PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Interesting one?! 'No right turn' whilst reversing! Western Road, Romford, Was captured on a 'no right turn' camera whilst reversing
user69
post Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 23:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



Hi guys,

Long term lurker, love what you do.

The driver was captured on a no right turn camera but interestingly, there was no right turn. Rather, the driver reversed into the right turn (thereby turning left?).
I've viewed their evidence on the portal and the video shows the vehicle heading backwards.


I think it's pretty obvious that I should appeal stating that no contravention occurred but I wanted to check with people much smarter than me, first, in case I cock it up smile.gif
Would that be the correct course to take?

Could you let me know if it's appropriate to mention in the appeal the reason for the reversing, e.g. that the driver was stopping to use phone in a safe place (genuine reason)? Or would this be negated somehow by the double yellows? Would it be better to state that they were turning around? (I'm not sure if they would be able to retrieve further footage from the cam that day but fyi if they could they'd see the car stopping there for a short amount of time)

I did a pretty thorough search and could find no threads like this one so at the least I hope this is a new one for you!


Location: Western Road, Romford - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5787357,0...6384!8i8192
Video here: https://youtu.be/JlbY3pQx6k0
Redacted PCN (let me know if I've redacted too much/you would like more info):






Note: I have since emailed the email address stated on the back page (today, 17/04) with a message along the lines of 'this only shows the vehicle moving backwards. Please confirm this is the correct video and no contravention occurred and cancel the PCN or alternatively, please provide the correct video').
Note 2: I recognise I've left this quite late with my last day to appeal and still be eligible for the reduced rate being on the 21st April. Any speedy replies would be greatly appreciated (although I doubt I'll get a reply from the email address regarding the above before the 21st).


Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance smile.gif

This post has been edited by user69: Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 23:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 23:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 23:17
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



the video needs you to sign in via google I will not do that You need to make it public so we can see


--------------------
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
stamfordman
post Fri, 17 Apr 2020 - 23:59
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,476
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 06:07
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,603
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Interesting.
You have to pass the restriction sign for the contravention to apply. The restriction sign is on the other side of the road and I presume you came from the other direction and reversed.

Let me dig out the key case.
EDIT
Not as clear cut as I thought (it's a no entry restriction) but it should demonstrate that you have to pass the restriction sign:-

2180203283

Contravention Failing to comply with a no entry sign

The Appellant performed a U-turn at the junction of Grove Hill Road and Peterborough Road. He said that he had not entered Grove Hill Road. I disagree. The vehicle had clearly passed the give way lines separating the two roads. However, I am not satisfied that Appellant passed either of the two no entry signs.

The allegation is that the Appellant failed to comply with a no entry restriction. The key issue in this case is where the no entry restriction commences. The Authority's case seems to be that entry into Grove Hill Road is a contravention. I do not agree.

A pair of no entry signs create a virtual line or gate. The restriction prevents vehicles from passing this line or gate. This is particularly the case where there is no Traffic Management Order so that the position of the signs defines the point at which the restriction begins. Paragraph 1 (2) in Part 5, Schedule 3 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 provides that: "When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point."

It is therefore reasonable for motorists to understand that a no entry contravention only occurs if a vehicle passes the no entry signs. The no entry signs in this case are not placed close to the junction. On of the signs is about two car lengths from the give way line. The other over four car lengths from the give way lines. It is therefore not unreasonable for the Appellant to believe that he could turn before the no entry signs.

The Authority stated in the Notice of Rejection that the Appellant passed the no entry sign. It then stated in the case summary that the Appellant's vehicle drove over the no entry road markings and made no reference to the upright signs. It seems to me that the Authority has by then recognised the problem with its case but I do not think that its submissions work.

First, the road markings do not indicate when the restriction begins nor are they enforceable signs. Secondly, the Authority's photographs of the road markings are not dated. The markings do not seem to be present in the CCTV recording, and they are not present in Google images in July 2017.

I find that the signage restricts or at least give the impression that its restricts, vehicular movement after the no entry signs. It does not indicates that one cannot enter Grove Hill Road. I allow the appeal.
___________

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 06:16
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 08:15
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



I am with Mick on this, re not passing the sign, but did you. You can pass a sign going backwards just as well as going forwards and the video shows you on the right side of the road.

Explain everything leading up to the manoeuvre. Why did you make this manoeuvre? Where did your vehicle end up after the video ends? This is important because of the TMO


--------------------
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 Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 09:10
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,934
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



IMO, this is all to do with context.

1. Genuine mistake made by driver?
But how? According to the posted GSV, there's no corresponding 'left turn' restriction from the nearside carriageway, so if travelling in this direction why not just turn left? Perhaps they passed the turn, realised, decided to stop and reverse into the entrance, made a hash of the turn - by ending up partially on wrong side of the road - and what we see on camera followed. In which case you put front and centre that turning left from the previous direction of travel was permitted.

or,

2. what?

How could anyone travelling along the restricted carriageway end up facing the wrong direction?

OP, I'm dying to know.

OP, I'm 99.999999% certain this is going to end up at adjudication anyway, so it's what could be put in front of the adj which counts.

And if the adj thinks that the driver was simply being a smart a**e, thinking they'd found a jolly good way of avoiding the restriction..... at 2am ....

And OP, can we also sort out who the players are in this drama. 'The driver was captured on a no right turn camera'? And who might this be, you? If so, then pl say so as your posts would then be from first-hand knowledge. If not, then not only does the process of obtaining this info become slower, something might be lost in translation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 14:39
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 00:17) *
the video needs you to sign in via google I will not do that You need to make it public so we can see

Sorry about that. I amended shortly after I posted.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 00:59) *

Thank you!

Thanks to all for your replies.

QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 07:07) *
Interesting.
You have to pass the restriction sign for the contravention to apply. The restriction sign is on the other side of the road and I presume you came from the other direction and reversed.

Let me dig out the key case.
EDIT
Not as clear cut as I thought (it's a no entry restriction) but it should demonstrate that you have to pass the restriction sign:-

2180203283

Contravention Failing to comply with a no entry sign

The Appellant performed a U-turn at the junction of Grove Hill Road and Peterborough Road. He said that he had not entered Grove Hill Road. I disagree. The vehicle had clearly passed the give way lines separating the two roads. However, I am not satisfied that Appellant passed either of the two no entry signs.

The allegation is that the Appellant failed to comply with a no entry restriction. The key issue in this case is where the no entry restriction commences. The Authority's case seems to be that entry into Grove Hill Road is a contravention. I do not agree.

A pair of no entry signs create a virtual line or gate. The restriction prevents vehicles from passing this line or gate. This is particularly the case where there is no Traffic Management Order so that the position of the signs defines the point at which the restriction begins. Paragraph 1 (2) in Part 5, Schedule 3 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 provides that: "When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point."

It is therefore reasonable for motorists to understand that a no entry contravention only occurs if a vehicle passes the no entry signs. The no entry signs in this case are not placed close to the junction. On of the signs is about two car lengths from the give way line. The other over four car lengths from the give way lines. It is therefore not unreasonable for the Appellant to believe that he could turn before the no entry signs.

The Authority stated in the Notice of Rejection that the Appellant passed the no entry sign. It then stated in the case summary that the Appellant's vehicle drove over the no entry road markings and made no reference to the upright signs. It seems to me that the Authority has by then recognised the problem with its case but I do not think that its submissions work.

First, the road markings do not indicate when the restriction begins nor are they enforceable signs. Secondly, the Authority's photographs of the road markings are not dated. The markings do not seem to be present in the CCTV recording, and they are not present in Google images in July 2017.

I find that the signage restricts or at least give the impression that its restricts, vehicular movement after the no entry signs. It does not indicates that one cannot enter Grove Hill Road. I allow the appeal.
___________

Mick

Thanks for this Mick. I'm mindful I would have to abide by signage even when reversing although looking at where the sign is and trying to cross-reference it with the vid, I'm not certain that I drove 'past' it.


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 09:15) *
I am with Mick on this, re not passing the sign, but did you. You can pass a sign going backwards just as well as going forwards and the video shows you on the right side of the road.

Explain everything leading up to the manoeuvre. Why did you make this manoeuvre? Where did your vehicle end up after the video ends? This is important because of the TMO

No, I don't believe I passed the sign before reversing. I certainly don't remember reversing all the way up the road so looking at the vid I doubt I was even level with the sign before reversing.

Sure thing. That night I had just dropped a friend off home nearby. I believe my phone rang or I received a message to reply to near or at the prior roundabout so I pulled into this road to look for a safe place to stop and reply/take the call. The road (Western Road) itself is slim and I didn't want to stop immediately in it as to avoid obstructing other road users. I would have driven past the area on the right and then realised that I actually want to pop in there to stop and use my phone as I deemed that safer to use than stopping on the road.
I appreciate this may not be a 'great' or even 'good' reason, especially that there are double yellows where I stopped.
I didn't judge this to be a dangerous manoeuvre at the time given that there were no cars coming to or fro and I certainly wouldn't have performed it if I knew I was not permitted to reverse in.

The vehicle would have stayed there, or abouts, in the final frame of the video whilst I was on the phone. I'm certain I didn't enter the hatched area behind the vehicle. After this, I would have turned right out of that area to go back towards the roundabout (to go back the way I came).

I will follow your lead on this, but theoretically would a better ground of appeal be if I was reversing to immediately turn around? Or to add directions to sat nav? Wouldn't I still have been snapped on the camera, given the other U turn cases I've seen on here regarding Western Road?


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 10:10) *
IMO, this is all to do with context.

1. Genuine mistake made by driver?
But how? According to the posted GSV, there's no corresponding 'left turn' restriction from the nearside carriageway, so if travelling in this direction why not just turn left? Perhaps they passed the turn, realised, decided to stop and reverse into the entrance, made a hash of the turn - by ending up partially on wrong side of the road - and what we see on camera followed. In which case you put front and centre that turning left from the previous direction of travel was permitted.

or,

2. what?

How could anyone travelling along the restricted carriageway end up facing the wrong direction?

OP, I'm dying to know.

OP, I'm 99.999999% certain this is going to end up at adjudication anyway, so it's what could be put in front of the adj which counts.

And if the adj thinks that the driver was simply being a smart a**e, thinking they'd found a jolly good way of avoiding the restriction..... at 2am ....

And OP, can we also sort out who the players are in this drama. 'The driver was captured on a no right turn camera'? And who might this be, you? If so, then pl say so as your posts would then be from first-hand knowledge. If not, then not only does the process of obtaining this info become slower, something might be lost in translation.

Hopefully, my reply to hc above clears some of your points up, let me know if not. I definitely wasn't getting inventive at 2am! :')

Sorry about the ambiguity. I'm used to the MSE forums where they always advise not to implicate the driver. I was indeed the driver and everything is first hand.



Thanks again guys

I have tried to find the TMO. The resources on Havering's website were just a map and a bit useless/not explanatory or I'm not interpreting them correctly but I found this from another thread where a user eventually got it from Havering. It's much shorter than what I imagined:

For the record, and to help others fighting this, I have finally obtained the text of the original TMO which states that the actual banned turn is:
QUOTE
right into - the loading area, opposite to the Romford United Reformed Church Building

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1479286
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 14:52
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



If you passed with the junction on the right as you say you would have passed the sign. But how the hell did you end up in the position seen in the first frame of the video

( use the youtube and freeze it)


--------------------
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 Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 14:54
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,934
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551




I would have driven past the area on the right and then realised that I actually want to pop in there to stop and use my phone as I deemed that safer to use than stopping on the road.


C'mon!!

Either you were driving left to right or right to left. If the former, then the entrance was on your left, not right. And you have yet to explain why you ended up straddling the centre-line.

Can we please nail the specifics before you start to look for straws at which to clutch, straws whose utility is wholly dependent upon a full set of facts, which we don't yet have.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 15:32
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 15:52) *
If you passed with the junction on the right as you say you would have passed the sign. But how the hell did you end up in the position seen in the first frame of the video

( use the youtube and freeze it)


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 15:54) *
I would have driven past the area on the right and then realised that I actually want to pop in there to stop and use my phone as I deemed that safer to use than stopping on the road.


C'mon!!

Either you were driving left to right or right to left. If the former, then the entrance was on your left, not right. And you have yet to explain why you ended up straddling the centre-line.

Can we please nail the specifics before you start to look for straws at which to clutch, straws whose utility is wholly dependent upon a full set of facts, which we don't yet have.


Like my reason for wanting to stop there in the first place, it doesn't sound like I had a good reason for straddling in the middle of the road.
I've thought strongly about that night and I should let you know I've convinced myself that I did indeed go past the sign and was then reversing back in a manner that meant I ended up in the middle of the road before reversing into the bay. Guess I am liable for seeing the sign then.
Sorry if it seems like I'm wasting your time, I wasn't purposely concealing this from you.

'I would have driven past the area on the right left and then realised that I actually want to pop in there'
Sorry all. That would be a typo and the area was on my left as I drove past it. Apologies for the confusion.


If it's looking like I should pay up, I can do so, let me know if it's not worth our time
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 15:58
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,934
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Thanks.

Guess I am liable for seeing the sign then.

Why?

The sign applies to vehicles on the right-left carriageway. You were not travelling along that carriageway.

Whereas in a one-way street(and access restrictions), it doesn't matter which way you're facing - direction of travel is the issue not direction one's facing - I believe it is the direction of travel here. The restriction is not marked with 'gateway' signs - a pair placed on either side which are used for speed limits, one-way and access prohibitions - there is a single sign.

However, this is not the case here. The traffic management purpose of the 'no right turn' prohibition does not apply if you're turning left. As there is no prohibition on travelling into that entrance, IMO it follows that if a driver was travelling left-right and wanted to do 180 at the entrance then it cannot be improper to pull past the entrance and then reverse.

I cannot see a contravention here. Lousy driving, perhaps (do they still include reversing around a corner into the test? When I took mine, we still had hand signals!).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 16:30
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 16:58) *
Thanks.

Guess I am liable for seeing the sign then.

Why?

The sign applies to vehicles on the right-left carriageway. You were not travelling along that carriageway.

Whereas in a one-way street(and access restrictions), it doesn't matter which way you're facing - direction of travel is the issue not direction one's facing - I believe it is the direction of travel here. The restriction is not marked with 'gateway' signs - a pair placed on either side which are used for speed limits, one-way and access prohibitions - there is a single sign.

However, this is not the case here. The traffic management purpose of the 'no right turn' prohibition does not apply if you're turning left. As there is no prohibition on travelling into that entrance, IMO it follows that if a driver was travelling left-right and wanted to do 180 at the entrance then it cannot be improper to pull past the entrance and then reverse.

I cannot see a contravention here. Lousy driving, perhaps (do they still include reversing around a corner into the test? When I took mine, we still had hand signals!).


+1 not wasting time but we now know what happened. I've seen worse reversing (my missus) but not by much but no contravention


--------------------
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
Incandescent
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 16:40
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,834
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



A better example of council money-grubbing is difficult to think of ! The OP drove past the entrance and then backed-in. It stretches credulity for anybody to consider that to be a right turn. I would take this all the way to London Tribunals.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 19:00
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



Thanks all. So the single point of my appeal should simply be that no contravention occurred.
I guess I'll add some meat upon hc's point, 'The traffic management purpose of the 'no right turn' prohibition does not apply if you're turning left'.

Would there be any benefit to posting it here prior to submitting it or do you think I've got this for now?


QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 16:58) *
I cannot see a contravention here. Lousy driving, perhaps (do they still include reversing around a corner into the test? When I took mine, we still had hand signals!).

They did when I took it a few years back - it's just been removed in the past few weeks though! A shame as you can see how much I enjoy it :')
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mickR
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 19:04
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,884
Joined: 5 Jan 2007
From: England
Member No.: 9,919



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 09:15) *
Explain everything leading up to the manoeuvre. Why did you make this manoeuvre? Where did your vehicle end up after the video ends? This is important because of the TMO

My thoughts exactly, the driver sppears to still be reversing when the video stops. Maybe they didn't stop reversing??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 19:21
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,603
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Doesn't matter IMO because the contravention could not have happened if the vehicle did not pass the restriction sign. It would not have gone into the loading area because at 2.00am the gate would probably have been locked.

Remember the TMO prohibits a right turn into the loading area i.e. both have to happen before a contravention occurs.

As an aside, this thread, like others recently, is bloated. What happened to concise, precise comments.

Mick


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Sat, 18 Apr 2020 - 19:30
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,572
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
Would there be any benefit to posting it here prior to submitting it or do you think I've got this for now?


It is always advisable to post draft submissions here for comment before sending.
But do not miss any deadlines.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user69
post Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 13:34
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



Hi all, my draft appeal below. It's looking thin but I think it might be ok for this stage of the appeal? Any feedback appreciated:

The alleged Contravention did not occur.

Your evidence shows a video of a vehicle driving past the entrance and then backing into the area. In other words, making a left turn.
After reviewing the TMO I can see it states simply ‘right into - the loading area, opposite to the Romford United Reformed Church Building’.
Therefore, the traffic management purpose of the 'no right turn' prohibition does not apply if you're turning left.

The vehicle made no prohibited manoeuvre and this PCN should be cancelled.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 13:53
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,744
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (user69 @ Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 14:34) *
Hi all, my draft appeal below. It's looking thin but I think it might be ok for this stage of the appeal? Any feedback appreciated:

The alleged Contravention did not occur.

Your evidence shows a video of a vehicle driving past the entrance and then backing into the area. In other words, making a left turn.
After reviewing the TMO I can see it states simply ‘right into - the loading area, opposite to the Romford United Reformed Church Building’.
Therefore, the traffic management purpose of the 'no right turn' prohibition does not apply if you're turning left.

The vehicle made no prohibited manoeuvre and this PCN should be cancelled.


Almost but to make it clearer try

The CCTV evidence shows me passing this junction traveling left to right. It follows therefore that when I reversed into the turning it was in fact a left turn. It is a rightr turn that is prohibited. I know this from looking at GSV, from my direction of travel I would not be able to see a sign

I have perused the TMO creating this restriction. It is a restriction against turning right into the loading bay. The loading bay was gated and locked at that time of the morning and it would have been impossible to commit the contravention set out in the TMO For either or both of these reasons the contravention did not occur the PCN was served in error and must be cancelled.

To do otherwise in the face of the evidence, forcing me to tribunal would be wholly unreasonable, and frivolous bordering on the vexatious. There would be additional wasted cost to both the council and myself, I will surely seek recompense for my costs if I am required to take this route


--------------------
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
user69
post Tue, 21 Apr 2020 - 13:48
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 19
Joined: 17 Apr 2020
Member No.: 108,506



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 14:53) *
QUOTE (user69 @ Mon, 20 Apr 2020 - 14:34) *
Hi all, my draft appeal below. It's looking thin but I think it might be ok for this stage of the appeal? Any feedback appreciated:

The alleged Contravention did not occur.

Your evidence shows a video of a vehicle driving past the entrance and then backing into the area. In other words, making a left turn.
After reviewing the TMO I can see it states simply ‘right into - the loading area, opposite to the Romford United Reformed Church Building’.
Therefore, the traffic management purpose of the 'no right turn' prohibition does not apply if you're turning left.

The vehicle made no prohibited manoeuvre and this PCN should be cancelled.


Almost but to make it clearer try

The CCTV evidence shows me passing this junction traveling left to right. It follows therefore that when I reversed into the turning it was in fact a left turn. It is a rightr turn that is prohibited. I know this from looking at GSV, from my direction of travel I would not be able to see a sign

I have perused the TMO creating this restriction. It is a restriction against turning right into the loading bay. The loading bay was gated and locked at that time of the morning and it would have been impossible to commit the contravention set out in the TMO For either or both of these reasons the contravention did not occur the PCN was served in error and must be cancelled.

To do otherwise in the face of the evidence, forcing me to tribunal would be wholly unreasonable, and frivolous bordering on the vexatious. There would be additional wasted cost to both the council and myself, I will surely seek recompense for my costs if I am required to take this route


Thank you PASTMYBEST! Submitted now. Will let you know how we get on
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 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, 14th July 2020 - 13:31
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.