PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

[Adjudication win] Nuttall Street Hackney 50 Prohibited Turn
ohnoes
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 20:59
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Hello all,

My father has been stung at the above location.

Here is a copy of the PCN: https://imgur.com/a/aJ7CT9I

Based on another active thread, I have put together the following initial appeal to Hackney Council.
Can you please critique it and let me know if there are any other grounds that I have missed?

Ground 1: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The signage of the restriction is inadequate.

The “No Turn” signage consists of one sign mounted high on a street lighting pole to the left of the carriageway, directly before a pedestrian crossing.
The mounting height of the sign is outside of guidance in the Sign Manual and is too high to be noticed by a motorist, who will be concentrating on the crossing. Therefore the signage is inadequate.

Whilst previous decisions are not binding, they can be persuasive and I submit Edward Dixon v London Borough of Haringey (case reference 2160444800) as persuasive authority in this instance. In the case the tribunal held that:

"The Appellant said he did not see the sign on the side of the street he parked because it was low down and obscured by furniture and other items that were being loaded or unloaded. He looked across the street and saw a the pay & display ticket machine and pay and display sign and assumed it applied to where he was parked and bought and displayed a ticket.

The Sign Manual gives the following recommendations for the placement of signs:

MOUNTING

1.21 The normal mounting height measured to the lower edge of a sign or backing board (or any supplementary plate) is between 900 mm and 1500 mm above the carriageway alongside. The greater height should be used where vehicle spray is likely to soil the sign, or above planted areas. Careful consideration should be given to any proposal to mount signs at a low height, such as on railings or bollards, as there is a risk of drivers not noticing them, especially at night or when they could be obscured by parked vehicles or pedestrians. Where signs are erected above footways, or in areas likely or intended to be used by pedestrians (e.g. pedestrian refuges), a headroom of 2300 mm is recommended, with 2100 mm as an absolute minimum. A clearance of at least 2300 mm should be maintained over a cycle track or shared cycleway / footway.

The effect of this that the sign should have been placed with a headroom of 2300mm and clearly the sign here was not; indeed it is not clear whether it was 900 mm above the pavement. The justification that the Enforcement Authority give is that it was in a preservation area, but they provide no evidence of that or the restrictions on the mounting of signs that were in force, if any. As such they have not established good reason why they did not follow the guidelines and the signage is therefore inadequate.
"

In Edward Dixon v London Borough of Haringey, the sign has been mounted low, and outside of the Sign Manual guidelines resulting in the tribunal finding that the signage was inadequate. I submit that my case, the signage being mounted high and outside of the Sign Manual guidelines has the same effect and therefore the appeal must be allowed. There are no road markings or other signs to make clear and convey the restriction in my case.


Ground 2: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not state the grounds on which the enforcement authority believe a penalty charge is payable:


Although these proceedings are civil in nature, it is a long established principle of law that anyone accused of wrongdoing must be given unambiguous particulars of the nature of the accusation he faces. The penalty charge served by the enforcement authority does not specify whether the prohibited turn is a left turn, a right turn or a u-turn, it simply states “50 Performing a prohibited turn

While previous decisions are not binding they can be persuasive and I submit Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent (case reference 2130412623) as persuasive authority in this instance. In that case the tribunal held that:

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 this case, as in Austin Biesty v London Borough of Brent, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited and the signs which are alleged to have been contravened are not visible on the PCN.

It follows that the PCN in this case fails to comply with section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and the appeal must be allowed.

Ground 3: The amount demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case: The PCN does not particularise the location of the alleged contravention:

Google maps shows that Nuttall Street extends from the junction with Hoxton Street in the West to the A10 in the East, along its length it intersects approximately 7 junctions and the PCN does not specify where on Nuttall Street the contravention is said to have occurred.

I submit Matthew Kelly v London Borough of Harrow (case reference 216029138A) as persuasive authority:

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.


I aver that the PCN does not allow the recipient to understand where on Nuttall Street the allegation is said to have occurred and the appeal must therefore be allowed.

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Wed, 7 Nov 2018 - 12:31


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 20:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 19 Aug 2018 - 21:53
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Looks good. Signage first.

I wonder if they've just started enforcing this one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 11:21
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Hackney website is still borked, got an error uploading the challenge.
They seem to know about this but haven't done anything to fix their portal.


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 19:29
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Send representations by post, get a free certificate of posting from the post office counter.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 19:29


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 09:17
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 20:29) *
Send representations by post, get a free certificate of posting from the post office counter.


It seems they are aware, as despite the error it shows 'Representations submitted for this PCN' when I checked the appeals page some time later.
I've taken a screenshot of the error just in case.


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Hatter
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 17:01
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 26 Mar 2010
Member No.: 36,499



QUOTE (ohnoes @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 10:17) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 20:29) *
Send representations by post, get a free certificate of posting from the post office counter.


It seems they are aware, as despite the error it shows 'Representations submitted for this PCN' when I checked the appeals page some time later.
I've taken a screenshot of the error just in case.


Where did you find the appeals page as if I go to remake representations it lets me do so but keep getting an error on final submission?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 17:14
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (Mad Hatter @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 18:01) *
QUOTE (ohnoes @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 10:17) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 20:29) *
Send representations by post, get a free certificate of posting from the post office counter.


It seems they are aware, as despite the error it shows 'Representations submitted for this PCN' when I checked the appeals page some time later.
I've taken a screenshot of the error just in case.


Where did you find the appeals page as if I go to remake representations it lets me do so but keep getting an error on final submission?


https://www.hackney.gov.uk/parking-fines

Click 'Pay your fine' input the details, and it should show 'A representation has already been submitted' under the 'Please note: Payment balance on this PCN is currently £65.00. This will rise to £130.00 on xxxx 2018 if it is not paid.'


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gbawekanu
post Fri, 24 Aug 2018 - 08:57
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 15 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,420



QUOTE (Mad Hatter @ Thu, 23 Aug 2018 - 18:01) *
QUOTE (ohnoes @ Tue, 21 Aug 2018 - 10:17) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Mon, 20 Aug 2018 - 20:29) *
Send representations by post, get a free certificate of posting from the post office counter.


It seems they are aware, as despite the error it shows 'Representations submitted for this PCN' when I checked the appeals page some time later.
I've taken a screenshot of the error just in case.


Where did you find the appeals page as if I go to remake representations it lets me do so but keep getting an error on final submission?


I kept getting an error on the final submission page as well, but when I sent them an email at info@hackney.gov.uk, they confirmed they have received my appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
StanH
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 11:06
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 52
Joined: 19 Nov 2013
Member No.: 66,820



Hi

I received a PCN for the same alleged infringement. The date of the contravention was the 4th September.

I'm in the process of disputing it, so drove down Nuttall St again today in order to take a photo of the signage.

A NEW SIGN HAS BEEN INSTALLED. In addition to the original No Left Turn sign, there is now another about a metre lower in height and just half a metre from the curb.

This might help with any appeals, as it strongly suggests the Council were aware that the original signage was insufficient.

Hope this helps.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 11:39
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



QUOTE (StanH @ Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 12:06) *
Hi

I received a PCN for the same alleged infringement. The date of the contravention was the 4th September.

I'm in the process of disputing it, so drove down Nuttall St again today in order to take a photo of the signage.

A NEW SIGN HAS BEEN INSTALLED. In addition to the original No Left Turn sign, there is now another about a metre lower in height and just half a metre from the curb.

This might help with any appeals, as it strongly suggests the Council were aware that the original signage was insufficient.

Hope this helps.


Brilliant, thank you for the heads up.

I will visit and take a photo soon.


I can see one LT appeal that was decided in favour so far:

2180312711
This vehicle on the council's case performed a prohibited left turn.

Upon the appellant raising signage as an issue.
The council does not provide any site check or library images of its signage no signage being shown in its online footage of the incident or in the images taken from that footage.

I cannot be satisfied on the council's case that the prohibition it seeks to enforce is clearly and correctly signed.

The contravention did not therefore occur.

The appeal is allowed.


This post has been edited by ohnoes: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 - 12:03


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 19:59
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Hackney have sent a rejection today: https://imgur.com/a/JgCnReK

Advice on next steps appreciated.


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 21 Sep 2018 - 20:06
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I drove past this today - there is indeed a new lower level sign. Couldn't stop to take a pic though as there was a CEO standing nearby...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 07:52
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Hi team,

Can you advise if this is worth taking to the tribunal?
Should I be updating any of the arguments before submitting?

Thanks for your help!


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 08:08
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



If they've added signage since your contravention then yes I think it's worth it. This is similar to the Richmond Rd no left turn where Hackney has done the same.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 08:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 24 Sep 2018 - 20:18
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



100% appeal. Firstly, if a new sign has been installed that wasn't there at the time of the contravention, this supports the view that the signage was inadequate. Write to the council's highways people (not traffic enforcement) and find out when they installed the new sign, and also why they installed it.

Secondly, they have completely ignored grounds 2 and 3, this can win on its own. See Jaffer Husseyin v Royal Borough of Greenwich (case reference 2170256432):

"The Rejection Notice has every appearance of a pro-forma letter and does not deal at all with the representations made. The response required was a very simple one, namely words to the effect that that whilst we accept that you had a permit on display you were not parked in the road to which it applied – see terms of permit. Motorists are entitled to have their representations properly considered and an explanation, even if brief, why they are rejected. I am unable to be satisfied that in issuing this rejection notice the Council had properly performed its statutory duty to consider representations and this amounts to procedural impropriety. The Appeal is therefore allowed."

The rejection letter in your case does not deal at all with grounds 2 and 3 of your representations, so clearly the council has not performed its statutory duty to consider your representations. Therefore the only penalty that may be demanded is nil.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 07:54
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Thank you, very useful.
I have registered an appeal with the adjudicators for early November, and have indicated that evidence will follow. Hopefully by that point the FOI request will bear fruit.

Someone has already submitted a FOI request for the information pertaining to the signage here: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/no_l..._nuttall_st_int

This post has been edited by ohnoes: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 09:43


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 17:53
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I stopped to take a couple of pics today - the new sign has already been knocked around. I don't understand the reason for the no left you can still enter the market coming the other way, and it's only a pedestrian zone on Saturday.





This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 17:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:10
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



Hackney have sent through their evidence pack.
Here is a copy of the majority of it.
I haven't taken pictures of the notice of rejection (posted a few messages back but it was also included in their pack)
The FOI request regarding the signage hasn't come back yet
Hackney have provided various photos from June and July where both signs appear to be in situ.

Evidence pack: https://imgur.com/a/a1guon5
Any advice for drafting of additional points for the adjudication appreciated!




--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 16 Oct 2018 - 21:19
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Maybe the lower sign has been skewed for some time - i certainly didn't see it when I drove through a few weeks ago apart from pics I took on 25 Sept.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ohnoes
post Wed, 17 Oct 2018 - 08:58
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 288
Joined: 18 Apr 2016
Member No.: 83,810



GSV seems to confirm the second sign has been in place since at least April 2018.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5341577,-...6384!8i8192


--------------------
PCNs sucessfully contested with the help of this forum:
Newham 1/1
Enfield 1/1
Hackney 3/4
Ealing 0/1
LCC 1/1
CoL 1/1

PPC successfully contested with the help of this forum:
UKPC 1/1
TPS 1/1
ECP 0/1

Overall success rate getting tickets overturned: 75%
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, 29th March 2024 - 15:21
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here