PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

52G - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of goods (goods vehicle exceeding weight)
Plywood-Enthusia...
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 04:37
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,480



I put in an appeal for this, (this is my infraction, not my missus). It's a no entry during certain hours on a sunday. The road turns in very steeply and I drive through there mon-fri. But never noticed the sign prohibiting access on sundays.

The signs are all facing random places. as people are slapping stickers on the back of them. It's not very clear which road they are meant to be pointing too. Most roads have a repeater sign on either side of the kerb which makes it obvious that the signage is for this paticular road.

I sent me appeal based on that (inadequately maintained signage leading to confusing messages, and the no entry looks like it's for the follow on traffic, not the left turn).

But I just noticed that the penalty is really weird, saying my vehicle exceeds the weight. EWhich is meant to be used for lorries exceeding a certain tonnage.

Is this correct? I am going on holiday on Sunday 4th. Will be back on 18th. So I hope they haven't already made a rejection of representation. If they have can I change my representation (form mispointed signage to incorrect penalty)?

I thought maybe they turned the signs around so motorists can see it better, but then you see the traffic enforcement sign is misaligned to the sign barring entry. Lack of corrosponding sign on the other side made it difficult for me to spot this. I was checking my wing mirror for a cyclist who refused to heed my left turn signal and followed closely beside me and that meant I couldn't focus on the signs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 10)
Advertisement
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 04:37
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
kernow2015
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 08:37
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 168
Joined: 9 Mar 2015
Member No.: 76,209



I may be on the wrong tangent here, but is this your first notice? Contravention date: 22nd Oct, letter date: 12th Nov = 21 days.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:23
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,728
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Weird photos on the PCN;what are they meant to be showing as there is no vehicle in focus at all ? The sign saying no entry on Sundays needs to be examined as nowhere is there any weight limit sign I can see.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 10:25
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,506
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (kernow2015 @ Sun, 3 Dec 2017 - 08:37) *
I may be on the wrong tangent here, but is this your first notice? Contravention date: 22nd Oct, letter date: 12th Nov = 21 days.


28 day normal limit.

Here https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.534407,0....3312!8i6656

Signs are clear, Diagram 617
All vehicles prohibited except non-mechanically
propelled vehicles pushed by pedestrians

Which I reckon gives you a get out of jail card.
For them to enforce on the contravention cited, the signs would need to be a 622.1A.... which is similar red circle but with a lorry and weight limit inside.

You've already challenged so nothing to do yet. won't make any difference as can use for appeal.
There are no weight restriction signs on or at the entrance to Sclater Street therefore the PCN has been served in error.

Unless someone finds the required signs of course.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DJ Lexy
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 17:28
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 226
Joined: 7 Sep 2016
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 86,985



I know an incorrect contravention will get a PCN cancelled instantly, but what about when the "base" contravention is correct, but the suffix is wrong?

This should be 52m - "Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles)" with an optional j (camera enforcement).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 17:31
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,286
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DJ Lexy @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 17:28) *
I know an incorrect contravention will get a PCN cancelled instantly, but what about when the "base" contravention is correct, but the suffix is wrong?

This should be 52m - "Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles)" with an optional j (camera enforcement).


The suffix or the code for that matter don't really matter but the text (goods vehicle exceeding weight) would
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 18:47
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,664
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (DJ Lexy @ Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 17:28) *
"Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles)"

No such sign evident?

Just also noticed, no restriction at all on GSV.

NV was Sunday only.

Need up-to-date.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 20:01
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,020
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I was there the other day on Sunday - I'm surprised the OP was able to get through that road as Brick Lane market is down there.

Yes, needs current signage. If as GSV then surely wrong contravention if OP was driving a car.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 4 Dec 2017 - 21:26
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,506
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Just realised I put the wrong GSV link up earlier, apologies.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5237486,-...3312!8i6656

QUOTE (DJ Lexie)
I know an incorrect contravention will get a PCN cancelled instantly, but what about when the "base" contravention is correct, but the suffix is wrong?

This should be 52m - "Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles (motor vehicles)" with an optional j (camera enforcement).


I'm not too sure that the base contravention is correct even.
I would have thought either a 51 (No Entry Restriction) or 53 (Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone) would have been closer
I am certain that the wording implies a weight restriction issue and that PCNs must state the grounds of belief.
Ignoring standard codes and wording requirements (which skew things a little) the driver must understand what they have done wrong.
Well I can't from the PCN and a quick virtual look around the area.

Unless authority can show weight restriction signage we can't see and the OP was driving a vehicle over that limit, they cannot substantiate the belief

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Plywood-Enthusia...
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 20:07
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Jun 2014
Member No.: 71,480



I had to send in an appeal before I could read all the helpful advice above. Thank you very much for contributing to this.

As I wanted to put in an appeal before the half price deadline I just wrote in explaining the signs are all messed up. I drive through that road most days on weekdays and never noticed these signs. Explained they're all bashed around pointing all sorts of directions and they accepted my representation and cancelled the PCN.

I also explained that the CCTV clearly shows me reversing back out after entering 10 meters into it, the signs were hopeless but common sense prevailed as I could see the market after turning the bend so backed out.

My skin is saved. But my wife has a much more complicated case and the initial representation was rejected

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...p;#entry1336568
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 13 Jan 2018 - 23:01
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,728
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Well done on getting the PCN cancelled, but I don't see how they could lawfully do otherwise with no signs related to weight of vehicles.
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: Tuesday, 22nd May 2018 - 14:08
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.