PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Havering No Right Turn
rsg444
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 14:59
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 190
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



Hi all, my brother received a PCN through the post for an alleged contravention of ignoring a no right turn sign. The no right turn is apparently at Tangent Link for customers coming out of B&Q in Harold Hill. He did not notice any signs but on revisiting he now noticed that there is one there. Are there any grounds to challenge this as a simple mistake on what looks like a private road shouldn't really result in a £65 fine in my opinion.

Front page of PCN through post shown below:

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 14:59
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 15:06
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,681
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Hmmm - this view is old but recent GSV from the main road looks like all these 4 signs are there:

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 15:22
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,956
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Front page of the PCN is bobbins see this case


2160047866

Mr Hollis attended today. He is the partner of Miss Allan the registered keeper of the car. Mr Hollis has made the written representations in this case.
At the hearing today Mr Hollis referred me to a decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton in the case of Kelly appeal number 2150440632. The Adjudicator allowed Mr Kelly’s appeal on the basis that he was not satisfied that the vehicle had made a prohibited right turn.
The Traffic Management Order prohibits vehicles from turning right into the loading area opposite the Romford United Reformed Church Building.
The CCTV footage shows the appellants car marking a U turn in the area at the entrance to the loading area. I find that it is not clear from the footage that the car leaves Western Road and enters the loading area. I am not satisfied on the evidence that I have seen that the contravention occurred.
Mr Hollis also argues that the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the London Local Authorities Act 2003. Article 4 (8) (iv) of the Act states that the Penalty Charge Notice should state ‘that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion’
The Penalty Charge Notice sent to Miss Allan stated that ‘a reduced charge of £65 is payable….if the penalty charge is paid not later than the last day of the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which this notice was served…’
In its case summary the local authority states that the Penalty Charge Notice does comply with the legislation. I am not satisfied that it does. Although the Penalty Charge Notice offers a more generous timetable than prescribed by the legislation I am not satisfied that the Penalty Charge Notice in this case did comply with the requirements of the London Local Authorities Act 2003.
I allow this appeal.

The contravention description is also incorrect

You are going to need the TMO for this is it a must turn left or must not turn right. One is governed by a TMO the other by section 36 RTA 1988 and you have both signs

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 15:36
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rsg444
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 15:41
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 190
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



PMB, thank you so much! So in the example you've provided, does that mean that if Havering have not stated that a reduced by 50% is not included and just say £65 is payable if within 14 days then it is not compliant? EDIT: The 50% line has been crudely added to their letter now.

This post has been edited by rsg444: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 15:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 15:49
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,956
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (rsg444 @ Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 15:41) *
PMB, thank you so much! So in the example you've provided, does that mean that if Havering have not stated that a reduced by 50% is not included and just say £65 is payable if within 14 days then it is not compliant?


No the regs only allow 14 days so by telling you 21 you could go to pay on day 21 and find they want the full amount.

The 14 days is a statutory requirement, and the regs state it must be on the PCN, they do not have the power to over ride this
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rsg444
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 15:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 190
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



Ahhhhh! Ok great, I'll stick that in my appeal too. Thanks so much.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 16:02
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,956
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (rsg444 @ Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 15:58) *
Ahhhhh! Ok great, I'll stick that in my appeal too. Thanks so much.



don't go rushing, this is a technical point and needs wording carefully, also you do not get a second bite of the cherry with a NTO for moving traffic contraventions

wait for others to discuss the merits of the signage and the contravention wording etc
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rsg444
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 16:07
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 190
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



Acknowledged.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shortncurlies
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 20:41
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,054



Following links may (or may not) help you. Do please let us know how you get on.

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2728425

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/pena...es_pcns_issu_82

Briefly The Gazette notice 03/03/17 adding the prohibition to this area, and a FOI link re the number of fines issued in the last 5 years (0 until 2017 then 1133 by 09/10/17 and no doubt a lot more since then.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Longtime Lurker
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 20:46
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,615



I know this location, and it's a very odd restriction. The council want motorists to go left for a few yards, then do a u-turn at a roundabout and double back on themselves, ending up exactly where they would have been if they had turned right. I'm not sure if the pointlessness of the restriction has any relevance, but perhaps it opens up the question of how far left you are required to go before performing the allowed u-turn? All the way to the roundabout? One inch?

(Here's a google map top-down view that makes this a bit clearer https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5958397,0...05,19.13z?hl=en )


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 21:47
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,956
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



So there's a quandary with the signs, Its a no right turn prohibition so the white circle with red boarder and diagonal with the black arrow diagram 612 this one is correct. But the blue circle 609 ones aren't.
There require that the instruction on then to turn left is obeyed
they convey essentially the same message but cannot be used to enforce a TMO. Will the one 612 be enough? and will the 609 cause confusion.

IMO the signage issue is a dead duck
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 09:16
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 1,845
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



There's two 612 signs, and the 612 and 609 signs convey the same message, so I think there is little scope for confusion. I suspect an adjudicator would take the view that the signage conveys what is required of the motorist and I would not suggest appealing on the signage. It is an odd restriction, but we don't know the reasons for it. Unless one wanted to argue that the decision to make the restriction is irrational and that no reasonable authority would have created the restriction, the fact that it is odd does not help. I suspect the 14/21 day issue on the PCN is the only valid ground to appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 09:34
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,647
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (Longtime Lurker @ Fri, 19 Jan 2018 - 20:46) *
I know this location, and it's a very odd restriction. The council want motorists to go left for a few yards, then do a u-turn at a roundabout and double back on themselves, ending up exactly where they would have been if they had turned right. I'm not sure if the pointlessness of the restriction has any relevance, but perhaps it opens up the question of how far left you are required to go before performing the allowed u-turn? All the way to the roundabout? One inch?

(Here's a google map top-down view that makes this a bit clearer https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5958397,0...05,19.13z?hl=en )

There is a similar restriction and layout here in Crewe.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.0933188,-...33;8i6656?hl=en

It is the entrance to a Bannatyne gymnasium, and also has a roundabout just a few yards up the road.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 12:33
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,956
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The restriction is sound, it prevents conflict with vehicle turning right into B&Q, for only a short diversion to the intended route

We have another thread at this location whose photos suggest the blue signs are gone

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sat, 20 Jan 2018 - 15:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rsg444
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 01:29
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 190
Joined: 21 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,597



Do you think I should just pay up then?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 09:03
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,980
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Don't like the way the red sign is lower than the blue sign in the photo at post 2 and I would have expected a road marking with an arrow pointing left.

I would appeal, the 21 day mistake is fatal IMO:-

2170270003

The appellant raised an issue concerning service of the penalty notices and their total amounts. I therefore checked the penalty notices for their amounts and dates of issue.
The penalty notices in this case were issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The local authority is entitled to issue the penalty notice to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle concerned.
Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London act 2003 says that the penalty notice must state:
1 the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
2 the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
3 that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
4 that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
5 that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
6 the amount of the increased charge;
7 the address to which the penalty charge must be sent;
8 that the person on whom the penalty notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and
9 specify the form in which such representations are made.
I found that each penalty notice in this case states that the full penalty must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which this penalty notice is served; and the reduced rate no later than 21 days from the date of service.
The wording is clearly wrong. To such an extent, I find the notices are invalid.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
-----------------------------------------------

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:16
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,681
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Think the signage has changed a bit from the one I posted - it was from 2008.

Her's a view from the other side, June 2017. Looks like one of the turn left signs has gone and maybe both and there are now 3 no rights in total (inc one opposite).

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5959021,0.2...3312!8i6656



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 10:19
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shortncurlies
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 20:48
Post #18


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 19 Jan 2018
Member No.: 96,054



But is 21 days not right given 2008 CCTV regs which may override the 2003 regs?

Link - https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/p...-ticket-appeals

"Regulations brought in during 2008 mean you can get a ticket through the post in England and Wales if caught on CCTV.

This makes it more difficult to gather evidence for an appeal because the 'contravention' would have taken place days before. The only plus is, if caught on CCTV, you've 21 days to pay at the reduced rate, instead of the usual 14."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 21:00
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,956
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (shortncurlies @ Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 20:48) *
But is 21 days not right given 2008 CCTV regs which may override the 2003 regs?

Link - https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/p...-ticket-appeals

"Regulations brought in during 2008 mean you can get a ticket through the post in England and Wales if caught on CCTV.

This makes it more difficult to gather evidence for an appeal because the 'contravention' would have taken place days before. The only plus is, if caught on CCTV, you've 21 days to pay at the reduced rate, instead of the usual 14."



No its not. This is London local authorities act. Link the 2008 act you speak of
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 21:05
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,536
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Clue -"parking"

This post has been edited by Neil B: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 - 21:16


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
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: Tuesday, 24th April 2018 - 00:47
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.