PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Mare Street Richmond Road no left turn, 50l performing a prohibited turn
stamfordman
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 21:10
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



OK my turn (pun intended) - been some time since the one that got me on the forum.

Not me but wife - early Saturday morning at the infamous Mare Street Richmond Road turn, on her way back from Lidl. No traffic management purpose I can see for this to operate on Saturday morning but there you go.

Had a quick look on register and there are some wins on traffic lights being sited before signs. I also note the PCN says they will serve a notice of the decision within 56 days, which seems odd for a moving traffic PCN.

Other appeals successful have been for lack of illumination in early evening and passing buses, neither of which apply here.

My fault for not alerting wife - in fact I had impressed on her the need to register the car at Lidl (which she knew anyway) only to fall foul of this.

Any thoughts welcome.












This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 31 May 2019 - 21:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 31 May 2019 - 21:10
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 1 Jun 2019 - 20:48
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,902
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I don't think there's any traffic management purpose on having a 70 limit at 3 am on an empty motorway, but there you go. Attacking the merits of the restriction is futile.

They've fixed the PCN to specify the name of the junction, so vague location is gone. You have failure to particularise, the PCN doesn't say what turn is prohibited and no signage is visible in the photo, so that is worth pursuing in addition to the signage.

The 56 day thing is not uncommon, it's because they've copy / pasted text from a TMA 2004 PCN. However as they've voluntarily committed themselves to cancelling the PCN if they don't reply within 56 days, they cannot now resile from that, even though no such requirement exists under the Act.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 15:46
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



OK just drove down there to take some pics. When lights are green as per my wife on approaching to turn left the sign is clearly behind the traffic light. In fact as you approach both signs on left and right are behind lights. If you do stop when lights turn red you can see the signs clearly but not when lights green and committed to turn. Spanner in works is the advance left hand side sign, which is slightly twisted but if you are focusing on lights and moving over from a bus lane then this is not so obvious.

Several appeals have been won on signage. Any more thoughts?

"I have reviewed the images submitted by the Council. These show Mr xxxx’s car making a left turn at the junction in contravention of a signed prohibition. There is a no left turn sign mounted to a post on the left hand side of the road with controlled hours of 7am to 10am and 3pm to 7pm Mondays to Saturdays.
In my judgement, this signage is not adequate. The no left turn sign is positioned beyond the traffic lights so that it may not be clearly seen before the lights. Looking at the library images from the Council dated 18 July 2018, I can see the sign beyond the lights. The lights are in front of the sign and so risk causing an obstructed view from car level in the left hand lane. The library images do show an advance warning sign further back from the lights but this is tilted at an angle so that it does not directly face the approaching motorist. Mr XXX says that he was unaware of the change in restrictions at this location. That is no defence as a motorist is expected to be alert to signage in place but that signage must be clearly displayed."

"The footage demonstrates the said vehicle executing a left-hand turn manoeuvre; no restrictive signage is directly visible.
By correlating the 24th August 2018 images to the contemporaneous capture it is evident that a relevant sign/s, are sited behind the automatic traffic signal, and consequently may be obscured."

"I am, however, allowing the appeal because I agree with Mr YYYY that the signage is not adequate. The no left turn sign is positioned beyond the traffic lights so that it may not be clearly seen before the lights. Looking at the library images from the Council, I can see the sign beyond the lights. The lights are in front of the sign and so risk causing an obstructed view from car level in the left hand lane. There is another no left turn sign attached to a post on the traffic island and this also appears to be set beyond the lights."










This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 2 Jun 2019 - 15:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Alexandra300
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 15:41
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: 12 May 2019
Member No.: 103,827



Im a new at this so be gentle, the cctv images show a vehicle turning left but there are no signs in the cctv images to justify an PCN being issued. the angle of the cctv does not show any offence being committed as there is no sign in the cctv supplied.

Does a sign have to be within the photo or cctv for an offence to be committed?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 15:52
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Alexandra300 @ Mon, 3 Jun 2019 - 16:41) *
Does a sign have to be within the photo or cctv for an offence to be committed?



No. The authority will though need to provide proof that signage is in place.

In this case, which happens to be mine, I intend to put Hackney to the test of defending the shots I've taken of both signs by the junction sited behind the traffic lights.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 20:51
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Any thoughts about the strength of the pics showing lights in front of signs?

I think I'll take this to adjudication - will be worth it to see it in action.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 21:05
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,902
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 21:51) *
I think I'll take this to adjudication - will be worth it to see it in action.

I can see a risk here, you'll be in the waiting area with other people, many of whom will be discussing each other's PCNs and the temptation to help might be too great to resist...


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 23:07
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,892
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 22:05) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 4 Jun 2019 - 21:51) *
I think I'll take this to adjudication - will be worth it to see it in action.

I can see a risk here, you'll be in the waiting area with other people, many of whom will be discussing each other's PCNs and the temptation to help might be too great to resist...

laugh.gif Been there, seen it (not) done it. Wanted to but found it very intimidating in that respect; too quiet.

I can see it though: Imagine someone looking very confident but turns out their case is mitigation only. Then you find out it's a Havering MTC;
whaddya do in 3- 15 minutes?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 07:37
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,900
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



You need to hand out some Pepipoo leaflets, I am sure we had some for our faster appellants, why not for the decriminalised part of the forum?

BTW no camera enforcement sign on the L/H posts.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 08:13
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 09:06
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,902
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 5 Jun 2019 - 00:07) *
I can see it though: Imagine someone looking very confident but turns out their case is mitigation only. Then you find out it's a Havering MTC;
whaddya do in 3- 15 minutes?

You could offer to act as a their representative biggrin.gif


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 6 Jul 2019 - 13:58
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



So the rejection has come. As I said I'll be taking this to the tribunal for experience - not that bothered if I lose. My wife is the RK - can someone remind me what needs to be said in the appeal to nominate me to attend. Below are my reps (not great but I knew it would be rejected) and their rejection.

-------------------

I wish to appeal the PCN on the grounds that the signage at the junction is obscured by the traffic lights, which are sited in front of the signage. On approaching the junction with the lights on green, sight lines to the signage are blocked on both sides and particularly to the key sign on the left. This signpost also has bus lane signage and a bus lane camera sign, further limiting the ability to take in information in a split second when committed to turning left at the junction. Only if stopping at the light is there an opportunity to read the sign, which has a timed restriction, amid the bus lane information.
My husband has been to the junction and taken the enclosed pictures of both signs obscured by the traffic lights. I also note that adjudicators at London Tribunals have allowed a number of appeals on the grounds of exactly this obscured signage, and should you not cancel this PCN I will have no hesitation in taking this photographic evidence to the Tribunal.
I look forward to your early cancellation of this PCN.





This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 6 Jul 2019 - 14:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 6 Jul 2019 - 18:29
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,080
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



You have the served (delivered) i issue in the NoR and not info re adjudicators power to extend

218033612A (edited to the relevant bit) its parking regs but in essence these are the same re the regs

I turn then to consider the alleged procedural impropriety. The powers of the adjudicator to direct that the PCN and/or Notice to Owner are cancelled are limited to those contained in Regulation 7(2) of the 2007 Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (“the Representations and Appeals Regulations”). If I refer to a Regulation hereafter it can be assumed I am referring to those Regulations unless the contrary is stated. Regulation 7(2) limits the adjudicator’s powers to the grounds upon which an EA may uphold representations against a Notice to Owner pursuant to Regulation 4(4).
A procedural impropriety is defined in Regulation 4(5), as far as is relevant, as:
“… a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by the 2004 [Traffic Management] Act, by the General Regulations or by these Regulations in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum and includes in particular
(a) the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than
(i) in accordance with the conditions subject to which; or
(ii) at the time or during the period when, it is authorised or required by the General Regulations or these Regulations to be taken; and…”
Regulation 6 reads as follows:
“6. Rejection of representations against notice to owner
(1) Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b), that notice shall
(a) state that a charge certificate may be served unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge;
(b) indicate the nature of an adjudicator's power to award costs; and
© describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made.
(2) A notice of rejection served in accordance with paragraph (1) may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate.”
Regulation 7 reads, as far as is relevant, as follows:
“7. Appeals to an adjudicator in relation to decisions under regulation 5
(1) Where an authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b) in relation to representations made under regulation 4, the person who made those representations may appeal to an adjudicator against the authority's decision
(a) before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection; or
(b) within such longer period as an adjudicator may allow…”
The Notice of Rejection in this case, dated 13 August 2018, reads, as far as is relevant for this appeal, and with my underlining, as follows:
“Therefore, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date that this letter was served (the date it was delivered), you must either pay the penalty charge amount as stated above or appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators.
[details of how to appeal are provided]
If you do not pay or appeal before the end of the 28 day period, the penalty charge may increase by 50% to £120.00 and we may serve a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount. At that stage, you may have missed the opportunity to appeal. If the increased charge is not then paid within a further 14 days, we may apply to the county court to recover the charge as if it were a debt payable under a county court order…”
Mrs Sinclair’s case is that the Notice to Owner in her case was deficient in two respects.
First, she says, the reference to delivery above is incorrect because the concept of delivery is distinct from the concept of service. It is the date of service that is relevant for the purposes of Regulation 7(1)(a) and, hence, 6(1)(a). She relies on the decision of an adjudicator in a different tribunal, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, on the significance of a similarly-worded provision in a local authority’s Notice to Owner, issued pursuant to Regulation 19 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 (“the General Regulations”). Unfortunately, Mrs Sinclair has erased the name of the appellant in that case (the details of, including the identity of parties to, traffic tribunals are matters of public record) but the respondent was the Kent County Council, the case was decided on 17 August 2010 and the case reference is KP05045K. The adjudicator in that case held that the Notice to Owner was defective in part because the use of the word ‘delivered’ was inconsistent with the provisions as to the deeming of ‘service’ in Article 3 of the General Regulations. Strictly, the decision in that case could be distinguished because a Notice of Rejection is, unlike a Notice to Owner, not a notice that is served under the General Regulations. Regulation 3 of the General Regulations does not, therefore apply. Nor does the similarly worded provision as to service in paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Representations and Appeals Regulations apply, because, at the point the Notice of Rejection is sent, there are no adjudication proceedings and no parties to an appeal. There do not seem to be any provisions within the two sets of Regulations specifying when such a notice is deemed served. It seems to me, therefore, that section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies. The general point made in the Kent County Council case does, however, remain. The recipient of a Notice of Rejection must be able to work out precisely when payment must be made or an appeal made, by reference to the concept of ‘service’ and when service is deemed to have been effected. The use of the term ‘delivered’, even if intended to be helpful, muddles the issue and is inconsistent with the strict requirements of Regulation 6(1)(a).
The second alleged deficiency is that the Notice of Rejection does not expressly state that an adjudicator may extend the period of 28 days provided for lodging an appeal, as provided by Regulation 7(1)(b). It is right to say, of course, that Regulation 6 does not stipulate that it should. It is also right to say that the Notice of Rejection alludes to the power to extend the period, in that it states that a person who does not appeal within the period ‘may’ have missed the opportunity to appeal. I conclude, however, that a reasonable reader of the Notice of Rejection would be unlikely to conclude that an adjudicator had the power to extend the 28 day period. That discretionary power is, in my view, an important component of the appellate process and a power of which a potential appellant should be made aware. In the case of Miller v. London Borough of Barnet (2170241413, 21 June 2017), cited by Mrs Sinclair, my fellow adjudicator Mr. Chan held that it was essential that a Notice of Rejection describes the power of potential extension to the 28 day limit. He held that a Notice of Rejection that does not contains this detail does not describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made, in accordance with Regulation 6(1)©. For the reasons I have given I agree with that decision which I consider highly persuasive.
In the above two respects the mandatory requirements of Regulation 6(1) have not been complied with in this case. The departures from the regulatory scheme are not so trivial that the Notice of Rejection can nonetheless be deemed effectively, or substantially, compliant with the statutory scheme. I find that there has been a failure by the EA to observe a requirement of the Regulations made under the Traffic Management Act 2004 and, thus, a procedural impropriety within the meaning of regulation 4(5).
The appeal is allowed on that basis.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 6 Jul 2019 - 22:02
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,902
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 6 Jul 2019 - 14:58) *
My wife is the RK - can someone remind me what needs to be said in the appeal to nominate me to attend.

As I understand it when you register the appeal on the tribunal website, there's an option to name a representative. If in doubt, just call the tribunal and ask them to confirm what the procedure is. It's no big deal as it's not a court, no rights of audience are needed and anyone can be named as a representative.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 6 Jul 2019 - 22:38
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,080
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 6 Jul 2019 - 23:02) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 6 Jul 2019 - 14:58) *
My wife is the RK - can someone remind me what needs to be said in the appeal to nominate me to attend.

As I understand it when you register the appeal on the tribunal website, there's an option to name a representative. If in doubt, just call the tribunal and ask them to confirm what the procedure is. It's no big deal as it's not a court, no rights of audience are needed and anyone can be named as a representative.


That's definitely the procedure for TPT so should be the same or similar


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 12:39
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



So the tribunal hearing is next Saturday and I have the evidence pack (massive) from Hackney. I need to upload my evidence. Both me and wife intend to attend as it's not far from us.

PMB - should I just include your post 12 as one point.

below is their main letter. They have included pics of the signs but not shot like mine frpm the position of the driver. They have though included my shots too. Most of the pack is stuff about CCTV and the school scheme (but no explanation as to why it's also running on Saturday).

They have made two mistakes I've highlighted - that the turn is not permitted at any time (it is as it's a timed for certain hours) and that the sign is visible especially when making a right turn which is just silly.

Also below are cases in the past few months where appeals on signage have been allowed.









2180472875
Mr Grieve has attended in person.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of performing a prohibited left turn in Mare Street at 4.02pm on 20 August 2018.
I have reviewed the images submitted by the Council. These show Mr Grieve’s car making a left turn at the junction in contravention of a signed prohibition. There is a no left turn sign mounted to a post on the left hand side of the road with controlled hours of 7am to 10am and 3pm to 7pm Mondays to Saturdays.
In my judgement, this signage is not adequate. The no left turn sign is positioned beyond the traffic lights so that it may not be clearly seen before the lights. Looking at the library images from the Council dated 18 July 2018, I can see the sign beyond the lights. The lights are in front of the sign and so risk causing an obstructed view from car level in the left hand lane. The library images do show an advance warning sign further back from the lights but this is tilted at an angle so that it does not directly face the approaching motorist. Mr Grieve says that he was unaware of the change in restrictions at this location. That is no defence as a motorist is expected to be alert to signage in place but that signage must be clearly displayed.


2180467580
A Personal Hearing was scheduled for 12.30 p.m. today, 3rd January 2019; the Appellant did not attend therefore it falls to me now to determine this matter on the evidence, presently before me, adduced by both parties.
The Enforcement Authority assert that at the relevant time, on the material date, vehicle MJ13FBC executed a manoeuvre contrary to signage prohibiting the same.
The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the challenge as stated in his written representations.
The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to an operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ, and images dated 12th June 2018 of the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined, repeatedly, to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The footage demonstrates the said vehicle executing a left-hand turn manoeuvre; no restrictive signage is directly visible.
By correlating the 12th June 2018 images to the contemporaneous capture it is evident that the relevant sign is sited behind the automatic traffic signal, and that such automatic traffic signal does not incorporate an intermittent banned turn sign to reflect the restriction.
Indeed even in the 12th June 2018 image of the sign at the junction a vehicle is in the process of executing a left hand turn.
It is evident therefore that motorists are not discouraged at the automatic traffic signal from executing such manoeuvre during the restriction's operative periods.
Further it appears that the automatic traffic signal obscures the relevant sign and leaves the motorist with insufficient time to digest the information imparted at the point that such a manoeuvre is commenced.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature and extent of the restriction to motorists. I do not find that to be the case in this instance.
Evidentially I am not be satisfied that a contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.


QZ02539066
At this scheduled personal hearing Mr Ramsay attended in person but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to perform a prohibited turn.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Mare Street, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The vehicle is seen to turn left into Richmond Road, when Enforcement Authority’s case is that a sign clearly indicates no left turn at the material time.
Mr Ramsay’s case is that the signage was unclear.
Both parties have produced photographs/digital images of the location and it appears that the signage has been changed, as to height and number, since the restriction was first introduced. The advance warning sign in a in a bus lane.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, it is also the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to ensure that signs are not only complaint with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which this one is, but also adequate in terms of position and number such as to inform the motorist of the restriction or prohibition.
Considering carefully all of the evidence before me, I am not satisfied that the signage was so adequate.
Accordingly this appeal must be allowed.


QZ02858869
The Appellant, Mr A. Fernandez, attended a Personal Hearing before me on 10th January 2019 to explain his contention personally.
The Enforcement Authority assert that at the relevant time, on the material date, vehicle SC57 CHN executed a manoeuvre contrary to signage prohibiting the same.
The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge as stated in his written representations, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.
The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ, and images dated 24th August 2018 of the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined, repeatedly, to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The footage demonstrates the said vehicle executing a left-hand turn manoeuvre; no restrictive signage is directly visible.
By correlating the 24th August 2018 images to the contemporaneous capture it is evident that the relevant signs are sited behind the automatic traffic signal, and that such automatic traffic signal does not incorporate an intermittent banned turn sign to reflect the restriction.
Indeed the 24th August 2018 image of the automatic traffic signal at the junction, captured during the operative period of the restriction demonstrates the absence of any illuminated intermittent banned turn sign.
It is evident therefore that motorists are not discouraged by the automatic traffic signal from executing such manoeuvre during the restriction's operative periods.
Further I accept the Appellant's contention that the automatic traffic signal obscures the relevant signs on both sides and leaves the motorist with insufficient time to digest the information imparted at the point that such a manoeuvre is commenced.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature and extent of the restriction to motorists. I do not find that to be the case in this instance.
Further, I have referenced the London A-Z and note that Mare Street is a lengthy road containing many junctions; none are described as 'D.' I therefore find that the Penalty Charge Notice inadequately identifies the location of the alleged contravention, and for that reason cannot be pursued.
Evidentially in light of my 2 findings I cannot be satisfied that a contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.




2180474848
The Appellant, Mr K. Wyke, attended a Personal Hearing before me on 12th January 2019 to explain his contention personally.
The Enforcement Authority assert that at the relevant time, on the material date, vehicle SB59WVP executed a manoeuvre contrary to signage prohibiting the same.
The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge as stated in his written representations, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing and supported with recent photographic capture.
The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ, and images dated 12th June 2018 of the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined, repeatedly, to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The footage demonstrates the said vehicle executing a left-hand turn manoeuvre; no restrictive signage is visible.
By correlating the 12th June 2018 images to the contemporaneous capture it is evident that the relevant sign is sited behind the automatic traffic signal, and that such automatic traffic signal does not incorporate an intermittent banned turn sign to reflect the restriction.
Indeed even in a 12th June 2018 image of the sign at the junction a vehicle is in the process of executing a left hand turn during its operative hours.
It is evident therefore that motorists are not discouraged by the automatic traffic signal from executing such manoeuvre during the restriction's operative periods.
Further I accept the Appellant's contention [as evidenced by recent photographic capture] that both a tree and the automatic traffic signal itself completely obscure the relevant sign, leaving the motorist with insufficient time to digest the information imparted at the point that such a manoeuvre is commenced.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature and extent of the restriction to motorists. I do not find that to be the case in this instance, and I am concerned at the lack of clarity of such signage particularly in light of the fact that this an intermittent restriction which should be made abundantly clear to the motorist..
Accordingly, the contravention is not proved and the Appeal is allowed.


2190043616
The Appellant, Mr M. Kabunga, appeared before me today, 24th April 2019, on behalf of the Appellant Company, to explain the contention personally. Mr Kabunga also attended in the capacity of witness as to fact since he was the driver at the relevant time.
The Enforcement Authority assert that at the relevant time, on the material date, vehicle DS64MJJ executed a manoeuvre contrary to signage prohibiting the same [No Left Turn].
The Appellant Company denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the challenge as stated in the written representations, namely the inadequacy of the signage, which Mr Kabunga reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.
The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ, and images dated 24th August 2018 of the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined, repeatedly, to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The footage demonstrates the said vehicle executing a left-hand turn manoeuvre; no restrictive signage is directly visible.
By correlating the 24th August 2018 images to the contemporaneous capture it is evident that a relevant sign/s, are sited behind the automatic traffic signal, and consequently may be obscured.
Mr Kabunga maintains that it was dark in December and neither of the signs were lit nor were any banned turn sign illuminated, otherwise they would have been noticeable.
Since the restriction is sporadic, it is crucial that the intermittent banned turn sign incorporated in the automatic traffic signal is illuminated during the restricted periods.
Further I accept Mr Kabunga's contention that the automatic traffic signal obscures the signs on both sides and leaves the motorist with insufficient time to digest the information imparted at the point, if seen, because the manoeuvre is already commenced.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage and comply with restrictions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure the signage implementing the terms of a Traffic Management Order is adequate to communicate the nature and extent of the restriction to motorists. I do not find that to be the case in this instance.
I have referenced the London A-Z and note that Mare Street is a lengthy road containing many junctions; none are described as 'D.' I therefore find that the Penalty Charge Notice inadequately identifies the location of the alleged contravention, and for that reason cannot be pursued.
Evidentially in light of my 2 findings I cannot be satisfied that a contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.


2190010220
The appellant attended the personal hearing listed for today.
I found him to be a sincere and honest witness.
He denied the contravention stating that he did not see the no left turn signs and went back to check and there were no signs on the traffic lights which appear to have been blanked out, and although there were signs after the traffic lights the were obscured by the traffic lights and by the time you could see them it would be too late as you would have already committed to turn.
The appellant referred to the photographs he sent to the local authority taken on 12th November a few days after the date of the contravention and indeed show the signs on the traffic lights to be blanked out.
In addition both sets of signs are after the traffic lights and I accept the appellants evidence that they would have been obscured by the same.
I am not satisfied on the evidence presented that the signage was clear and allow this appeal.

2190059864
Mr Leon Labadie has attended the hearing. Mr Labadie tells me that he is the owner of vehicle registration NL12 XHX.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of performing a prohibited turn in Mare Street at 3.51pm on 9 November 2018. The prohibited turn is a left turn.
I have reviewed the images submitted by the Council. These show vehicle registration NL12 XHX making a left turn at the junction in contravention of a signed prohibition. There is a no left turn sign mounted to a post on the left hand side of the road with controlled hours of 7am to 10am and 3pm to 7pm Mondays to Saturdays.
I am, however, allowing the appeal because I agree with Mr Labadie that the signage is not adequate. The no left turn sign is positioned beyond the traffic lights so that it may not be clearly seen before the lights. Looking at the library images from the Council, I can see the sign beyond the lights. The lights are in front of the sign and so risk causing an obstructed view from car level in the left hand lane. There is another no left turn sign attached to a post on the traffic island and this also appears to be set beyond the lights.


2180510737
Mrs Alam was scheduled for a personal hearing today but he has not attended and so the appeal is being decided on the evidence presented.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of performing a prohibited turn in Mare Street at 9.54am on 15 August 2018. The prohibited turn is a left turn.
I have reviewed the images submitted by the Council. These show vehicle registration LA62TXP making a left turn at the junction in contravention of a signed prohibition. There is a no left turn sign mounted to a post on the left hand side of the road with controlled hours of 7am to 10am and 3pm to 7pm Mondays to Saturdays. Mr Alam appeals saying that he genuinely forgot the restrictions and that he is still having difficulty coming to terms with them.
I am allowing the appeal because, in my judgement, the signage is not adequate. The no left turn sign is positioned beyond the traffic lights so that it may not be clearly seen before the lights. Looking at the library images from the Council, I can see the sign beyond the lights. The lights are in front of the sign and so risk causing an obstructed view from car level in the left hand lane. This may well explain why Mr Alam has made the mistake on more than one occasion. There is an advance warning sign further back from the lights but this is tilted at an angle so that it does not directly face the approaching motorist.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 13:42
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 13:07
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,892
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



edit

This post has been edited by Neil B: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 13:35


--------------------
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 Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 13:33
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,657
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



edit

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 13:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 13:37
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,892
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Ok but I've edited so I've not flagged here -- if you want to do the same to your response.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 7 Sep 2019 - 20:09
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,080
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



I would as a collateral challenge. How are you supposed to know what service means

I will send you an e mail with a couple of TPT cases on the subject.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 9 Sep 2019 - 21:22
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,902
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



You might as well check if the council uploaded the mandatory minimum evidence within the 7 day deadline, as per reg 4(2) here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/12...gulation/4/made which applies by virtue of this http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/757/article/5/made (see at the bottom under the heading "Transitional modifications of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003".

London Tribunals doesn't show an upload date on the website but if you call the tribunal helpline and ask, they will tell you when the council evidence was served.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
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, 21st October 2019 - 21:30
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.