Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Performing a prohibited turn
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Charlie E
Hi guys i was just wondering if i can get some advice here. I have just received a PCN (14days reduced price already over when i received it) for turning right at 9.40am which is between the resteicted hours however the street i turned in to has bollards that are supposed to go up at 6am and go back down at 10am however at 9.40 the bollards were down and because i dont know the area and the clock in my car doesnt work ive entered this street. After doing some research and speaking to local residents i found out that the bollards have been broken for months and i even found an article on the net about a local resident complaining about the broken bollards. I was just wondering if i have a strong case here and if its worth apealing or should i just pay the fine? I would have thought the bollards should atleast have a sign stating that they are not working so people can be more careful because when there are bollards fitted on a road and theyre down you would assume its past the restricted hours, its almost like a money trick the council is playing on poor motorists!
Neil B
Welcome to the forum mate - but a few typical noob mistakes.

QUOTE (Charlie E @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 02:17) *
i dont know the area

^^^^^^^ Neither do we? - or much else?

We need Who, where, documents, etc.

Ta.

QUOTE (Charlie E @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 02:17) *
(14days reduced price already over when i received it)

that's a no-brainer then. No point in not fighting.
Charlie E
Here is a photo of the pcn as i dont have a scanner. Sorry about the noob mistakes lol.



I did call the council this morning and they have agreed to continue the discount period for a few days but how will i fight the actual ticket is my main concern...
bama
and the rest of the PCN please
Charlie E
QUOTE (bama @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 12:05) *
and the rest of the PCN please



The rest it just how to appeal but here it is...

Neil B
QUOTE (Charlie E @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 02:17) *
bollards that are supposed to go up at 6am and go back down at 10am however at 9.40 the bollards were down and because i dont know the area and the clock in my car doesnt work ive entered this street. After doing some research and speaking to local residents i found out that the bollards have been broken for months and i even found an article on the net about a local resident complaining about the broken bollards.


Is there a sign prohibiting this turn or not?

Where is it exactly? Got a Streetview link?
Neil B
QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 12:36) *
Where is it exactly? Got a Streetview link?

Apart from the fact we obviously need to see it I forget that you might not see the other relevance. The PCN may be defective, cos I'm b*ggered if I can tell where that is? (the PCN has to tell you)
Cityboy62
QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 11:58) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 12:36) *
Where is it exactly? Got a Streetview link?

Apart from the fact we obviously need to see it I forget that you might not see the other relevance. The PCN may be defective, cos I'm b*ggered if I can tell where that is? (the PCN has to tell you)


Here 'tis Neil: http://g.co/maps/3fay7
Neil B
Ta CB.

Sign looks interesting http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=bastable+a...1,0.59&z=17

Worth the sign bods having a peek?

The location is relevant to what I was thinking. We had another B&D where they stated location as the road you turn into - but the contravention is of a sign on Renwick Rd if that is indeed the place.
Charlie E
Yes there are signs on renwick road as well as the no entry signs on bastable avenue. I do understand that it clearly states no entry, however, should the bollards not be working? Or atleast have a sign stating that they are not working so people dont assume its past 10am because the bollards are down?
Mortimer
That's not the sign that matters Neil, this one is : Google Maps Link
Was the sign working though? It is not uncommon to see this mechanically changing signs stuck halfway; whole strips missing or simply not working.

Assuming the signage shown HERE is as it is now, then that is bo***cks too isn't it? I mean, a 7ft width restriction, except for TfL buses!! Eh!?!?!? You what? huh.gif I certainly don't see any "No Entry" signs. Surely there should be a "No Motor Vehicles" sign, with the the exception notice below it?

Charlie, is Google Maps up to date. You say there is clearly no entry signage, but I don't see it?

In fact, I don't think Google Maps is up to date at all. The entry to Bastable Avenue is completely different in the PCN pictures. There appears to be a red bus lane in the middle, where Google shows a gated "Keep Clear" area.

Can Charlie get his own pictures of the area, and any signs that are there?
Charlie E
Hi Mortimer google maps is not up to date, it is quite different to what google maps is showing. I will describe it to you and get some photos of the signs tomorrow morning.

Basically on renwick rd as your coming up to bastable avenue tbere are about 4 signs stating no right turn between hours 6am and 10am as well as a camera sign. Then when you turn in to bastable ave. there are no entry signs and again a camera sign and just by the bollards is a sign stating that the bollards are automatic and only one car should go through at a time vice versa.

I only have a few days to write to them and appeal so the sooner i could get some advice the better guys.

Thanks for the advice so far, much appreciated...

Here we go, i have found these on another post
http://i49.tinypic.com/2e0irfq.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/35jeb09.jpg

Second photo is of the signage leading to bastable ave.

Here is a sort of appel template that i have found on another post for the same contravention at the same location and there are loads more. Can some body please help me to edit this so that its relevant to my pcn as i dont have a clue about what the template explains and time is very short or should i just send this as it is?

Thanks so much in advance...

I wish to appeal against the penalty charge on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.

Section 1(2) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003 advises that road traffic contraventions can only commence to be enforced from the “appointed day”. Section 3 advises as to what constitutes the “appointed day” and it instructs that it is “such a day as may be fixed….. by resolution of the council” and that the appointed day is “subject to” and must be made “in accordance with” the provisions of section 3.

Section 3(5) requires that the resolution of the council giving the fixed day and the general effect of the provisions of the 2003 Act be published in a local newspaper and the London Gazette, 3 months prior to the appointed day.

Considering the above points it is not beyond reason, since no evidence to the contrary has been submitted, that no such resolution was made by the council and if it was, then it was not made in accordance with the provisions of section 3.

If you believe the contravention did occur and that the council is lawfully entitled to enforce road traffic contraventions under the 2003 Act, then I require the council to provide evidence that such a resolution fixing the appointed day was passed by the council and that a public notice was published as required. These items ought to be held by the council and so should be readily and easily available.

Section 3(6) is specific in what the Council must produce as evidence that a public notice was published: (6) Either a photo static or other reproduction certified by the officer appointed for that purpose by the borough council or by Transport for London to be a reproduction of a page or part of a page of any such newspaper or the London Gazette bearing the date of its publication and containing any such notice shall be evidence of the publication of the notice, and of the date of publication.

Further to this the "no right turn" sign is to diagram 612 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, subject to Direction 7, which provides that it can only be placed to reflect a prohibition or restriction contained in an Order. Due to Direction 21(1) the only plates that can appear with this sign are to diagrams 954, 954.2, 954.4, 954.5, 954.6 and 954.7. The plate used in combination with this sign is non-compliant because it is not any of the previously mentioned plates. The only way it can be lawful is if it has special authorisation from the DfT. I ask that you also provide me with evidence of such authorisation.

The contravention can only be enforced if the council has been empowered in accordance with the law and I need all the above evidence to reasonably consider whether I have just cause to proceed to adjudication. If the council fail to provide me with evidence of the resolution and public notice publication, I will take the matter to adjudication. The Council’s lawful entitlement to enforce road traffic contraventions is paramount to this appeal and if you fail to address the points raised, in line with statutory regulations and guidance, I will ask at adjudication that a charge of improper consideration be brought against the council.

Considering my original appeal (as above) the response I have received from Barking and Dagenham Council is inadequate. They have failed to provide a Notice of Rejection that demonstrates that the legal issues raised have been given any consideration at all. This is clearly evident in the Notice of Rejection received and remains contrary to the requirements laid out in Paragraph 98 of the Secretary of State’s statutory guidance to local authorities:

98. If the authority rejects the representation, it must serve a notice of rejection (NoR) stating that it will issue a Charge Certificate unless the PCN is paid or an appeal made to an adjudicator. The notice of rejection must set out the general form and manner in which an appeal can be made and that the adjudicator has the power to award costs against either party. The authority should give the owner clear and full reasons for its decision on a representation, in addition to the minimum required information.

As this statutory guidance is authorised by virtue of s.87 TMA 2004 the council is guilty of "procedural impropriety" as defined by regulation 4(5) within the Representation & Appeals Regulations 2007.

Yours Sincerely
SchoolRunMum
I can't see the PCN (just a red cross?). Is it issued under LLA 2003? Which Act is quoted at the top, and please can we see that PCN re-posted if it was removed?

Your appeal seems to lack a 'personal touch' - do you understand all that jargon? I am not even sure if it's relevant as I must confess I got a bit bored reading it...

Personally, I would suggest you perhaps re-write it and start with the genuine situation (set the scene). Similar to what you said in your own words in your first post. This is your first, informal, appeal against this PCN isn't it?

Post a more personalised draft here tomorrow for more comments hopefully. Also a personal 'real' appeal is going to have more impact, possibly with the Council and certainly if it comes to it, with an adjudicator.
Neil B
QUOTE (Mortimer @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 18:15) *
I certainly don't see any "No Entry" signs.
GSV shows them on the oncoming carriageway?? Kinda surplus to requirements and a no-brainer. I think they were (then) trying to say no entry to the centre part.

Not that any of this matters --- see later>>>

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 00:34) *
I can't see the PCN (just a red cross?). Is it issued under LLA 2003? Which Act is quoted at the top, and please can we see that PCN re-posted if it was removed?
Ditto, it's important so we can recall timescales/deadlines. (yes Mum it was LLA 2003)

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 00:34) *
Your appeal seems to lack a 'personal touch' - do you understand all that jargon? I am not even sure if it's relevant as I must confess I got a bit bored reading it...

It's an old Bogsy 'bomb'. The idea is good but the chance of it having any relevance is remote, being reliant on procedural failures long ago. It's one of those things that, as I'm sure Bogsy would tell you himself, is worth inclusion if there is nothing else substantial to work with.

QUOTE (SchoolRunMum @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 00:34) *
This is your first, informal, appeal against this PCN isn't it?
No, there is no informal stage.

QUOTE (Charlie E @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 16:10) *
I do understand that it clearly states no entry, however, should the bollards not be working?
You seem to have missed my point. the no entry signs have no relevance whatsoever to the alleged contravention. Nothing at that gate in Bastable Avenue has any relevance as far as I can see.
It might well be they don't want you to use it - but all they've alleged (if I recall the PCN correctly - put it back!!) is an unlawful right turn. To make an unlawful right turn you must ignore a traffic sign. There is no such sign in Bastable Avenue!
I don't believe the description of the contravention on the PCN is correct. It is either an unlawful NRT at junction of Renwick and Bastable or 'Using a route restrcited to certain classes of vehicle' (which would be accurately described as Bastable.

As I said earlier, we've had similar with them before at another location.

QUOTE (Charlie E @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 18:52) *
I only have a few days to write to them and appeal
#I think you said something similar earlier. I don't recall time being particularly short?? But we cant check now you've removed the PCN.



QUOTE (Charlie E @ Wed, 9 May 2012 - 18:52) *
Here we go, i have found these on another post
http://i49.tinypic.com/2e0irfq.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/35jeb09.jpg
Good find but where's that thread then? It might have info in it that you wouldn't think relevant and we would understand.
Neil B
Charlie. You really need to get hold of the Traffic Management Order (the document that creates the restriction) Anyone's to view on request or Council may send you a copy.

I note that previous cases have won with B&D bottling last minute with DNCs - disgraceful.

No one yet seems to have used the argument I put above but more thoughts on it >> they are using images of vehicles contravening the 'gate', NOT contravening the NRT. I rest my case m'lud.
hcandersen
Where's the PCN?

Sorry to march out of step, but we've substantive issues to look at before we have to fall back on the "appointed day" argument.

One point you glossed over is WHY you did not receive the PCN until after the expiry of the 14-day period.
The PCN must be posted on the day it's issued; it must be sent to the current registered keeper; it takes no more than 3 working days in the post; 3 < 14, so what's the story?

Don't be selective in terms of info, you could be sitting on silver bullets and not know it.

HCA
Mortimer
Just signed in, and I happened to still have the topic loaded in another tab, so the PCN images were still there.

The PCN states "London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003".

Vehicle seen 17/04/2012
Date of notice 23/04/2012
Assumed received date based on Charlie's first post: 08/05/2012
Charlie E
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 07:56) *
Where's the PCN?

Sorry to march out of step, but we've substantive issues to look at before we have to fall back on the "appointed day" argument.

One point you glossed over is WHY you did not receive the PCN until after the expiry of the 14-day period.
The PCN must be posted on the day it's issued; it must be sent to the current registered keeper; it takes no more than 3 working days in the post; 3 < 14, so what's the story?

Don't be selective in terms of info, you could be sitting on silver bullets and not know it.

HCA


Ok basically i had changed address and sent off my logbook and i guess there was a clash and the pcn had been posted to my old address (my uncles house) so i kept calling to see if they had received the pcn and they only received it 4 days ago which means its passed the 14 days, do i called the council and they said its still discounted because they no postage may mess up.

Anyhow here is a draft that i have put together, please edit it as you wish to make it harder for the council but i will need to appeal tonight... Thanks

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to appeal against the penalty charge on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.

I do not believe the signage on Renwick Road leading on to Bastable Avenue is adequate for drivers to notice that the right turn is prohibited. The signs are also located on the nearside pavement of Renwick Road, however, when approaching a right turn a majority of drivers will look to their right to see the oncoming traffic and if the road they intend to turn in to is empty. As well as the signage being inadequate, the font stating the restricted hours is way to small for a passer by to see from a distance so would that not be a danger to road users?

"trying to read the text on a road sign whilst looking at oncoming traffic and analysing the road you intend to turn into"

Another reason for my appeal are the automatic bollards located on Bastable Avenue. They have signs clearly stating that the bollards will automatically go up and down, however, I have never seen the bollards up in the past two months and have a local news article that clearly states that the bollards have not been working for a very long time and the council will not fix it and i will use this article to back this particular point should this case go to ajudication. If the bollards are out of order there should be adequate signage stating this so approaching cars are not tricked into assuming restriction is over due to the "automatic" bollards being down.

Further to this the "no right turn" sign is to diagram 612 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, subject to Direction 7, which provides that it can only be placed to reflect a prohibition or restriction contained in an Order. Due to Direction 21(1) the only plates that can appear with this sign are to diagrams 954, 954.2, 954.4, 954.5, 954.6 and 954.7. The plate used in combination with this sign is non-compliant because it is not any of the previously mentioned plates. The only way it can be lawful is if it has special authorisation from the DfT. I ask that you also provide me with evidence of such authorisation.

Lastly, the PCN states that I have turned in to Bastable Avenue however, the signage and camera are located on Renwick Road so had the contravention occured, it would have been on Renwick Road as there is inadequate signage on Bastable Avenue for a contravention to occur.

Also, I cannot recall the time of the alledged contravention, therefore, i require video evidence of my car driving past the bollards on Bastable Avenue as I may have approached Bastable Avenue and turned the car around to join the oncoming traffic and therefore, did not enter Bastable Avenue.

The contravention can only be enforced if the council has been empowered in accordance with the law and I need all the above evidence to reasonably consider the occurance of the contravention. If the council fail to cancel the PCN or provide me with the evidence above, I will take the matter to adjudication. The Council’s lawful entitlement to enforce road traffic contraventions is paramount to this appeal and if you fail to address the points raised, in line with statutory regulations and guidance, I will ask at adjudication that a charge of improper consideration be brought against the council.

Yours Sincerely
Mortimer
Here's the topic the pictures came from Neil : http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48903

There are so many anomalies in those pictures I think I would like to see fresh pictures. Painted out wording, fixed signs along side a variable sign, a closed gate across a bus lane, as well as the silly plated width restriction; suggests that changes to the junction are still on going. In which case it is doubtful it conforms to the TMO, so yes a copy of this must be sought.
Neil B
QUOTE (Charlie E @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 11:39) *
Ok basically i had changed address and sent off my logbook and i guess there was a clash and the pcn had been posted to my old address (my uncles house) so i kept calling to see if they had received the pcn and they only received it 4 days ago which means its passed the 14 days, do i called the council and they said its still discounted because they no postage may mess up.

Anyhow here is a draft that i have put together, please edit it as you wish to make it harder for the council but i will need to appeal tonight... Thanks

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to appeal against the penalty charge on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.

I do not believe the signage on Renwick Road leading on to Bastable Avenue is adequate for drivers to notice that the right turn is prohibited. The signs are also located on the nearside pavement of Renwick Road, however, when approaching a right turn a majority of drivers will look to their right to see the oncoming traffic and if the road they intend to turn in to is empty. As well as the signage being inadequate, the font stating the restricted hours is way to small for a passer by to see from a distance so would that not be a danger to road users?

"trying to read the text on a road sign whilst looking at oncoming traffic and analysing the road you intend to turn into"

Another reason for my appeal are the automatic bollards located on Bastable Avenue. They have signs clearly stating that the bollards will automatically go up and down, however, I have never seen the bollards up in the past two months and have a local news article that clearly states that the bollards have not been working for a very long time and the council will not fix it and i will use this article to back this particular point should this case go to ajudication. If the bollards are out of order there should be adequate signage stating this so approaching cars are not tricked into assuming restriction is over due to the "automatic" bollards being down.

Further to this the "no right turn" sign is to diagram 612 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, subject to Direction 7, which provides that it can only be placed to reflect a prohibition or restriction contained in an Order. Due to Direction 21(1) the only plates that can appear with this sign are to diagrams 954, 954.2, 954.4, 954.5, 954.6 and 954.7. The plate used in combination with this sign is non-compliant because it is not any of the previously mentioned plates. The only way it can be lawful is if it has special authorisation from the DfT. I ask that you also provide me with evidence of such authorisation.

Lastly, the PCN states that I have turned in to Bastable Avenue however, the signage and camera are located on Renwick Road so had the contravention occured, it would have been on Renwick Road as there is inadequate signage on Bastable Avenue for a contravention to occur.

Also, I cannot recall the time of the alledged contravention, therefore, i require video evidence of my car driving past the bollards on Bastable Avenue as I may have approached Bastable Avenue and turned the car around to join the oncoming traffic and therefore, did not enter Bastable Avenue.

The contravention can only be enforced if the council has been empowered in accordance with the law and I need all the above evidence to reasonably consider the occurance of the contravention. If the council fail to cancel the PCN or provide me with the evidence above, I will take the matter to adjudication. The Council’s lawful entitlement to enforce road traffic contraventions is paramount to this appeal and if you fail to address the points raised, in line with statutory regulations and guidance, I will ask at adjudication that a charge of improper consideration be brought against the council.

Yours Sincerely


Have you listened to a single thing I took the time to say last night???

1/. WTF has Renwick Rd got to do with your PCN?

2/. WTF have the bollards got to do with your PCN?

READ IT -- and put it back here as asked.

-
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 07:56) *
Sorry to march out of step, but we've substantive issues to look at before we have to fall back on the "appointed day" argument.

You're not marching out of step. Only the OP has suggested such a thing, having pinched it off a very old thread.

If you saw this PCN HCA I suspect you'd fall off your chair laughing at the obvious.

QUOTE (Charlie E @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 11:39) *
i called the council and they said its still discounted because they no postage may mess up.

Anyhow here is a draft that i have put together, please edit it as you wish to make it harder for the council but i will need to appeal tonight... Thanks

Ok that clarifies a bit -- BUT -
If you think your deadline for preserving the discount is today - you may be wrong. Many people don't understand the timescales. It may have already passed or be tomorrow for all we know. You haven't said what evidence you have of this?

Also, if you are thinking this will be resolved with the opportunity to pay at discount still in play you are mistaken. Councils 'play' that to make you pay.
If, as a result of that, you are unlikley to pursue further (with what I think is a strong case) then you are probably wasting our time.

You are better off forgetting the discount, getting to grips with what is relevant and taking the time to submit a decent representation.
Charlie E
QUOTE (Mortimer @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 11:51) *
Here's the topic the pictures came from Neil : http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=48903

There are so many anomalies in those pictures I think I would like to see fresh pictures. Painted out wording, fixed signs along side a variable sign, a closed gate across a bus lane, as well as the silly plated width restriction; suggests that changes to the junction are still on going. In which case it is doubtful it conforms to the TMO, so yes a copy of this must be sought.


Here are some fresh pictures that i took at 13.15 so it was outside of the restricted hours however the spinning sign was still not turned around therefore thats not working too...







Neil B
I see - but have you taken anything in from last night? I think this is much simpler than you are making it - yet again a pic of a section of road in Bastable Avenue that your PCN has nothing to do with?

Please!! - put the PCN back so people can understand.
Mortimer
The signs are still a mess, need to see the TMO to know what should be there.

I haven't delved into the TSM or the TSRGD but at first glance:

  1. The yellow sign surely isn't in the TSRGD
  2. Why is there a fixed additional plate, below a non-fixed sign, which already has an additional plate associated with it. The two plates don't even agree with each other.
  3. If the changeable sign is blank, what are drivers supposed to make of the plate below it!?
  4. I still can't get my head around a 7ft width restriction, that doesn't apply to buses!

Neil B
QUOTE (Mortimer @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 13:40) *
The signs are still a mess, need to see the TMO to know what should be there.

I haven't delved into the TSM or the TSRGD but at first glance:

[*]Why is there a fixed additional plate, below a non-fixed sign, which already has an additional plate associated with it. The two plates don't even agree with each other.

Which contradict each other too!! lol. Cycles allowed or not?
Mortimer
According to my understanding of the TSRGD a No Right Turn 612 sign cannot have a time plate. It can only have:
954, 954.2, 954.3, 954.4, 954.5, 954.6, 954.6

Which are:
  • Except buses
  • Except local buses
  • Except buses and cycles
  • Except cycles
  • Except buses (round for traffic lights)
  • Except buses & cycles (round for traffic lights)
  • Except buses, taxis & cycles (round for traffic lights)


Neil B
I can't resist, this is frustrating.

Let''s have a look at editing you invited. Editing isn't really what's needed, rather a focus on the relevant issues raised by the PCN, NOT the different restriction you keep mentioning.

QUOTE (Charlie E @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 11:39) *
Anyhow here is a draft that i have put together, please edit it as you wish to make it harder for the council but i will need to appeal tonight... Thanks

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to appeal against the penalty charge on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.

I do not believe the signage on Renwick Road leading on to Bastable Avenue is adequate for drivers to notice that the right turn is prohibited.
On what basis inadequate? Required positioning is in Regs. You also mentioned there were FOUR? My point being you are saying something you can't back up or haven't.
The signs are also located on the nearside pavement of Renwick Road, however, when approaching a right turn a majority of drivers will look to their right to see the oncoming traffic and if the road they intend to turn in to is empty. As well as the signage being inadequate, the font stating the restricted hours is way to small for a passer by to see from a distance so would that not be a danger to road users?
As above. where is the legal basis for this statement?

"trying to read the text on a road sign whilst looking at oncoming traffic and analysing the road you intend to turn into" As above.

BUT note. Mortimer is coming up with more tangible challenges to that signage; You need to listen to him on that.

Another reason for my appeal are the automatic bollards located on Bastable Avenue.
Where, on your PCN, does it mention anything about those bollards or that particular restriction and hence how is it relevant?

They have signs clearly stating that the bollards will automatically go up and down, however, I have never seen the bollards up in the past two months and have a local news article that clearly states that the bollards have not been working for a very long time and the council will not fix it and i will use this article to back this particular point should this case go to ajudication. If the bollards are out of order there should be adequate signage stating this so approaching cars are not tricked into assuming restriction is over due to the "automatic" bollards being down.
As above. (None of this is directly relevant but I'll qualify that by saying it has peripheral relevance to the generally poor set up at the wider location - maybe.)

Further to this the "no right turn" sign is to diagram 612 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, subject to Direction 7, which provides that it can only be placed to reflect a prohibition or restriction contained in an Order. Due to Direction 21(1) the only plates that can appear with this sign are to diagrams 954, 954.2, 954.4, 954.5, 954.6 and 954.7. The plate used in combination with this sign is non-compliant because it is not any of the previously mentioned plates. The only way it can be lawful is if it has special authorisation from the DfT. I ask that you also provide me with evidence of such authorisation.
Might be ok (I leave signs to others). However, is this taken from another old thread and is it still relevant to the signs currently in position? The reference to Special Authorisation will still apply though.

Lastly, the PCN states that I have turned in to Bastable Avenue NO IT DIDN'T!!! It said you contravened a NRT sign. It then noted the location as Bastable Avenue. It DID NOT say anything about "turned in". There is a distinct difference.
and see below.

however, the signage and camera are located on Renwick Road so had the contravention occured, it would have been on Renwick Road
Agreed (but location of the camera isn't relevant). In the previous case I earlier mentioned, at a different location, the Adjudicator did not eventually accept this point. I'm presenting it again because I think a different Adjudicator may well agree.

as there is inadequate signage on Bastable Avenue for a contravention to occur.
Eh? What is this? There is no signage on Bastable Avenue concerning a NRT. The statement doesn't make sense.

Also, I cannot recall the time of the alledged contravention, therefore, i require video evidence of my car driving past the bollards on Bastable Avenue as I may have approached Bastable Avenue and turned the car around to join the oncoming traffic and therefore, did not enter Bastable Avenue.
Hmmm. were there pics on your PCN as there were on older ones?

The contravention can only be enforced if the council has been empowered in accordance with the law and I need all the above evidence to reasonably consider the occurance of the contravention. If the council fail to cancel the PCN or provide me with the evidence above, I will take the matter to adjudication.

The Council’s lawful entitlement to enforce road traffic contraventions is paramount to this appeal and if you fail to address the points raised, in line with statutory regulations and guidance, I will ask at adjudication that a charge of improper consideration be brought against the council.
This sounds very much taken from another thread. It is a bit too much of a threat bearing in mind you haven't presented anything to them yet?

Yours Sincerely


Sorry if all that is harsh Charlie. I know you are new and won't immediately understand but we need to focus on the relevant stuff. The other restrictions on Bastable are NOT directly relevant to the allegation of a NRT contravention.
Alexis
I don't understand the entrance to the road. It says no entry to anyone using the bus lane 24/7 (presumably buses commit contraventions millions of times a day unless they use the left hand lane). There are no time plates.

There are no restrictions to anyone using the normal left hand side entrance, other than when bollards are up.

There are no 'no vehicles' restriction signs, so the extra white sign on the main road refers to nothing.

What it boils down to though for me is the original 'No right turn' 24/7 sign with the yellow plate. The yellow plate is separate - it refers to a no entry restriction that doesn't exist.

Is there a TRO associated with this sign that says that it's no right turn 24/7? If not, and I suspect there should be a specified time plate underneath, I don't see how the installed signage can match the TRO.

Your best bet in the meantime might be to print off each sign and request that they send you the TRO for each one. I doubt they'll be able to give you all the paperwork and might choose to throw in the towel.
Mortimer
Can you put the PCN images back up Charlie please?
Neil B
I'll relent slightly on my earlier.

Noting the proximity of the 'gate' to the junction I can see how Charlie attaches relevance to the bollards; They would indeed be visible to a turning vehicle and influence the driver's actions.

That said, the signs on Renwick are those of primary importance, as is the TRO and the probable DfT authorisation.
If the DfT SA can be obtained then my first check would be any discrepancy between the authorisation and what is actually there. I can bet Mortimer will agree with me in doubting the two are the same.

and ditto Alexis - I agree they are unlikely to have got all of those signs correctly backed by a Traffic Order.

--
However, establishing anything will take time.

The alternative, if OP insists on submitting reps today, is to deny the contravention, cite location as inaccurate/unspecific and request everything required - and leave it at that.

--
If that PCN doesn't reappear, requested by at least four of us, I'll bale out (maybe that will suit Charlie after my harshness?)

--
I think I made actual deadlines - Payment of full amount, 20th May, Representations, 22nd May. Current, claimed, discount deadline is unconfirmed and may well have been misunderstood.
Charlie E
Here is the pcn image



What exactly do i do? Im verty confused at the moment? The trouble is that i dont understand all the formal wording and its confusing me... If someone can tell me exactly what to do I will do it tonight. Thanks
Mortimer
People will need to see all parts and sides of the PCN.
Neil B
QUOTE (Charlie E @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 18:09) *
What exactly do i do? Im verty confused at the moment? The trouble is that i dont understand all the formal wording and its confusing me... If someone can tell me exactly what to do I will do it tonight. Thanks

We know you won't understand much straight away as you are obviously new to this.
There simply isn't time to establish all the facts and explain to you in the timescale you are imposing.

However, as much as you don't understand technicalities, neither are you asking questions or responding to the non technical matters.

For instance, I asked about this >
QUOTE (Charlie E @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 11:39) *
so i kept calling to see if they had received the pcn and they only received it 4 days ago which means its passed the 14 days, do i called the council and they said its still discounted because they no postage may mess up.

So how exactly do you think the deadline was today for discount? Are you saying you were verbally given this date or was it described in some other way? Any proof? You trust them?

I did also explain that you will not resolve this while the discount is in play. Did you honestly expect an answer from the Council that quick? No, they just want your money mate and they know re-offering the discount teases people into paying. You can check endless threads on here to see that.

I asked if this meant you were only prepared to fight if the discount was a possibility - because if that is the case, then we are all wasting our time. You either decide to fight or you don't. I know this comes as a shock to noobs.

--
Quick new thought as you mentioned postal delay. Do you have the envelope and does it have a postmark?
Mortimer
How would he have known to expect a PCN and be ringing his uncle to see if it had arrived yet? mellow.gif
Neil B
QUOTE (Mortimer @ Thu, 10 May 2012 - 23:50) *
How would he have known to expect a PCN and be ringing his uncle to see if it had arrived yet? mellow.gif


yep saw it but didn't want to confuse at the time as we are outstanding quite a few answers.
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.