PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Perrins Lane Banned Turn., Threads merged
madandy
post Mon, 9 Mar 2020 - 13:17
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 317
Joined: 20 Jun 2013
Member No.: 62,885



I AM OVERPASTING THIS ON MY STARTING POST AND CLEARING ALL MY INTERMEDIATE POSTS DOWN TO THE REPOST OF THIS OWING TO MY CRACKING THE TECHNOLOGY!!!!

https://i.ibb.co/Vw7Hq6w/Camden-1.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/VCXWTyy/Camden-2.jpg

I have a PCN from Camden for the banned right turn from Perrins Lane into Hampstead. On a hunch I checked the signage and believe it is incorrect but first a run through the PCN which seems to be flawed.

I will number each point for ease.

1) It says "If the penalty charge is paid before the end of a period of 14 days beginning from the date of this notice." The date in question is March 3rd. This arrived on March 5th. If this us a breach of the procedure whereby the date should be that of service of the notice then this is a flagrant breach because their service of the notice could not possibly be the same of the date of the notice i.e. if this breach is deliberate. However, in the paragraph below it state that "the date of service of this notice is effected as the second working day after the date of posting. Surely that should apply throughout... my point here being that this one PCN has effectively two dates of service! The bottom paragraph reverts to a straightforwards "beginning with the date on which the penalty notice was served" without qualification!

2) Another old chestnut is the "grounds for appeal." There is no tick box for "Other reason" or "mitigating circumstances" thus implying that if none of the tick-boxes are your grounds for appeal you cannot do so.

3) Upon looking at the images online I am confronted with "Unfortunately, we are unable to display the video evidence with the browser you are using. Please try to complete the form using Internet Explorer 8 or later." This is clearly obstructive since I have never had any problem viewing anyone's videos including those of PCN elsewhere online because of my browser.... Google Chrome. given those circumstances surely that fetters my ability to see the evidence.

[attachment=69956:Camden3.jpg]

4) Regarding the situation I will post here the starting picture. I had actually stopped there to take on board a passenger after a wait of about two minutes and simply could not see the sign because of the way it was angled. One thing you will see it the No Entry sign but to the reverse of it is the Turn Left arrow sign. What is however really noticeable is that the pole is situated excessively to the left so that when driving down Perrins Lane it is easy to miss seeing it (i) because of the leftwards curve, then (ii) because of the building to the left obstructing the line of vision and the (iii) because the sign has been attached to the pole at an angle rendering it visible only for a few yards then invisible for about a car length to the junction. Indeed, the camera is set on the same post as the sign in the high street and the picture angle betray the fact that the sign does not face the junction.

5) There is another sign on the other side of the main road with an arrow on it BUT this sign is in fact way to the right of the junction rather than facing it.

6) So now we come on to the main thrust. The signage is non-complaint and therefore unenforceable according to https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/go...-chapter-03.pdf

Here is the paragraph from the section on signs:-

At an unsignalled junction where a side road forms a T‑junction with a two‑way road (see Figure 4-6) and traffic is required to turn in one direction only, the use of a sign to diagram 606, even without a “One way” plate, could be misleading as drivers might think they are turning into a one‑way road. A sign to diagram 612 or 613 (S3‑2‑7 and 8 respectively, see Figure 4-8 and Figure 4-9) should therefore be used at the junction, indicating the prohibited turn.

If you turn to Figure 4-4 it shows how the signage of arrows should be set up if the main road is a one way street. Hampstead High Street is not but even assuming it was, both signs are in the wrong place with the one on the corner needing to be about 50 metres back and the other across the main road directly OPPOSITE the junction. There is no sign 50 metres back.

On the other hand Figure 4-6 on Page 29 shows the correct signage for a T-junction where the main ropad is not one-way with the "Turn Left" arrow sited 50 metres in advance and specifically a "No Right Turn" black, white and red sign sited to the left on the junction.

Indeed, Section 4.2.5 makes it absolutely clear that the use of a "Turn Left" sign at the junction of a two way main street is not allowed because it implies that the street could be one way and that only a "No Right Turn" sign will do.

Either way there was no advance warning sign whatsoever and before I end I need to point out that i took the liberty of comparing this situation with other prohibited right turns from side roads onto main roads at T junctions in Camden and here are two result which can be verified on Google Earth.

(i) Caversham Road into two way Kentish Town Road:- No Right Turn sign:- Correct. https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5488275,-0....6384!8i8192

(ii) Park Hill Road into one way Fleet Road:- Turn Left sign:- Correct:- https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5527947,-0....6384!8i8192
...and in case you wondered, yes, in the lower picture that IS by chance two of the councils tow-trucks queuing to add some cheer!.

In other words, Camden are aware of what it should be.

Finally I dug up this case in Havering which relates directly to the difference between a directional and a prohibition sign..... http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t87831.html

A look at the picture of the junction from this angle below clearly indicates that applying that judgement to the above misplaced signs, even if they were compliant, one could clear the signs by driving as close to the front of the blue car across the road before turning on full lock. Food for thought.

This post has been edited by madandy: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 - 12:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8  
Start new topic
Replies (140 - 147)
Advertisement
post Mon, 9 Mar 2020 - 13:17
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 29 Aug 2020 - 11:57
Post #141


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (madandy @ Sat, 29 Aug 2020 - 00:58) *
I decided "not to be silly" and I submitted an appeal form with the evidence to be sent in later.

I now got back this reply which is here:- https://i.ibb.co/fprLFVs/Camden31.jpg

But you were still 'silly' in a new way.

You needed to send in a copy of the letter that accompanied the NoR which would have explained why your
appeal appeared to be late but wasn't. Adjudicators are not psychic.

Way back in the plethora of posts, letter of 9th July wasn't it?

Post #82?

This post has been edited by Neil B: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 - 12:01


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MrChips
post Wed, 30 Sep 2020 - 14:42
Post #142


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,120
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Member No.: 30,237



Hey madandy - was wondering if there had been any further developments on this one?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 30 Sep 2020 - 16:47
Post #143


Member


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



PCN is still outstanding according to the council website.


--------------------
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
spaceman
post Thu, 1 Oct 2020 - 11:45
Post #144


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 934
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,319



We're all just waiting for him to receive a CC or an OfR and then it will all kick off again.

Rinse and repeat...

This post has been edited by spaceman: Thu, 1 Oct 2020 - 11:45
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 1 Oct 2020 - 12:22
Post #145


Member


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



I was expecting a tribunal direction to pay the penalty, but I'm not really following it that closely to be honest. Ultimately I expect him to pay it or have his car towed.


--------------------
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
MrChips
post Thu, 1 Jul 2021 - 17:03
Post #146


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,120
Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Member No.: 30,237



Madandy - I assume this is your case? After so much input was given it would have been nice for you to confirm how it concluded....

2200339736

PCN Details
PCN CU55497963
Contravention date 23 Feb 2020
Contravention time 19:15:00
Contravention location Perrins Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail proceed in direction shown by arrow blue sign
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Oct 2020
Adjudicator Gerald Styles
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
When I initially telephoned the appellant on 1 October for the listed telephone hearing of his appeal I was able to establish that he had received from the Council a copy of the pack of evidence etc. on which it relied in this adjudication. Regrettably the appellant had not actually received a Tribunal letter alerting him to the appointed time for the hearing. It was right therefore that it was re-arranged for the same evening when the appellant was not taken by surprise. I was thus able to conduct a full hearing by telephone on that date. No Council representative participated in these telephone calls. It was just myself as Adjudicator and the appellant.

The PCN location was Perrins Lane.

Perrins Lane is a narrow thoroughfare in Hampstead Village dropping down on to Hampstead High Street.

It is many years now since CCTV first became in use over the junction where the appellant vehicle was recorded. Whereas there was a time when numerous motorists largely from force of habit were not complying with the signed requirement to go left towards the Tube station, I believe it is relatively rare for the Adjudicator to now receive appeals arising from this junction and the signage which lies at the heart of this appeal.

That signage consists of a blue-and-white sign requiring a left turn at the mouth of the junction and opposite it by the bank premises a further blue-and-white sign indicating the same but by way of different pattern. The Council has maintained a surface arrow which reinforces the requirement legally imposed by the blue signs. It is not possible to describe the signage as ambiguous.

The appellant from his research referred me to the Traffic Signs Manual and sought to develop an argument that the signage in place was wrongly chosen and the Council should have introduced a no right turn sign instead. I believe that argument for penalty charge cancellation to be legally flawed. The blue-and-white signage of the type concerned has the same legal force and consequence as a no right turn sign (red, white and black). I explained during the hearing the strictness of the law surrounding blue-and-white signage and how there was no relevant exemption which could be claimed by the appellant in this case.

The appellant also sought to argue for cancellation on the basis that such posted signage as there was was poorly positioned and did not give adequate notice to drivers driving out of Perrins Lane. Having examined the Council photographic evidence I have not regarded that as a tenable ground of appeal. It is my conclusion the evidence does prove the alleged contravention and the Council has been correct about liability for a penalty charge.

There is no doubt that the appellant turned right when signage required him to go to the left. He mentioned being encouraged by a motorist coming up the hill who gave way to him, but that does not operate as a legal defence in a case of this type. What became fully evident from watching the CCTV clip and listening to the appellant was that he was seeking to connect up with the passenger who is recorded entering his vehicle. It may be that it was concentration on the rendezvous that caused the signage to slip from the appellant's mind and it may be encouragement from the passenger to go right was to blame as well. I thought that quite a contributory factor particularly when I learned that the passenger was not a car driver. None of those factors however suffice for penalty charge cancellation.

In summary it is my finding that the signage was adequately clear and legally enforceable under the civil penalty charge notice regime applying. I am satisfied the evidence does prove the contravention and it is my ruling the appellant is liable for the penalty charge claimed. I have not accepted the appellant criticisms of the signage as justifying penalty charge cancellation. the
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 3 Jul 2021 - 18:52
Post #147


Member


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



QUOTE (MrChips @ Thu, 1 Jul 2021 - 18:03) *
Madandy - I assume this is your case? After so much input was given it would have been nice for you to confirm how it concluded....

It is, the number plate on the tribunal portal matches the video, so does the contravention date & time.

I expect he's either paid or is waiting for the bailiffs, if he hasn't been already. Some people come here for advice, others don't...


--------------------
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
pexy
post Sat, 15 Oct 2022 - 14:17
Post #148


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 7 Apr 2009
From: London
Member No.: 27,638



I had a PCN for 30th June 2022. For turning right on Perrins Lane.
I went back to the junction in July & took pictures of the signage & the tree, which had been covered & obscured, by low hanging tree branches.
Armed with this, & details of the freak rainstorm that took place as I drove down Perrins Lane & the high sided vehicle covering the signage over the road, I took this to appeal on 24th September 2022.

Tribunals agreed with me, especially as Camden provided undated signs.
They were not satisfied that the signage on Perrins Lane was clear & unobscured.

Appeal allowed! [attachment=82693:Screensh..._Gallery.jpg]

Yay me!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

8 Pages V  « < 6 7 8
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 - 04:54
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