PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Mare Street Hackney no left turn
eshroom
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 14:23
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



Hi all,

There have been real mixed results with this, with lots and lots of cases. I ahve just received my rejection to representation and am planning to appeal to London Tribunals.

I was planning to appeal on the grounds that the sign is not visible behind the traffic lights until the turn has already been initiated and also on the basis that no evidence was provided by the council to show the no left turn indication on the traffic lights was illuminated and functioning.

Below is my rejection notice, I apologise for the format/quality, it was sent by some friends as I am currently travelling with work.

https://ibb.co/7jmHgCp

https://ibb.co/ZNZgNn3

Does anyone have advise on further appeal points?

Many thanks in advance.

This post has been edited by eshroom: Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 14:27
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 14)
Advertisement
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 14:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 14:40
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,442
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



As you know wife and I lost this case. It looks like pot luck with who the adjudicator is.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...128171&st=0
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eshroom
post Wed, 16 Oct 2019 - 15:05
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



Yes, that was disappointing! So no correlation really between appeal points in successful cases vs unsuccessful cases...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eshroom
post Wed, 30 Oct 2019 - 22:16
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



Appeal:

The contravention in question did not occur. The primary reason for appeal is insufficient signage.

1. I was approaching the traffic lights in the left hand lane in preparation for a left turn. The lights were green and as such I was not stationary at the traffic lights at any point. This is important as having revisited the site of the alleged contravention, I noted the the signs indicating a prohibited left turn are obscured by the traffic lights (all except the camera sign, which could apply to the bus lane which commences after the junction)|. They are only visible if stationary at the front of the traffic lights, or after a driver has already committed to completing a left turn.

2. I noted there is also a sign in the middle of the road, beside the right hand lane, but this sign is only useful for vehicles travelling in the right hand lane, as any obstruction will prevent vehicles in the left hand lane from seeing the sign. In my case a white van, which can be seen in the video, was obstructing my view of signage in the middle of the road. Furthermore, drivers approaching who are thinking of turning left will be focused on a left hand turn and not on signage across another lane in the middle of the road.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 30 Oct 2019 - 22:50
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,442
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Council will reject as they did with ours and you'll be faced with the tribunal gamble. I failed because I didn't convince on signage but it is poor and we may be able to do a better job with you. I took some pics much more from driver angle but didn't push it enough I reckon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eshroom
post Thu, 31 Oct 2019 - 00:08
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 30 Oct 2019 - 22:50) *
Council will reject as they did with ours and you'll be faced with the tribunal gamble. I failed because I didn't convince on signage but it is poor and we may be able to do a better job with you. I took some pics much more from driver angle but didn't push it enough I reckon.


Thanks stamfordman.

This is my tribunal appeal. Scheduled for December 12th. I will also submit additional evidence and photos.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eshroom
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 21:52
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



QUOTE (eshroom @ Wed, 30 Oct 2019 - 22:16) *
Appeal:

The contravention in question did not occur. The primary reason for appeal is insufficient signage.

1. I was approaching the traffic lights in the left hand lane in preparation for a left turn. The lights were green and as such I was not stationary at the traffic lights at any point. This is important as having revisited the site of the alleged contravention, I noted the the signs indicating a prohibited left turn are obscured by the traffic lights (all except the camera sign, which could apply to the bus lane which commences after the junction)|. They are only visible if stationary at the front of the traffic lights, or after a driver has already committed to completing a left turn.

2. I noted there is also a sign in the middle of the road, beside the right hand lane, but this sign is only useful for vehicles travelling in the right hand lane, as any obstruction will prevent vehicles in the left hand lane from seeing the sign. In my case a white van, which can be seen in the video, was obstructing my view of signage in the middle of the road. Furthermore, drivers approaching who are thinking of turning left will be focused on a left hand turn and not on signage across another lane in the middle of the road.


Will be taking photos and submitting additional evidence this week, hearing is on Thursday 12th December. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding anything I should add to my appeal above? Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 22:08
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,442
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (eshroom @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 21:52) *
hearing is on Thursday 12th December. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding anything I should add to my appeal above? Thanks!



Yes, tell the adjudicator to vote Labour.

If you get Harmon like I did you are sunk.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eshroom
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 12:57
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 22:08) *
QUOTE (eshroom @ Wed, 4 Dec 2019 - 21:52) *
hearing is on Thursday 12th December. Does anyone have any thoughts regarding anything I should add to my appeal above? Thanks!



Yes, tell the adjudicator to vote Labour.

If you get Harmon like I did you are sunk.


Haha
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eshroom
post Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 17:18
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



This appears to be the latest successful appeal. While the circumstances are different, do the implied issues with their TMO relate to my PCN or PCN's in general for this location?

QUOTE
Miss Julie Wheeler, who was the driver at the time and is the authorised representative for the vehicle’s owner, her mother Mrs Catherine Wheeler, appeals against this penalty charge notice on the basis that the alleged contravention of the prohibition on turning left did not occur. Whilst not disputing that the left turn alleged took place, Miss Wheeler argues that in the circumstances prevailing at the time she was required to turn left in order to avoid danger to pedestrians or an obstruction to other vehicles. That is because her vehicle came to a halt over a pedestrian crossing just prior to the junction and would have required pedestrians to walk into the road around her vehicle to cross. There was a box junction in the road ahead and, beyond it, stationary traffic. There is an issue, therefore, about the terms of the prohibition created by the original Traffic Management Order (TMO), as amended by the TMO which has been provided which merely adds this junction to the list of prohibitions subject to the original TMO, and whether such facts as I find proved amount to a breach of any such prohibition or fell within an exemption. This is not, I would add, an allegation of failing to comply with a regulatory sign; if that was the allegation no TMO would be required. Mr. Byrne’s representations should have put the enforcement authority (EA) on notice that the precise terms of the TMO would be in issue.

I found Miss Wheeler to be a credible witness and accepted her evidence; had I not done the issue would not have arisen because there would be no factual basis for any exemption in the first place.

The EA has not provided the original TMO creating the prohibitions in respect of the junctions listed in its Schedule 1, and the general exemptions to it. That TMO appears to be the Hackney (Prescribed Routes and 20 mph Speed limit) (Consolidation No 1) Order 2017 (the 2017 Order). Rather, it has provided a TMO (the Hackney (Prescribed Routes and 20 mph Speed Limit) (London Fields School Street - One Way, Pedestrian and Cycle) (Bus Gate) (Banned Left Turn - Richmond Road) (Experimental) Order 2018 (the 2018 Order)) which adds this particular junction to Schedule 1 of the 2017 Order. The 2018 Order provides specific exemptions in respect of this particular junction, but does not contain the general exemptions that apply to all junctions listed in Schedule 1 of the 2017 Order.

Without the precise terms of the original TMO I cannot know whether the manoeuvre Miss Wheeler undertook in the circumstances as I find them to be falls within any of the general exemptions provided by the 2017 Order. That is to say, I have not been provided with the set of legal rules for determining whether a contravention took place. It is not the signage that creates the prohibition here; the signage is intended to inform road users of the effect of a prohibition created by a TMO. I am not prepared to speculate about what the legal rules created by the TMO actually state.

In those circumstances, I am unable to find this contravention proved and I allow the appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 6 Dec 2019 - 23:34
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 15,339
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (eshroom @ Thu, 5 Dec 2019 - 17:18) *
This appears to be the latest successful appeal. While the circumstances are different, do the implied issues with their TMO relate to my PCN or PCN's in general for this location?

That case simply implies that in that particular case, the council messed up the evidence pack by failing to include the original TMO. This does happen on occasion, but you can't rely on it.


--------------------
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
eshroom
post Sat, 7 Dec 2019 - 16:15
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



Additional evidence submitted today:

QUOTE
Further to the evidence already submitted, I revisited the site of the alleged contravention on 07/12/2019.

- In their correspondance the council state there is adequate signage prior to the left turn, but provide no evidence to support this statement.
- I did attend the site and found there was advance signage in place, but that from a driver’s perspective, this signage is easily obscured if large vehicles are in the way, and therefore the advance signage is inadequate. On the day in question I do not recall seeing any advance signage, it is therefore possible a van or a bus could have obscured it

- While the council has provided photos taken from the pavement, I have provided photos taken from the driver’s perspective, these clearly show the no-left turn sign is obscured behind the traffic lights until after you have committed to a turn, by which time, even if a driver who would be focused on making the turn notices the signe, it would be unsafe to impulsively pull out of the maneuver

- There is signage on the right, which is also obscured by traffic lights, however this signage is also susceptible to being obscured by large vehicles, in the video footage a large van is seen travelling in this lane while I am turning left. Furthermore, vehicles on the inside lane would be focused on signage on the inside lane and will also be focused on the left side as they prepare for a left hand turn

- In addition to the fixed signage showing the times left turns are prohibited, there is an illuminated sign on the traffic lights:

- The council has provided images demonstrating the illumination of the sign on 08/07/2019 at:
- 14:59 - Not illuminated
- 14:59 - Illuminated
- 15:01 - Illuminated

- I have provided images demonstrating the illumination of the sign on 07/12/2019 at:
- 14:59 - Not illuminated
- 15:01 - Not illuminated

- The council’s evidence shows the signage being illuminated prematurely, my evidence shows the signage not having illuminated at all at the time it should have been illuminated. Taking both sets of evidence together, it is clear the illumination on the signs cannot be relied on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eshroom
post Thu, 12 Dec 2019 - 23:48
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



Appeal allowed. The adjudicator (not Harmon, but I don't remember his name), had read through the evidence before I sat down and explained how he used to allow this appeal but has since changed his position.

After a clear explanation of why he no longer allows appeals at this location based on signage (essentially he now feels the illuminated signs are sufficient despite the other signs being obscured), I was given the opportunity to explain why I thought my appeal should be allowed.

I pointed him to my latest evidence, which he hadn't reviewed, and this is what won it:

QUOTE
- The council has provided images demonstrating the illumination of the sign on 08/07/2019 at:
- 14:59 - Not illuminated
- 14:59 - Illuminated
- 15:01 - Illuminated

- I have provided images demonstrating the illumination of the sign on 07/12/2019 at:
- 14:59 - Not illuminated
- 15:01 - Not illuminated

- The council’s evidence shows the signage being illuminated prematurely, my evidence shows the signage not having illuminated at all at the time it should have been illuminated. Taking both sets of evidence together, it is clear the illumination on the signs cannot be relied on.


Essentially he said he gave me the benefit of the doubt based on the signs being proven not to illuminate consistently at the correct time.

This post has been edited by eshroom: Thu, 12 Dec 2019 - 23:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 13 Dec 2019 - 08:57
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,442
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well done - wish I'd had you doing my appeal...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
eshroom
post Fri, 13 Dec 2019 - 13:42
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 179
Joined: 2 Mar 2014
Member No.: 69,125



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 13 Dec 2019 - 08:57) *
Well done - wish I'd had you doing my appeal...


Thanks. It's unfortunate the evidence packs are so large as, if they were routinely uploaded, more discrepancies in council evidence would be found.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Sunday, 15th December 2019 - 05:55
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.