN IMAGES FREE OF CHARGE
There are three ways in which you can arrange viewing of certain records or images, free of charge. First, you can request to view it online at www.viewmypcn.co.uk. Alternatively, either you or your representative may view a recording of the contravention produced by the CCTV camera which resulted in the PCN. To arrange this, please write to us at London Borough of Brent (Parking Services), P0 Box 210, Sheffield, S98 1NE, stating day of the week and time between 900am and 5.OOpm at which you wish to do so. Alternatively we can send to your address such still images as in our opinion establish that the contravention occurred.

Upon receipt of your request we will suspend progress of your case and will respond to your request within a reasonable time. Once the images have been sent to your address or the recording has been viewed at our offices, as appropriate, progress of your case will continue.

REPRESENTATIONS
As mentioned above, if there is any reason why you think you should not have to pay the penalty charge, please tell us and give details in the space provided below. You may make representations to us against the imposition of the penalty charge in this PCN on-line at www.brent.gov.uk/parking or by post to London Borough of Brent (Parking Services), P0 Box 210, Sheffield, S98 1NE. Please include any available supporting evidence. Representations must include the name, postal address and signature of the person making them. If representations are made on-line then the name of the person making them must be entered, and will be taken to be the signature of that person. The London Borough of Brent may disregard any representations received outside the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN. The statutory grounds for making representations are listed below. Whether or not any of the statutory grounds apply, you may also give other compelling reasons why we should cancel the penalty charge or refund any sum paid on account of the penalty charge.

The statutory grounds for representation are:
I was never the owner of the vehicle in question, or had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or became its owner after that date - if you sold the vehicle before the date of the contravention or bought it after the date, you must tell us the name and address of the person who bought it from you or sold it to you, if you know it, and please supply whatever evidence of the sale you may have (e.g. a sales receipt).;

There was no contravention of a prescribed order; or failure to comply with an indication - please explain why you think there was no contravention of a traffic order or why there was no failure to drive the vehicle in the way shown on the sign;

At the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without my consent — if the vehicle had been stolen, please provide details of the police crime reference number;

We are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging their liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement - please supply a copy of the signed agreement including the name and address of the hirer;

The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case - if you think you are being asked to pay more than you should legally pay.

Please make sure you sign the following declaration if you want us to consider your representations.
I confirm that the above information is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that making a false statement may result in
prosecution and a possible fine of up to £5,000.

(name in BLOCK CAPITALS)
(position in company, if relevant)
(signature) (date)

Data Protection Statement
The London Borough of Brent will use information, including personal information, collected through the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice for the enforcement of traffic contraventions and it may also be used for compatible purposes. The information may be disclosed to London Councils, and other enforcement agencies and third parties where it is necessary and lawful to do so e.g. for the prevention and detection of crime. All information will be processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act, 1998.
HOW TO PAY
BY INTERNET: Web payment can be made online at wwwbrent.gov.uk/parking and follow the link to https://e-paycobalt.com/brent and follow the on-line instructions or use the QR code below from your mobile phone

BY TELEPHONE: On 020$ 099 0700 using one of the following debit or credit cards:- Visa, Mastercard, Maestro, Delta, Switch or Solo.
BY POST: Complete the payment slip and return with your cheque to London Borough of Brent (Parking Services), P0 Box 210, Sheffield, S9$ 1NE. Please do not send cash through the post. Post-dated cheques cannot be accepted.
CASH PAYMENTS: Cash payments can be made at:
Unit 20-22, Whitby Avenue, Park Royal, London, NW10 7SF
The cash office is open between 9:30am - 4.OOpm Monday to Friday and is located in the London Borough of Brent Car Pound.
If you pay by cash, please ensure that you obtain a receipt.

Please do not make any payment if you want to challenge this PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tiempo
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 11:49
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,167



@mad mick v

I was wondering what the point is there? Is it the sentence
QUOTE
I accept the Appellant's account and in light of the TMO specifying that "every person" to comply with the requirement, it is a driver liability matter, not the registered keeper liability.
I don't quite understand what this point is either!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 12:23
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,578
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



It means your good lady can reply to the PCN and indicate that whilst she is the owner of the vehicle she was not driving it at the time of the alleged contravention. In this respect the relevant TMO requires "every person" to comply with the restriction and therefore it provides for driver liability. Given that this is contrary to the TMA 2004 the TMO must be a nullity and cannot be used for enforcement purposes in these circumstances.

Just let's hope they didn't amend the TMO after that ETA Decision.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tiempo
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 08:54
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,167



Thank you @Mad Mick V.
Another thought - the Brent moving traffic contraventions list has the heading "COMPULSARY LEFT-HAND TURN" (note the spelling!) and then the road is listed; is "compulsory left-hand turn" the same as "no right turn"?. There is no sign at the junction for compulsory left-hand turn, only the latter ....

I'll have a go at the representation then ....
So, these are the grounds for representation. If a letter is drafted
"I was not the driver of the car at the time of the alleged contravention. The TMO specifies that "every person" to comply with the requirement, it is a driver liability matter, not the registered keeper liability. Therefore I am not liable for this penalty."


By the way, I should be able to get a copy of the TMO, shouldn't I?

I also note that the grounds below don't specify that the owner has to supply the details of the driver:

QUOTE
The statutory grounds for representation are:
I was never the owner of the vehicle in question, or had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or became its owner after that date - if you sold the vehicle before the date of the contravention or bought it after the date, you must tell us the name and address of the person who bought it from you or sold it to you, if you know it, and please supply whatever evidence of the sale you may have (e.g. a sales receipt).;

There was no contravention of a prescribed order; or failure to comply with an indication - please explain why you think there was no contravention of a traffic order or why there was no failure to drive the vehicle in the way shown on the sign;

At the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without my consent — if the vehicle had been stolen, please provide details of the police crime reference number;

We are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging their liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement - please supply a copy of the signed agreement including the name and address of the hirer;

The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case - if you think you are being asked to pay more than you should legally pay.


This post has been edited by Tiempo: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 09:30
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tiempo
post Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 07:46
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,167



Hi All,
Last chance for input - otherwise I'm going to pay the fines tomorrow, much as I hate to do so.
  • is the PCN wording ok?
  • can anyone suggest some wording for an appeal?
  • is it ok for them to have road markings that are faded and a sign with black patches all over it?
  • is it ok that the position of the no right turn sign is so far over to the left that it's difficult to see?

Tiempo

This post has been edited by Tiempo: Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 07:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 11:03
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,804
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 12:23) *
It means your good lady can reply to the PCN and indicate that whilst she is the owner of the vehicle she was not driving it at the time of the alleged contravention. In this respect the relevant TMO requires "every person" to comply with the restriction and therefore it provides for driver liability. Given that this is contrary to the TMA 2004 the TMO must be a nullity and cannot be used for enforcement purposes in these circumstances.

Just let's hope they didn't amend the TMO after that ETA Decision.

Mick


I thought RK is responsible for PCNs.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tiempo
post Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 11:07
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,167



Thank you Mick, worth a try.
Tiempo
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tiempo
post Sat, 18 Nov 2017 - 17:06
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,167



By the way - does anyone know where to ask for the TMO? - if it'll sway the argument then it's worth having.
UPDATE: I've sent an email to Brent asking for the TMO - let's see what the reply is.

I have a quick question - the case 2160306319 above, the appellant supplied details of where he was at the time of the contravention. In this case, would my wife have to provide evidence that I was driving (my statement) which would then render me liable for the fine?

They were very friendly and helpful! Here is the TMO.
Attached Image


This post has been edited by Tiempo: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 13:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hornetter
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 18:24
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1
Joined: 21 Nov 2017
Member No.: 95,202



The wording is quite ambiguous. Can anyone decipher it into layman's terms?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tiempo
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 23:06
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,167



I think I understand now. I've found some explanation regarding owner liability:
QUOTE
Owner liability
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Transport Act 2000 the person who is liable to pay any Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) issued in respect of a vehicle is its owner.
The owner may or may not be the person who was actually driving at the time. The fact that another person was driving the vehicle does not affect the owner’s liability for any penalty.
Ownership
The owner is presumed to be the registered keeper unless they prove otherwise. The authority who issued the PCN will check with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority(DVLA) to see who was registered as keeper of the vehicle at the date the penalty was issued. This person will receive the Notice to Owner (NtO) or PCN through the post.
The law requires that the DVLA is kept informed about the current keeper. If a motorist sells a vehicle and fails to complete the relevant part of the vehicle registration document(logbook), they may receive a Notice to Owner arising out of actions by the new owner.


The TMO says:
QUOTE
2. Every person causing any vehicle to proceed in the access road from the Loon Fung Development, Glacier Way in the London Borough of Brent shall cause that vehicle, on reaching its junction with Glacier Way, to turn left into Glacier Way.


I still can't see a clear and simple way to explain how the TMO is not compliant, which I think is the crux of the matter. It seems to be down to a specifically pedantic argument, which I'm not getting at the moment!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 23:14
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,494
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Tiempo @ Tue, 21 Nov 2017 - 23:06) *
I think I understand now. I've found some explanation regarding owner liability:
QUOTE
Owner liability
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and the Transport Act 2000 the person who is liable to pay any Penalty Charge Notices (PCN) issued in respect of a vehicle is its owner.
The owner may or may not be the person who was actually driving at the time. The fact that another person was driving the vehicle does not affect the owner’s liability for any penalty.
Ownership
The owner is presumed to be the registered keeper unless they prove otherwise. The authority who issued the PCN will check with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority(DVLA) to see who was registered as keeper of the vehicle at the date the penalty was issued. This person will receive the Notice to Owner (NtO) or PCN through the post.
The law requires that the DVLA is kept informed about the current keeper. If a motorist sells a vehicle and fails to complete the relevant part of the vehicle registration document(logbook), they may receive a Notice to Owner arising out of actions by the new owner.


The TMO says:
QUOTE
2. Every person causing any vehicle to proceed in the access road from the Loon Fung Development, Glacier Way in the London Borough of Brent shall cause that vehicle, on reaching its junction with Glacier Way, to turn left into Glacier Way.


I still can't see a clear and simple way to explain how the TMO is not compliant, which I think is the crux of the matter. It seems to be down to a specifically pedantic argument, which I'm not getting at the moment!



It is a pedantic argument. Obviously the driver is responsible for complying with the order. If they do not then the owner is liable for the penalty charge.

look to the order "every person shall" a positive instruction. There is a sign to denote this instruction, it is the white arrow in the blue circle. The sign in place denotes a negative
instruction you must not turn right

Up to 2015 this junction was signed with the blue circle.

This is not IMO a strong argument but if the discount is gone, worth a try
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tiempo
post Wed, 22 Nov 2017 - 08:41
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 102
Joined: 8 Feb 2008
Member No.: 17,167



thank you @pastmybest - I've paid the two tickets, £65 each. What a waste of money!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Loucamera
post Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 22:26
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 3 Jan 2018
Member No.: 95,761



[attachment=52977:fullsize...put_4095.jpeg]I'm sorry I didn't get to you sooner. I got a PCN around the same time and took it all the way to Adjudication. I won.

The Adjudicators decision is below:

Adjudicator's Reasons
The appellant attended. Miss ********** produced a number of documents, which i have caused to be scanned onto the case as evidence: documents A-F.
The issue of this appeal is whether the local signage is sufficiently adequate to warn motorists of the local parking restrictions. The issue was quite properly raised by the appellant and dealt with in their evidence by the local authority. Signage must be adequate and comply with the concept of fairness. Any sign should be clear, prominent and unambiguous.
I have to make a decision based on the evidence and a decision on that evidence has to be made on a balance of probabilities.
Does the signage convey the practical effect of the prohibition or is it misleading to an ordinary, reasonable motorist?
It was held in the case of Oxfordshire County Council and The Bus Lane Adjudicator and Shaun Duffy (2010) that If the signage is prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD) or if it is authorised by the Secretary of State and it is not placed where it cannot be seen and not obscured, there must be strong reasons for saying the signage does not provide adequate information.
In the Court of Appeal case of R (Herron v The Parking Adjudicator it was held that parking restrictions are imposed by the applicable Traffic Management Order not by the signage and markings. The purpose of the signage required by TSRGD is to convey to the motorist adequate information to the motorist of the relevant restriction. Therefore substantial compliance with the statutory specification in the TSRGD suffices as long as the signage adequately informs the motorist and does not mislead.
Misleading means to give false or confusing information.
On the specific evidence available to me in this appeal case only I am not satisfied that the Local Authority has met the grounds and has adduced evidence to meet and challenge the points raised by the appellant's specific evidence.
These are civil proceedings:
Both parties are under a legal duty to prove their case. They do so by way of evidence.
Therefore they each have an evidential burden also.
Their evidential burden is on a balance of probabilities. Whose evidence is more probable?
The appellant's specific evidence in this case has, I find, has prevailed.
Miss *********** has succeeded in showing that the signage is inadequate and misleading.
She said that she came out of a supermarket, a short distance from the junction and turned left (document F); she was at that point looking to her right for oncoming traffic; she then looked to the right because she wanted to turn right and did not see the 'No Right turn' sign. She asserted that because there is no additional warning sign, the existing sign alone is inadequate. She quoted, in aid, an Adjudicator's decision of 13th October 2014 for penalty notice BT90709394. The appellant asserted that there is no additional warning sign only road markings, which she provided evidence to show, at the time, were faded (B, D & E) and have now been repainted © after the alleged contravention (compare A, B & C).
I will therefore allow the appeal.


in short the council had already been told to add additional signage prior to the no right hand turn sign at previous adjudications. The council chose to do this by painting the left turn only marking on the road. I wrote to the council to say that this early warning had eroded to such an extent it was now illegible. They refused my appeal but in the meantime turned up and repainted it. What was shocking was that they only repainted this revenue generating marking and not the give way markings that were also worn away at the end of the road. It was these worn marking that allowed me to win my case. I'm not sure if you could appeal it now they have been clearly repainted.

Other grounds you could possibly use for appeal are that the road sign is 60cm which is correct for a road with a speed limit of 30mph. There is nothing to say this roadway (which I am not entirely convinced is actually Glacier way) is public highway and therefore 30mph. A larger sign should be used to account for this and make it more visible.

This post has been edited by Loucamera: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 - 22:26
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
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: Monday, 24th September 2018 - 16:27
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.