PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Performing a prohibited turn-no right turn (Enfield), Split from hijacked thread
Viz57
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 14:18
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 9 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,550



I'm very glad to have found this post here. I've received this same PCN this morning (dated 08/11/2019, event date 30/10/2019 18:17) and I suspect hundreds of drivers are going to be affected by this.

The images in my evidence are very dark (night) and shows no further detail than what has already been posted.

I second that this turn is normally allowed and no prohibitions used to be in place. But I am baffled by the first photo showing the temporary prohibition signs. I was at the location on 30/10/2019 at 18:17 and I don't remember these signs. Any information on when that photo was taken?

To add some background, a section of road is closed northbound A1055 starting at Angel Edmonton Road / Meridian Way N18 intersection (at the roundabout). The closure had, and still causes heavy distruption and congestion in the region. There are signs diverting traffic into the next (main) exit of the roundabout into Conduit Lane.

The turn referred to in the PCN is the next best option to continue northbound and to prohibit it simply extends the queue further than is necessarry. It's simply adding insult to injury, and then further insult by issuing PCNs. It seems like a very obvious, deliberate and expected money grab.

I wondering what's the best way to challenge this PCN too. Any help is appreciated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 14:18
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mike4Justice
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 15:01
Post #2


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 6 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,520



Hi Viz57, the first picture with the four visible signs was actually taken on 08/11/2019 exactly 3 days after I received the PCN as at the time I had no concern to stop and take photographic evidence. The passenger in my car does not recollect seeing these temporary signs so am actually questioning which signs actually existed at the time. What is also perplexing is that I counted six other cars taking the same turning one after the other from the video evidence provided by the council - surely one of these drivers would have seen a sign and not made the right turn?! The CCTV camera has also been positioned in a way that no signs are actually visible from the video evidence. Maybe worth reviewing your video evidence to see if any signs fom my first photo are visible.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Viz57
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 15:19
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 9 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,550



I've also uploaded a screenshot of my video, deliberately at the point where the truck is blocking most of the glare to give the clearest view possible of the area around the traffic signs. It's far darker than your video so hard to tell anything but definitely nothing that could be said as evidence the signs are there.

In my case at the time, the count of vehicles doing the same turn were much more than six. An entire queue of vehicles from as far back as I could see approaching the junction did the turn before me and a whole queue was still behind me. Obviously, only some of these are seen in my video.

This post has been edited by Viz57: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 15:23
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Viz57
post Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 21:47
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 9 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,550



The video for my PCN is at:
https://imgur.com/gLEMjek

Mike I can advise you on how to download and post your video if you need.

I was under the impression any advice or discussion refering to the same alleged contravention at the same location should remain under one thread. As I said above, I suspect more drivers to be affected and it would be nice to have everything under one thread.

This post has been edited by Viz57: Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 21:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Viz57
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 18:51
Post #5


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 9 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,550



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 15:18) *
The number of cars turning right suggest something wrong with the signs. Put them to proof to what is there

Thanks for the input. Will be making a mention of this in the representations.

@Mike4Justice
I am in the process of writing representations for this PCN on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. My main points being
  • The turn is normally allowed.
  • I do not recollect any visible signs to suggest a prohibition was in place.
  • The number of vehicles doing the same turn as evident in the CCTV footage and outside of it also emphasises this.
  • There were heavy disruptions and congestion due to the nearby closures and diversions. This turn was the next best route.


I also think it would be effective to provide a written statement to each other in support of our representations, especially the point about not recalling anything to suggest a prohibition was in place and both our CCTV footage show a significant number of vehicles doing the turn.
Do you agree?

Anyone have any advise on this?

This post has been edited by Viz57: Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 18:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 10 Nov 2019 - 20:17
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,873
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Viz57 @ Sat, 9 Nov 2019 - 21:47) *
The video for my PCN is at:
https://imgur.com/gLEMjek

Mike I can advise you on how to download and post your video if you need.

I was under the impression any advice or discussion refering to the same alleged contravention at the same location should remain under one thread. As I said above, I suspect more drivers to be affected and it would be nice to have everything under one thread.

No, the rule is that each "case" should have its own thread. The allegation made against you is not the same as the allegation made against Mike4Justice and hijacking his thread like this is the opposite of helpful.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 00:02
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,386
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



At present I have only given advice that would apply to both because it is to put the council to proof. but there is an obvious difference between yours and Mikes pCN due to the light conditions. You can include that as a reason for not seeing signs Mike cannot.

your contributions can help if they are based on observations you make. One other piece of advise that will apply to both is that the council are very unlikely to accept your representations, they are judge jury and beneficiary, as they keep the money, so you need to be prepared to risk the full penalty at adjudication. The council response to the representations will guide the next step and in all likelihood give further grounds.

That they cannot show the signage in place.

That they do not confirm the status of the responder, It has been found that a non statutory body (NSL) cannot consider representations as they are not under the same duty to act fairly nor can the use discretion that has not been granted to them

Them not responding properly is a winning ground of its self


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Viz57
post Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 02:14
Post #8


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 9 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,550



@PASTMYBEST
Thanks a lot for your advise.

I've attached what I intend to send as my representation.

If @Mike4Justice agrees to mutually support each others' representations, I plan on adding:

QUOTE
Furthermore, I have enclosed a letter from another motorist who supports that he too does not recall any signs to indicate a prohibition for the turn for which he has also received a PCN for the same alleged contravention a day earlier (29/10/2019). The video evidence recorded for his PCN also show a significant number of vehicles doing the same turn.


QUOTE
I am writing to support Mr …’s representations.
I too received a PCN for the same contravention and like Mr …, I too do not recall any signs suggesting a right-turn prohibition was in place at the Conduit Lane / Montagu Road N18 intersection.

Attached File(s)
Attached File  Rep.pdf ( 74.43K ) Number of downloads: 126
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 11:28
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,873
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I think the representation is good, I might add a line asking them to confirm whether the signage was illuminated.


--------------------
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
Viz57
post Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 23:34
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 9 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,550



Thank you CP, will add that.

I'll update this thread with their response
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike4Justice
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 23:16
Post #11


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 6 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,520



Hi All, would mutually supporting each others representation add more substance to each case? Thanks, M4J.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 00:02) *
At present I have only given advice that would apply to both because it is to put the council to proof. but there is an obvious difference between yours and Mikes pCN due to the light conditions. You can include that as a reason for not seeing signs Mike cannot.

your contributions can help if they are based on observations you make. One other piece of advise that will apply to both is that the council are very unlikely to accept your representations, they are judge jury and beneficiary, as they keep the money, so you need to be prepared to risk the full penalty at adjudication. The council response to the representations will guide the next step and in all likelihood give further grounds.

That they cannot show the signage in place.

That they do not confirm the status of the responder, It has been found that a non statutory body (NSL) cannot consider representations as they are not under the same duty to act fairly nor can the use discretion that has not been granted to them

Them not responding properly is a winning ground of its self



So just to clarify if we, lost our adjudication appeal would this mean we would have to pay the countil £130 as opposed to the £65 that would be applicable if paid within 14 days of receipt of PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 23:30
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,386
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mike4Justice @ Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 23:16) *
Hi All, would mutually supporting each others representation add more substance to each case? Thanks, M4J.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 11 Nov 2019 - 00:02) *
At present I have only given advice that would apply to both because it is to put the council to proof. but there is an obvious difference between yours and Mikes pCN due to the light conditions. You can include that as a reason for not seeing signs Mike cannot.

your contributions can help if they are based on observations you make. One other piece of advise that will apply to both is that the council are very unlikely to accept your representations, they are judge jury and beneficiary, as they keep the money, so you need to be prepared to risk the full penalty at adjudication. The council response to the representations will guide the next step and in all likelihood give further grounds.

That they cannot show the signage in place.

That they do not confirm the status of the responder, It has been found that a non statutory body (NSL) cannot consider representations as they are not under the same duty to act fairly nor can the use discretion that has not been granted to them

Them not responding properly is a winning ground of its self



So just to clarify if we, lost our adjudication appeal would this mean we would have to pay the countil £130 as opposed to the £65 that would be applicable if paid within 14 days of receipt of PCN.


The discount applies for 14 days from the date of notice after that date the council can demand the full penalty. Usually they reoffer the discount if they reject representations, usually they reject representations .

Realistically if you are going to fight a PCN you must be prepared to risk paying the full amount. You both have good cases so my advice is save the cost odf a cup of coffee a week between now and if you lost and had to pay and you will save at least the difference and more likely close to the full amount. Then if you lose you dont miss it and if you win you can have a nice treat


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike4Justice
post Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 23:45
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 6 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,520



Thanks - PAYMYBEST. So are you saying that the Counil not responding properly (and using the NSL as the middle man) is a WIN WIN? smile.gif

This post has been edited by Mike4Justice: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 23:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 00:10
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,386
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mike4Justice @ Tue, 12 Nov 2019 - 23:45) *
Thanks - PAYMYBEST. So are you saying that the Counil not responding properly (and using the NSL as the middle man) is a WIN WIN? smile.gif


Not promising but it has been found in the past that the council cannot contract out their duty to consider formal representations


https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...8071805A%29.doc

so it depends who actually does the considering, that is why I say ask for confirmation that it is a council employed officer and not an NSL employee delegated to do so


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
littlepea14
post Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 18:55
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 15 Sep 2019
Member No.: 105,746



Just to add to this - we have also received a PCN for exactly this. I have put up a thread about it. There 100% was never, ever a sign on 30/10/19. I do not remember seeing it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Viz57
post Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 20:21
Post #16


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 9 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,550



QUOTE (littlepea14 @ Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 18:55) *
Just to add to this - we have also received a PCN for exactly this. I have put up a thread about it. There 100% was never, ever a sign on 30/10/19. I do not remember seeing it.


@littlepea14 @Mike4Justice

I was anticipating this and why I suggested a joint statement to support our representations.

Does anyone have any idea on how to go about this? I suspect our names, address and signature would be required. Should I write a template along the lines of:



[NSL address] [Our address]

[Date]

I'm writing to state that I have received a PCN for the same alleged contravention at the same location. To my recollection there were no signs to suggest a prohibition was in as also evident in the number of vehicles performing the same turn in the CCTV footage captured.

Regards,
[Signature]
[Name]




And we can each complete and upload it?
Probably concerns about our information, so I think we can upload to a google drive account or dropbox account via a share sent through PM?

If we all agree I'll do that tonight, otherwise any suggestions?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike4Justice
post Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:05
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 6 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,520



QUOTE (Viz57 @ Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 20:21) *
QUOTE (littlepea14 @ Wed, 13 Nov 2019 - 18:55) *
Just to add to this - we have also received a PCN for exactly this. I have put up a thread about it. There 100% was never, ever a sign on 30/10/19. I do not remember seeing it.


@littlepea14 @Mike4Justice

I was anticipating this and why I suggested a joint statement to support our representations.

Does anyone have any idea on how to go about this? I suspect our names, address and signature would be required. Should I write a template along the lines of:



[NSL address] [Our address]

[Date]

I'm writing to state that I have received a PCN for the same alleged contravention at the same location. To my recollection there were no signs to suggest a prohibition was in as also evident in the number of vehicles performing the same turn in the CCTV footage captured.

Regards,
[Signature]
[Name]




And we can each complete and upload it?
Probably concerns about our information, so I think we can upload to a google drive account or dropbox account via a share sent through PM?

If we all agree I'll do that tonight, otherwise any suggestions?


I am looking to send mine tomorrow, so am considering stating that other drivers also are in agreement that they also did not recollect seeing any signs to suggest a prohibition was in place. Not sure it would make a difference i.e. our word against theirs but since no signs are visible in the CCTV video evidence that clearly must be proof that there were no signs!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 14 Nov 2019 - 22:48
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,386
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Whilst it is good that there a few driver who can corroborate each others case , I would prefer that you all make representations and at appeal try to get a consolidated hearing.

This would give you all opportunity to put the same argument to the same adjudicator at the same time and would not appear contrived


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 11:01
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,688
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




I second that this turn is normally allowed and no prohibitions used to be in place. But I am baffled by the first photo showing the temporary prohibition signs. I was at the location on 30/10/2019 at 18:17 and I don't remember these signs. Any information on when that photo was taken?

To add some background, a section of road is closed northbound A1055 starting at Angel Edmonton Road / Meridian Way N18 intersection (at the roundabout). The closure had, and still causes heavy distruption and congestion in the region. There are signs diverting traffic into the next (main) exit of the roundabout into Conduit Lane.


Suggests detailed and recent knowledge, even to the point of passing there regularly. If so, then get current details.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike4Justice
post Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 12:58
Post #20


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 6 Nov 2019
Member No.: 106,520



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 11:01) *

I second that this turn is normally allowed and no prohibitions used to be in place. But I am baffled by the first photo showing the temporary prohibition signs. I was at the location on 30/10/2019 at 18:17 and I don't remember these signs. Any information on when that photo was taken?

To add some background, a section of road is closed northbound A1055 starting at Angel Edmonton Road / Meridian Way N18 intersection (at the roundabout). The closure had, and still causes heavy distruption and congestion in the region. There are signs diverting traffic into the next (main) exit of the roundabout into Conduit Lane.


Suggests detailed and recent knowledge, even to the point of passing there regularly. If so, then get current details.


Hi Hcandersen, if you are referring the pictures that I posted - these were taken a week after the PCN date - so are not proof that these signs were up at the time of the alleged prohibition i.e. 29th October 2019. Thanks, M4J.
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: Saturday, 30th May 2020 - 20:11
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.