PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bounds Green Rd N11 - Haringey - no left turn
Mr Mustard
post Thu, 4 Jul 2013 - 23:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932








OK my 85 year old friend was being driven by his son in an area he has lived in all of his life when he makes a banned left turn at this infamous spot (it is on this forum going back years). I usually only do parking PCN in Barnet so need to take advice. He is inclined to take the 50% option but I am more inclined to fight.

I have checked the requirements set out in the London Local Authorities and TfL Act 2003 at 4(8) and can't really take issue with the wording on the front ("maybe" instead of "may be" is a minor if somewhat sloppy error) but the grounds on which representations can be made do not mention all of the grounds under Schedule 1, or make mention of Schedule 1 itself, viz:

The option "I never was the owner of the vehicle" is not given as an option, only that you have bought or sold it

it doesn't include "that there was no contravention of a prescribed order; or, failure to comply with an indication"

the hire company section does not say "had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any PCN..."

which seem a bit pedantic as arguments go but then PCN are of that ilk.

I was also going to go with that the council have breached its duty to be fair as they have been issuing tickets at this location for years and so there is obviously something wrong with the signage that they should have fixed and that they should square the kerb off to make it obvious that the left turn is not allowed and that the green traffic light should be changed to a vertical arrow and that the no left turn sign mounted on the pole on the left is too high and mounted on the same pole as the camera sign which confuses the eye when there is so much else going on at this location what with the bus stop and the layby. It also comes rather late being level with the rear stop line (advanced cycle section at this junction which I have never seen a bike in - the council have caused huge tailbacks here due to going from 3 lanes to 2)

My final cheeky point, which I would only raise at the PATAS stage, is that the photos don't prove the contravention i.e. the turn has not been completed but I expect that would simply lead to further images being produced if the council is allowed to at that stage (there are only these 2 on the website)

So what do others think. Fight or pay?



--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 4 Jul 2013 - 23:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
EDW
post Thu, 4 Jul 2013 - 23:34
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



ask for photos and traffic order.

This post has been edited by EDW: Thu, 4 Jul 2013 - 23:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 07:36
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE
I was also going to go with that the council have breached its duty to be fair as they have been issuing tickets at this location for years and so there is obviously something wrong with the signage that they should have fixed and that they should square the kerb off to make it obvious that the left turn is not allowed and that the green traffic light should be changed to a vertical arrow and that the no left turn sign mounted on the pole on the left is too high and mounted on the same pole as the camera sign which confuses the eye when there is so much else going on at this location what with the bus stop and the layby. It also comes rather late being level with the rear stop line (advanced cycle section at this junction which I have never seen a bike in - the council have caused huge tailbacks here due to going from 3 lanes to 2)


This indicates confusing and inadequate signage, so appeal on that, plus any PCN content errors (if any). Of course you will have to go to PATAS for a definite result as the council will not give way, the money is too good ! Full PCN amount in play, of course.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 08:00
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



I dont see anything wrong with the signs.


http://goo.gl/maps/dGDf6

The signal head on both side has a nlt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 08:53
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



I was inclined to think that the signage was technically accurate if poorly sited but will have to pop by the location and take a look but the sign on the traffic light is quite clear as to what you may or may not do. My argument can include the confusing number of signs but even that is not very strong.

I have sent for the TMO and will now send for the number of tickets each year for the last 5 years to show a problem and argue the council is simply revenue raising. I doubt it will wash at PATAS but the more arguments the merrier and only one needs to hit home.


--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 09:07
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



at the moment all you have is that the nlt is not at the junction itself but that is quite weak.

QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 09:53) *
I was inclined to think that the signage was technically accurate if poorly sited but will have to pop by the location and take a look but the sign on the traffic light is quite clear as to what you may or may not do. My argument can include the confusing number of signs but even that is not very strong.

I have sent for the TMO and will now send for the number of tickets each year for the last 5 years to show a problem and argue the council is simply revenue raising. I doubt it will wash at PATAS but the more arguments the merrier and only one needs to hit home.



will not help at patas.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madandy
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 14:01
Post #7


Member


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



Correct me if I'm right but I see two flaws.

There should be signs on either side of the carriageway both fulfilling legal requirements.

The box sign on the right appears to be unlit and maybe the sign on the left is unlit too. Their illumination 24/7.

Next is the advance warning of the NLT.

I believe that should be at least 60 yards/metres back from the junction.

From where I see it a high sided vehicleq ueueing at the lights would totally obscure it and if you were to follow that vehicle through the lights accelerating at low speed with children waiting to cross you would miss all the signs altogether distracted by the kids and traffic.

Nip back there and check if the box sign are lit and the distance of that and any other advance signs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 14:07
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



Thank you madandy I will nip back there on Tuesday evening when I am passing. I am in time for the 14 days if my old friend insists on folding (and then I might play double or quits, take his £65 and agree to pay the £130 if I lose at PATAS).

The sign which you think should be illuminated, which you call the box sign, do you mean the no left turn sign that is on the bottom of the traffic light or have I not understood you properly?



--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 14:09
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



TWOC ground is wholly fettered to theft

The taken without consent ground is limited to theft as it requires a crime report or insurance claim. I seek support from decision 2110212199.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/

Recreate the circumstances in that case and you are laughing.

One of the issues that Mr Egenti raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr Egenti specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.


Do not mention the case, though!

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 14:14


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 16:23
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



QUOTE (madandy @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 15:01) *
Correct me if I'm right but I see two flaws.

There should be signs on either side of the carriageway both fulfilling legal requirements.

The box sign on the right appears to be unlit and maybe the sign on the left is unlit too. Their illumination 24/7.

Next is the advance warning of the NLT.

I believe that should be at least 60 yards/metres back from the junction.

From where I see it a high sided vehicleq ueueing at the lights would totally obscure it and if you were to follow that vehicle through the lights accelerating at low speed with children waiting to cross you would miss all the signs altogether distracted by the kids and traffic.

Nip back there and check if the box sign are lit and the distance of that and any other advance signs.



What is the basis of this?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madandy
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 16:59
Post #11


Member


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



QUOTE (EDW @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 17:23) *
QUOTE (madandy @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 15:01) *
Correct me if I'm right but I see two flaws.

There should be signs on either side of the carriageway both fulfilling legal requirements.

The box sign on the right appears to be unlit and maybe the sign on the left is unlit too. Their illumination 24/7.

Next is the advance warning of the NLT.

I believe that should be at least 60 yards/metres back from the junction.

From where I see it a high sided vehicleq ueueing at the lights would totally obscure it and if you were to follow that vehicle through the lights accelerating at low speed with children waiting to cross you would miss all the signs altogether distracted by the kids and traffic.

Nip back there and check if the box sign are lit and the distance of that and any other advance signs.



What is the basis of this?


Copied and paste from a respresentation of mine.

Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 Paragraphs 4.11:-

"At junctions controlled by traffic signals, the signs to diagram 606, 612 and 613 with a diameter of 300mm may be mounted on the primary and secondary signals. They must be internally illuminated by day and by night. Unlike at uncontrolled junctions it is not appropriate to use a sign to diagram 609 at the junction itself as described in paras 4.8 and 4.10. However, if appropriate, a sign to diagram 609 may be erected on the approach to the junction.

Also in The Traffic Signs Regulations And General Directions 2002, Schedule 17, paragraph 6, it states that:-

Where the sign is fixed to light signals prescribed by regulation 33, it shall be illuminated by a means of internal lighting at all times except when the light signals to which it is fixed are being maintained or repaired


I was unaware of this until I noticed it online. Since then I have noticed (for the first time) that these sign are in most cases illuminated all day.

Regarding the 60 metre rule for advance warning signs I cannot find it but feel free to search and destroy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 17:07
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



well spotted, I was thumbing through the TSM yesterday and missed that para.

I will post up photos from the scene after Tuesday's visit.


--------------------
All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 18:29
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



the 60 metre 'rule' does not exist.

the signal head on both sides of the road has a 612 sign.

there is no evidence that is was or was not illuminated.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 21:22
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



IMO, the description of the third ground is inadequate:

(b)that there was no—

(i)contravention of a prescribed order; or

(ii)failure to comply with an indication; or

(iii)contravention of the lorry ban order,

under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the case may be;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

Remember: they have to prove correct signage was in place at time of alleged contravention and that on the balance of probablities the vehicle would have passed them.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 21:26


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JaffaJim
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 21:22
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 7 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,331



QUOTE (EDW @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 19:29) *
the 60 metre 'rule' does not exist.


Not quite. I believe this is a reference to Section 1.15 of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 (2008) which states:

QUOTE
It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs. The distance which should be kept clear of obstructions to the sight line, whether caused by vegetation, other signs or street furniture, is known as the clear visibility distance. The higher the prevailing traffic speeds, the greater this distance needs to be.


and Section 1.16 states:

QUOTE
Table 1-1 specifies minimum clear visibility distances. These should normally be measured from the centre of the most disadvantaged driving lane. It is important that the full recommended sight line to the whole of the sign face is preserved. Cutting back of vegetation only in the immediate vicinity of the sign might not be sufficient; sign visibility should always be checked from the appropriate viewing distance.


Table 1.1 states that the minimum clear visibility distance for a prevailing speed limit of 21-30 mph is 60 metres.

The TSM is not statute, but in any representation, you should ask the Council why they have not followed its guidance (if indeed they haven't). Failure of the Council to consider this correctly will help an appeal.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 21:27
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Michael Nathan is very hot on councils following the TSM. And, personally, Mr. M, I would chuck everything at them now because:

1. They may screw up and

2. You may get an awkward adjudicator who will ask you why you did not raise the issue beforehand. Perhaps you may know of whom I am thinking!

Sorry: I know there is a school of thought which advocates leaving the best for last; but, experience has shown that this does not work in practice and it annoys adjudicators.

This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 21:33


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
EDW
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 21:34
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,071
Joined: 1 Apr 2012
From: Arguing with Chan
Member No.: 54,036



QUOTE (JaffaJim @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 22:22) *
QUOTE (EDW @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 19:29) *
the 60 metre 'rule' does not exist.


Not quite. I believe this is a reference to Section 1.15 of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 (2008) which states:

QUOTE
It is essential that drivers have an unobstructed view of traffic signs. The distance which should be kept clear of obstructions to the sight line, whether caused by vegetation, other signs or street furniture, is known as the clear visibility distance. The higher the prevailing traffic speeds, the greater this distance needs to be.


and Section 1.16 states:

QUOTE
Table 1-1 specifies minimum clear visibility distances. These should normally be measured from the centre of the most disadvantaged driving lane. It is important that the full recommended sight line to the whole of the sign face is preserved. Cutting back of vegetation only in the immediate vicinity of the sign might not be sufficient; sign visibility should always be checked from the appropriate viewing distance.


Table 1.1 states that the minimum clear visibility distance for a prevailing speed limit of 21-30 mph is 60 metres.

The TSM is not statute, but in any representation, you should ask the Council why they have not followed its guidance (if indeed they haven't). Failure of the Council to consider this correctly will help an appeal.





how have they failed to follow the guidance?

the point above was that there must be an advance warning sign 60 metres back, which is nonsense.

The only arguable point is that the large sign is not a placed 'immediately' before the junction.






4.11 At junctions controlled by traffic signals, the
signs to diagram 606, 612 and 613 with a diameter
of 300 mm may be mounted on the primary and
secondary signals. They must be internally illuminated
by day and by night. Unlike at uncontrolled junctions
it is not appropriate to use a sign to diagram 609 at
the junction itself as described in paras 4.8 and 4.10.
However, if appropriate, a sign to diagram 609 may
be erected on the approach to the junction.
Figure 4-7
See paras 4.10
and 4.17
Right turn
prohibited
60 min
200 max
818.2 Indication of a restriction ahead
The legend may be varied as appropriate (see
Appendix B in respect of distance). An arrow may be
added, pointing horizontally to the left or to the right
Figure 4-8
Right turn
prohibited
See para 4.10
21
COMPULSORY AND PROHIBITED MOVEMENTS
4.12 The “turn left” and “turn right” signs to
diagram 606 should be mounted on the left or the
right of the signal head respectively. The “ahead
only” sign should be mounted on the carriageway
side of the signal. The “no left turn” and “no right
turn” signs should be mounted on the left or the
right of the signal head respectively. Alternatively the
signs may be mounted immediately below the green
aspect.
Where only one manoeuvre is permitted, the
signal head should include a green arrow in place of
a full green lens, to indicate the direction in which
vehicles must proceed. Where both left and right
turns are prohibited, a sign to diagram 606 pointing
upwards should be used rather than both signs
to diagrams 612 and 613. As at priority junctions,
the signs at signal-controlled junctions may be
supplemented by road markings to diagram 1036.1,
1036.2, 1037.1 or 1038 (see Chapter 5). Where
appropriate, a sign to diagram 818.2 or a map-type
sign incorporating regulatory roundels may be used
on the approach to the junction.


It may be unlawful to put a no u-turn sign on the signal heads.

This post has been edited by EDW: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 21:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JaffaJim
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 22:00
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 174
Joined: 7 Jun 2009
Member No.: 29,331



QUOTE (EDW @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 22:34) *
how have they failed to follow the guidance?

the point above was that there must be an advance warning sign 60 metres back, which is nonsense.


I didn't state whether they had or had not followed the guidance, and I didn't say that there had to be an advanced warning sign, I merely stated what I believed the '60m rule' was a reference to.

We don't know if they have followed the guidance or not, so the OP should check. If the sign isn't clearly visible from 60m before its location (assuming a 30mph speed limit), then they haven't - and any representation should include this is as one of the points. I agree with Hippocrates here - make the full case consistent from the start, so it's obvious that the Council are being unreasonable if they don't consider.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 22:08
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Exactly: give them the bucket and spade and let them dig. I would normally say shovel but tis hot at the moment! icon_sunny.gif


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
madandy
post Sat, 6 Jul 2013 - 01:18
Post #20


Member


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



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Fri, 5 Jul 2013 - 22:27) *
Michael Nathan is very hot on councils following the TSM. And, personally, Mr. M, I would chuck everything at them now because:

1. They may screw up and

2. You may get an awkward adjudicator who will ask you why you did not raise the issue beforehand. Perhaps you may know of whom I am thinking!

Sorry: I know there is a school of thought which advocates leaving the best for last; but, experience has shown that this does not work in practice and it annoys adjudicators.


I totally agree with this advice but from another perspective.

There are documented cases of appeals being allowed because (i) insufficient evidence in pictures on PCN's and (ii) insufficient replies in Notices Of Rejection with points left unaddress thus bouncing appellants into going to PATAS and losing entitlement to the discounted penalty.

If adjudicators allow appeals on those grounds then they would be compromising themselves if they allowed appellants at adjudications with issues they withheld in their letters to the council.
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 - 08:24
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