Failure to drive in direction shown Options

[eshroom]

(Sorry, I don't have the other pages, they were accidentally binned.)

I received this PCN and have been up and down Shaftsbury Avenue on GSV and can't find any of these signs. I think they must mean the sign placed on the A400, where it meets Shaftsbury Avenue.

I did miss the sign for sure. Is it worth appealing on the basis that it's hard to find where the location they are referring to is? Or is there anything else I have missed on the PCN that is grounds for appeal?

It's also worth adding I have been unable to see the video evidence as they appear to only support IE and I have a mac so no IE.

This post has been edited by eshroom: Fri, 3 Aug 2018 - 18:16

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

Even if you've binned the other sheets you can upload the back of this page.

[eshroom]

Even if you've binned the other sheets you can upload the back of this page.

Sorry. I meant the whole thing has been binned, housemate sent me a photo while I was on holiday. Came back and it had already been binned.

[spaceman]

It's also worth adding I have been unable to see the video evidence as they appear to only support IE and I have a mac so no IE.

Try installing Firefox. Works fine on my Mac.

[cp8759]

Chrome on Linux works but if you still can't get the video PM me the details and I can post it up for you.

[eshroom]

Chrome on Linux works but if you still can't get the video PM me the details and I can post it up for you.

Thank you, PM sent.

I tried Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Safari pretending to be various versions of IE. No joy with any of them.

[cp8759]

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2kfroVcrn0

[PASTMYBEST]

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2kfroVcrn0

give us a GSV to the location

[cp8759]

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2kfroVcrn0

give us a GSV to the location

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5164567,-...3312!8i6656

[stamfordman]

Only point I can see is vague location - just says Shaftesbury Ave.

Otherwise discount looks good.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 5 Aug 2018 - 12:54

[cp8759]

Only point I can see is vague location - just says Shaftesbury Ave.

Otherwise discount looks good.

+1, it's 0.6 miles log and intersects approximately 17 junctions, so if you're not from London you'd have no idea where the contravention is alleged to have taken place.

See Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A):

Mr Kelly has appeared in person with his son, Mr Sean Kelly.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being in a bus lane in Northolt Road Northbound at 12.49pm on 12 March 2016.
Mr Kelly appeals because he says that the PCN does not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention. His evidence shows that there are 5 camera enforcement locations in Northolt Road.
Although the Council says in its case summary that the location is Northolt Road at the junction with Shaftesbury Avenue, this is not clear from the PCN.
The PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred. I agree with Mr Kelly that this PCN did not sufficiently identify the location of the alleged contravention and I allow the appeal for this reason.

[eshroom]

cp, thank you very much for uploading the video!

Thanks for the inputs! I will send an initial appeal based on location. Would you say it's worth taking to tribunal based on the vagueness?

cp, thank you for the reference. Where it says "Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred." - is this a regulation, or is it open to interpretation by adjudicators?

[cp8759]

cp, thank you very much for uploading the video!

Thanks for the inputs! I will send an initial appeal based on location. Would you say it's worth taking to tribunal based on the vagueness?

cp, thank you for the reference. Where it says "Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred." - is this a regulation, or is it open to interpretation by adjudicators?

That is what the adjudicator said in Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow, but generally all adjudicators will allow an appeal if the location is too vague. It really boils down to whether you can work out the location from the information on the PCN, if the adjudicator thinks the location is obvious he'll throw your appeal out, but if he agrees that the location is vague, he will allow the appeal.

You could also use Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2130412623) on the basis that the PCN doesn't say in which direction the blue arrow directed you to go:

"The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') in this case describes the alleged traffic contravention as Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn. However, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited, left or right. Also, whilst the Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') includes superimposed pictures, it is impossible to see in the copy filed any actual traffic sign(s) that the appellant is alleged to have failed to comply with and there is no copy of the sign(s) themselves superimposed on the PCN.

In the circumstances, I find that the PCN is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('LLA & TFL Act 2003'), which states that the PCN "must (a) state (i) the grounds on which the council...believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.”

In your case, did the blue arrow say straight ahead, or right turn only? We can't tell from the PCN, so you can argue it's not sufficiently particularised. I would have thought that combining the vagueness of the allegation with the vagueness of the location should, on balance, allow you to prevail at adjudication. Personally I would take it to the tribunal, but obviously it's your decision how far you want to take this.

[eshroom]

OK, thanks. I've had quite good success at tribunal, so I'd be inclined to fight it too. Let's see how it goes.

[eshroom]

Waiting for council's response. My appeal was short:

"To be valid, the PCN must state the grounds on which the Council believe that the penalty charge is payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of the PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention but exactly where it is said to have occurred.

I visited Shaftsbury Avenue to try and identify the location. I counted approximately 23 junctions on Shaftsbury Avenue while searching for the possible location of this PCN, in the end I was unable to identify with certainty exactly where the images were taken."

This post has been edited by eshroom: Sat, 15 Sep 2018 - 12:29

[cp8759]

Did you actually visit Shaftsbury Avenue to try and identify the location?

[eshroom]

Appeal allowed on the basis the pcn does not sufficiently convey the location of the contravention. Thanks for everyone's help!

[Mr Meldrew]

Did you actually visit Shaftsbury Avenue to try and identify the location?

What do you think? My word, there's some excellent free advice on this website. Well done everyone.

[eshroom]

Did you actually visit Shaftsbury Avenue to try and identify the location?

I did when I happened to be in the area. To be honest, it was easier to identify the location on GSV, probably because of the camera perspective and having the images on a computer screen to cross-reference (still took some time to identify).

In their final document the council clarified the location as "Junction of the north-west/southeast arm of Shaftsbury avenue with the south-west/north-east arm of Shaftsbury avenue". I'm even more confused now. So Shaftsbury Avenue crosses Shaftsbury Avenue?

I had to read this three times to get my head around it.



This post has been edited by eshroom: Mon, 10 Dec 2018 - 01:26

[cp8759]

Appeal allowed on the basis the pcn does not sufficiently convey the location of the contravention. Thanks for everyone's help!

Could you give us the appeal number? We've had a few at this location and it would be helpful for others.