Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN - 50J Performing a prohibited turn (camera enforcement)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
swjoss
Hi,

This is my first post and hopefully my last so apologies in advance for lack of experience.

I have been caught doing a prohibited turn 50J (camera enforced) and photo evidence is good. Number plate recognised clearly and car did turn corner even though no right turn.

Only late last year did they change the layout and before this time you could legally turn right. Stupidly i didn't know they had changed and failed to see the sign alerting me of "no right turn". Below link shows the proposed work they have now completed.

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/DE/15_098_hospi..._percy_road.pdf

Attached are what i received from the council. I have removed the vehicle reg and PCN number and left the last page out due to this only being a return slip.

Photos of the offence are also attached at the bottom. Just hope they are attached correctly.

Please let me know if you need anything else and thanks in advance for any assistance.

Kind regards and helpppp me.

[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
Mr Meldrew
At this stage, you should not be persuaded to part with a penny of your hard earned money without evidence that you had failed to comply with proper and lawful signage indicating a prohibited turn (the contravention) as there is no evidence presented in the PCN of any such contravention, and is a reason to suspect that the full video also lacks evidence.

Your accusers really should do better, and I note that the discount will be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected. Experienced people here will advise further.
swjoss
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 17:00) *
At this stage, you should not be persuaded to part with a penny of your hard earned money without evidence that you had failed to comply with proper and lawful signage indicating a prohibited turn (the contravention) as there is no evidence presented in the PCN of any such contravention, and is a reason to suspect that the full video also lacks evidence.

Your accusers really should do better, and I note that the discount will be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected. Experienced people here will advise further.


Thanks. I have had a look and they do have signs but need to go back and see where exactly they are.

If I appeal in the terms you mention will I be able to appeal again in other terms or will this just be once?

Cheers
StationCat
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 17:00) *
At this stage, you should not be persuaded to part with a penny of your hard earned money without evidence that you had failed to comply with proper and lawful signage indicating a prohibited turn (the contravention) as there is no evidence presented in the PCN of any such contravention, and is a reason to suspect that the full video also lacks evidence.

Your accusers really should do better, and I note that the discount will be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected. Experienced people here will advise further.

Perhaps you could clarify? I would have thought that the CCTV was the evidence and that the TRO and sign make it an offence to make the turn?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (StationCat @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 17:18) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 17:00) *
At this stage, you should not be persuaded to part with a penny of your hard earned money without evidence that you had failed to comply with proper and lawful signage indicating a prohibited turn (the contravention) as there is no evidence presented in the PCN of any such contravention, and is a reason to suspect that the full video also lacks evidence.

Your accusers really should do better, and I note that the discount will be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected. Experienced people here will advise further.

Perhaps you could clarify? I would have thought that the CCTV was the evidence and that the TRO and sign make it an offence to make the turn?


Correct, you must get a copy or view the video; does that show any signs?
swjoss
Yes there is CCTV evidence of the offence. All it shows is the same as the still photos I attached.

I will have to view it again tomorrow to see if anything visible but pretty sure nothing, especially as at night.

Would the fact that the sign exists not overrule an appeal on lack of evidence on CCTV? Surely they just have to prove the sign is there and I would have to pay?

Sorry if sounds like a stupid question
Incandescent
This hinges on signage, and also, if it is a very new restriction, whether the council put up any advance warning signs of changed priorities/restrictions. Nowadays it is not sufficient for a council to just put up some signs they have to make them obvious to regular users of the road. Have they done this ? In addition, I suspect the video doesn't show the sign you passed, so if you decide to go to adjudication, the council may submit library pictures of the sign. This must be the sign actually at the location not just a generic pic of a sign. It all depends how far you want to take things, as if you decide to fight it, the discount option is lost.
swjoss
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 17:52) *
This hinges on signage, and also, if it is a very new restriction, whether the council put up any advance warning signs of changed priorities/restrictions. Nowadays it is not sufficient for a council to just put up some signs they have to make them obvious to regular users of the road. Have they done this ? In addition, I suspect the video doesn't show the sign you passed, so if you decide to go to adjudication, the council may submit library pictures of the sign. This must be the sign actually at the location not just a generic pic of a sign. It all depends how far you want to take things, as if you decide to fight it, the discount option is lost.


I'm pretty sure the signage is correct but will double check at work tomorrow as laptop recently died sad.gif
Mr Meldrew
QUOTE (StationCat @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 17:18) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 17:00) *
At this stage, you should not be persuaded to part with a penny of your hard earned money without evidence that you had failed to comply with proper and lawful signage indicating a prohibited turn (the contravention) as there is no evidence presented in the PCN of any such contravention, and is a reason to suspect that the full video also lacks evidence.

Your accusers really should do better, and I note that the discount will be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected. Experienced people here will advise further.

Perhaps you could clarify? I would have thought that the CCTV was the evidence and that the TRO and sign make it an offence to make the turn?

I couldn't put it better than this:

Incandescent Tue, 24 Sep 2013 - 20:52

"Basically the video has to show the contravention, and some appeals have been allowed because the motorist is not shown passing a sign barring his movement. However, library pictures are allowed to be presented of the signs, provided they are certified by an official as being in position. The adjudication test is "on the balance of probabilities", being the civil law test, not "beyond all reasonable doubt", the criminal law test. So it allows adjudicators quite a lot of leeway. Now of course, much depends on how clever or stupid the council are when they prepare their evidence bundle, because that is what decides the issue. So they have to prove the contravention "on the day" and if they don't you win."


http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t83077.html

Also:

Case Reference: 2130412623
Declarant: Mr Austin Biesty
Authority: Brent
VRM: AK04BTY
PCN: BT66532222
Contravention Date: 17 Apr 2012
Contravention Time: 17:40
Contravention Location: Chamberlayne Road
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn
Referral Date: 30 Aug 2013
Adjudicator: Michael Lawrence
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') in this case describes the alleged traffic contravention as Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn. However, the PCN fails to particularise what turn is prohibited, left or right. Also, whilst the Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') includes superimposed pictures, it is impossible to see in the copy filed any actual traffic sign(s) that the appellant is alleged to have failed to comply with and there is no copy of the sign(s) themselves superimposed on the PCN.

In the circumstances, I find that the PCN is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('LLA & TFL Act 2003'), which states that the PCN "must (a) state (i) the grounds on which the council...believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".

In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.


Without further evidence, all I see is a car turning right. I'm suggesting that at this stage the OP requests evidence of the contravention, but if I were the OP I would also accept the majority view here.
Neil B
QUOTE (swjoss @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 17:58) *
I'm pretty sure the signage is correct

Really? How?

StationCat
Very thorough Mr. Meldrew, thank you.
swjoss
QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 19:29) *
QUOTE (swjoss @ Wed, 20 Jan 2016 - 17:58) *
I'm pretty sure the signage is correct

Really? How?


Sorry i mean the sign is there to say no right trun, only after going back to the scene did i see it though.

Did not notice at the time but this was probably due to having local knowledge of the old rules.
oldstoat
The point that is being made is,

on the photos are there any pictures of the sign?

On the video are there any images of the sign?

If there are no actual images of the sign, then there is NO evidence of the contravention.

Even if you now know the sign is there, if it is not on any pictures or video, then there is no evidence. Technicality, but as said previously, appeals have been won on this point
swjoss
View My Video

I've just added a link to the video, not the greatest quality though.

i need help
the pcn does not say r or l turn so is unenforcable.


period


Mad Mick V
QUOTE (i need help @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 14:34) *
the pcn does not say r or l turn so is unenforcable.


period


Codswallop.

A contravention code suffix is not a legal requirement.

Mick
i need help
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 16:49) *
QUOTE (i need help @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 14:34) *
the pcn does not say r or l turn so is unenforcable.


period


Codswallop.

A contravention code suffix is not a legal requirement.

Mick



Really?


Case Details
Case reference 2120523526
Appellant Ghulam xxxxxxx
Authority City of Westminster
VRM xxxxxxxx
PCN Details
PCN WM76546063
Contravention date 10 Sep 2012
Contravention time 12:00:00
Contravention location Cleveland Terrace
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with prohibited turn sign
Decision date 10 Nov 2012
Adjudicator Michael Lawrence
Appeal decision PCN appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant attended this hearing. The Road Traffic Act 1991 section 66 mandates that the Penalty Charge Notice must state the "grounds on which the [authority] believes that a penalty charge is payable..". Accordingly, the Penalty Charge Notice must contain a description of the alleged contravention that must be sufficient in that the essential facts are stated so that the Appellant knows what case he/she needs to answer. In this case the alleged contravention/grounds is that the Appellant's vehicle was said have made a prohibited turn . However, the description used did not mention whether that turn was left or right. Thus, on receiving that Penalty Charge Notice in the post, the motorist would not necessarily know of what the contravention consisted. Moreover, there is no photograph in the Penalty Charge Notice of the sign in question, in this case a no left turn sign, that would have informed him. He would not have the essential facts so that he knows what case he needs to answer. To this extent the Penalty Charge Notice is non compliant with the relevant legislation and cannot be enforced. In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.


Mad Mick V
I repeat codswallop!

Sect 66 of RTA 1991 was repealed by the TMA 2004 and is titled "parking penalties" in any case:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2053/article/3/made

Mick
Neil B
Adjudications are often based on principles: e.g. as in the one posted, a failure to comply
with the requirements of mandatory legislation.

It matters not that legislation has been superseded; if the requirements are still the same, the principal remains valid.

It doesn't help that the Adjudicator referred to the wrong legislation! (He meant LLA 2003, as in this case.)

RTA, TMA (via S.I. 3483) and the applicable LLA 2003 here, all require PCNs to state 'the grounds on which is believed ----'


The Adjudication is valid and potentially helpful to this case.

Neil B
There's quite a lot wrong with the PCN info as well btw.

When I get a mo -
swjoss
Thanks for all the help so far, been busy with my son getting him to bed and hadn't had the time to reply yet.

i need help
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 18:33) *
I repeat codswallop!

Sect 66 of RTA 1991 was repealed by the TMA 2004 and is titled "parking penalties" in any case:-

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/2053/article/3/made

Mick



You need to read up on patas case law.

I wrote the book.

Mad Mick V
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1140361

I wish the OP well, I think he knew which way he turned ---- from the evidence photos which I presume were part of the NTO.

I have nothing further to say on this thread.

Mick
i need help
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 21:04) *
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1140361

I wish the OP well, I think he knew which way he turned ---- from the evidence photos which I presume were part of the NTO.

I have nothing further to say on this thread.

Mick



The allegation is made by word not image.





Mr Meldrew
My experience is limited so the following is posted for comment/development only.

The alleged contravention did not occur.

The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (‘the Act’).

Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the Act requires in substance that the PCN should convey in clear terms what it is alleged has been done wrong. In this respect, whilst the Counsel has supplied a PCN containing superimposed pictures and an on-line video, it is impossible to see from either that the appellant actually passed any signage clearly barring a turn which was previously made without issue.

Therefore, the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the statutory requirement and should be cancelled.


OP, the discount would be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected.
swjoss
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 15:45) *
My experience is limited so the following is posted for comment/development only.

The alleged contravention did not occur.

The Penalty Charge Notice ('PCN') is invalid and unenforceable as it fails to comply with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (‘the Act’).

Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the Act requires in substance that the PCN should convey in clear terms what it is alleged has been done wrong. In this respect, whilst the Counsel has supplied a PCN containing superimposed pictures and an on-line video, it is impossible to see from either that the appellant actually passed any signage clearly barring a turn which was previously made without issue.

Therefore, the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the statutory requirement and should be cancelled.


OP, the discount would be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected.



So if I appeal within 14 days in writing and they turn down the appeal I only pay the original £65 rather than £130?

Really know nothing about this. Sorry
Neil B
QUOTE (swjoss @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 16:23) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 15:45) *
My experience is limited so the following is posted for comment/development only.
OP, the discount would be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected.



So if I appeal within 14 days in writing and they turn down the appeal I only pay the original £65 rather than £130?

Really know nothing about this. Sorry

Yes.

Not all but your PCN expressly promises this.




But hang on for this
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 20:06) *
There's quite a lot wrong with the PCN info as well btw.

When I get a mo -

There's loads and all really bad (for them).
But don't wait for me if I don't find time in next 2-3 days.
swjoss
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 18:18) *
QUOTE (swjoss @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 16:23) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 15:45) *
My experience is limited so the following is posted for comment/development only.
OP, the discount would be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected.



So if I appeal within 14 days in writing and they turn down the appeal I only pay the original £65 rather than £130?

Really know nothing about this. Sorry

Yes.

Not all but your PCN expressly promises this.




But hang on for this
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 20:06) *
There's quite a lot wrong with the PCN info as well btw.

When I get a mo -

There's loads and all really bad (for them).
But don't wait for me if I don't find time in next 2-3 days.


I've actually just been to look and the only sign to show no right turn is about 20 foot max from the junction, no previous earning at all. I have s picture in my phone if all signs up to the lights so pretty sure this isn't right either. I have no idea about this stuff but even I know That doesn't sound right and surely some sort of other warning is needed. I've just checked and today is 14 days after as well maidens was on 7th Jan sad.gif


QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 18:18) *
QUOTE (swjoss @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 16:23) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 15:45) *
My experience is limited so the following is posted for comment/development only.
OP, the discount would be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected.



So if I appeal within 14 days in writing and they turn down the appeal I only pay the original £65 rather than £130?

Really know nothing about this. Sorry

Yes.

Not all but your PCN expressly promises this.




But hang on for this
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 20:06) *
There's quite a lot wrong with the PCN info as well btw.

When I get a mo -

There's loads and all really bad (for them).
But don't wait for me if I don't find time in next 2-3 days.


I've actually just been to look and the only sign to show no right turn is about 20 foot max from the junction, no previous earning at all. I have s picture in my phone if all signs up to the lights so pretty sure this isn't right either. I have no idea about this stuff but even I know That doesn't sound right and surely some sort of other warning is needed. I've just checked and today is 14 days after as well maidens was on 7th Jan sad.gif


QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 18:18) *
QUOTE (swjoss @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 16:23) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Fri, 22 Jan 2016 - 15:45) *
My experience is limited so the following is posted for comment/development only.
OP, the discount would be re-offered if any informal challenge were rejected.



So if I appeal within 14 days in writing and they turn down the appeal I only pay the original £65 rather than £130?

Really know nothing about this. Sorry

Yes.

Not all but your PCN expressly promises this.




But hang on for this
QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 21 Jan 2016 - 20:06) *
There's quite a lot wrong with the PCN info as well btw.

When I get a mo -

There's loads and all really bad (for them).
But don't wait for me if I don't find time in next 2-3 days.


I've actually just been to look and the only sign to show no right turn is about 20 foot max from the junction, no previous earning at all. I have s picture in my phone if all signs up to the lights so pretty sure this isn't right either. I have no idea about this stuff but even I know That doesn't sound right and surely some sort of other warning is needed. I've just checked and today is 14 days after as well maidens was on 7th Jan sad.gif
swjoss
Dear All,

Due to the forum being down i have had to put my appeal in.

I appealed on the basis that there is only a sign on the left road side and not repeated on the other side of the road. Signalled junction with 2 lanes which means they have to have a sign on both sides of road. Funny enough a bus route serves that road and would usually block the sign so even more reason why they should have it. No warning sign for new road layout and no advance warning of no right turn ahead. Many many mistakes on their part and would like to think i have good grounds for an appeal.

being completely honest i really didn't know you couldn't turn right. If they had the correct signs in place i would have not turned down the road.

Lets see what happens but I'm sure they will try avoiding cancelling the fine.

Thanks again for any advise people have offered, really appreciate it.

Have attached a photo of the junction with lack of signs too smile.gif

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.