PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

The Bridge PCN - prohibited No Right Turn
tburn
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 13:57
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



There are a few of those around, some input would be much appreciated before my tribunal appeal.

Most of the information is already included at the start of this case:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...95433&st=20

I am contesting the case on inadequate signage, if not to say a con.

The PCN was issued in March, the contravention took place in February. I received an NtO for my reps on inadequate signage and now taking the case to the tribunal in June. The appeal will be submitted before the deadline once I add all my points.

Harrow issued an evidence pack in just 2 days after submitting to PATAS, sounds like big business,

The evidence pack:

  • PCN and NtO -- upload to follow
  • TMO -- will need to scrutinise, e.g Schedule2 refers to location as "The Bridge, south-eastbound" not as in the PCN "The Bridge jct to A409"
  • CD with footage - the footage shows car from the point of moving forward on the signal for a few seconds - it does not show how the car arrived at the signal i.e how the contravention came about
  • 5 photos - 4x of a stationary vehicle and 1x reg no.
  • witness statement
  • 2 library photos and several google maps dated from last year


The council argument is pretty standard, everything is in compliance with TSRGD 2002, there is a direction sign on the wall before the junction and later on a camera sign. Adding at the end that there are circular prohibited right turn signs under the signals.

There is no CCTV certificate in the evidence pack. I have already requested this in a FOI.

Due to a printing error(?) their submission is missing a full line at the start of my formal reps:
"The signage at the location is inadequate to alert a driver that turning ahead is prohibited whilst approaching the traffic lights at the The Bridge/A409 junction"

Also, in all the photos they submitted the prohibited turn sign and exemption are clearly not illuminated.
I have read about cases upheld because internal illumination of these signs is considered a requirement.

I will post up docs and pics soon.


The basis of my appeal:

Inadequate signage, this is not a case where the driver has any option but to move forward by the time they arrive at the restriction. A direction sign is not the same as a restriction sign. I have never seen a directional sign or any traffic sign affixed on a building wall away from the curb like a shop sign. I cannot imagine how this is compliant but I can certainly assume adjudicators will find it "substantially compliant". The next thing is that a camera sign does not necessarily suggest a restriction let alone a prohibited turn. The sign is also a few meters before. All these points from the council appear weak to my end.

The layout of the road is further confusing, especially as you can easily miss the direction sign on the wall and follow the only illuminated blue directional arrow on the island box on the right. It is further not uncommon to observe no-right turn signs under signals at junctions to prevent drivers from turning on the wrong lane, to collide with oncoming traffic. Plus traffic can be seen moving to both directions of A409.

The only way a driver is aware of the restriction is by reaching the signals and reading the non-illuminated signs. They have no option but to either reverse and cause a potential accident or turn left in multiple maneuvers due to the layout of the road.In my view this is a ridiculous contravention.

The council feels more inclined in spending money for a CCTV penalty system than place a no-right turn sign before the junction. Speaks for itself.

I have one question about submitting my own video evidence. I recorded dashcam footage (not from the incident unfortunately) that shows how tricky it is to observe those signs from the driver point of view. I am in a quandary because it can become a boomerang. In a past case the adjudicator found my photos "substantially compliant" on utterly faded markings. So perhaps it is best to argue the case on the council evidence...
I can post a link for feedback on this.

Thanks

This post has been edited by tburn: Thu, 17 May 2018 - 14:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 24)
Advertisement
post Thu, 17 May 2018 - 13:57
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 12:24
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,481
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Personally I don't think you would succeed with a review. the adjudicator took on boaed the different regs and admonished the council but decided that as no material difference between the two sets of regs is argued then its no ground for appeal. Their decision to make, they are not bound by other adjudications, even their own. Re the signage he covered it and found in this case it was adequate
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tburn
post Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 14:34
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



Then I guess I will have to suck it up and pay. I did not appeal for the penalty but because I find situations like this abusive by councils.

Perhaps my understanding was incorrect but the point raised was not a comparison of different tsrgds referenced, it was the statutory duty to considering my reps was met, as I understood the case. The adjudicator turned this into an issue of comparison without addressing the point.
The sign position is also quoted in the wrong location. The response of the council was a copy & paste with mistakes and that was my point.

I understand that reason does not always apply when examining a case from the statutory viewpoint. But this location is an obvious trap to unfamiliar drivers, the camera is clearly suggesting so as it costs a lot more to install than swapping with a prohibited turn sign placed where the camera sign is. Suggesting that cars should reverse to avoid such a poorly signposted restriction seems highly unreasonable and dangerous in my view.

I honestly feel there is no point in appealling to contraventions anymore. It has become a theatrical play between councils and adjudication to merely feed the satisfaction of the fleeced motorist.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 17:12
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,481
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (tburn @ Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 15:34) *
Then I guess I will have to suck it up and pay. I did not appeal for the penalty but because I find situations like this abusive by councils.

Perhaps my understanding was incorrect but the point raised was not a comparison of different tsrgds referenced, it was the statutory duty to considering my reps was met, as I understood the case. The adjudicator turned this into an issue of comparison without addressing the point.
The sign position is also quoted in the wrong location. The response of the council was a copy & paste with mistakes and that was my point.

I understand that reason does not always apply when examining a case from the statutory viewpoint. But this location is an obvious trap to unfamiliar drivers, the camera is clearly suggesting so as it costs a lot more to install than swapping with a prohibited turn sign placed where the camera sign is. Suggesting that cars should reverse to avoid such a poorly signposted restriction seems highly unreasonable and dangerous in my view.

I honestly feel there is no point in appealling to contraventions anymore. It has become a theatrical play between councils and adjudication to merely feed the satisfaction of the fleeced motorist.


Don't agree with the no point issue. and the adjudicators are independent. Sometimes they do allow councils too much leeway IMO but on the whole it works
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 19:38
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,605
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (tburn @ Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 15:34) *
I honestly feel there is no point in appealling to contraventions anymore. It has become a theatrical play between councils and adjudication to merely feed the satisfaction of the fleeced motorist.

Given the number of appeals that are allowed, I have to disagree. Haven't checked the success rates recently but a couple years back it was well over 50%.


--------------------
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
tburn
post Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 08:39
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 17 Jan 2012
Member No.: 52,491



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 23 Jun 2018 - 18:12) *
Don't agree with the no point issue. and the adjudicators are independent. Sometimes they do allow councils too much leeway IMO but on the whole it works


It was only a view/rant for my very own cases, I am in no way suggesting people should not appeal. On the contrary it stops councils from going completely berserk.

Far too much leeway in my short experience but on this occasion I felt the point raised has not been addressed and it is not the first time.

Thanks for all the help here!

This post has been edited by tburn: Sun, 24 Jun 2018 - 08:42
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: Friday, 21st September 2018 - 22:26
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.