Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: No left turn/No entry FPN and possible endorsement
FightBack Forums > Queries > Speeding and other Criminal Offences
Hello everyone.

Please can you offer me some advice on fighting a FPN received yesterday morning on my way to work?

I made the mistake of turning left onto Park Vista, From Maze Hill, Greenwich, London which was a no left turn. Upon doing so a PCSO jumped out into the middle of the road forcing me to stop and directed me into a side road (Grenwhich Park Street) where 5 SC's were waiting handing out FPN's.

I was polite and made my excuses but to no avail. The ticket was written out by a trainee, his hands were shaking, clearly a first timer!

When told I would have to produce and take a 3 point endorsement, I was surprised and replied that i would contest in court as i thought it was a bit harsh for no left turn. I have had some success in the past at fighting speeding tickets so am always hopeful that i can overturn motoring offences or at least make them "go away"

The following mistakes are noted on the FPN:

Wrong Car Registration,
Contravening a No Right turn stated as offence but code 168 given (Driving through no entry),
Contravening a No right turn stated but I made a left turn (PCSO spotted me. SC who wrote ticket was not the one who saw the offence)
Car Stated as Manual when its an automatic.

Upon returning to the site after work I noted the following and took photos:

There is a no entry sign on either side of Park Vista entrance, (i'm aware this could mean 3 points for me) but it is very obscured as you approach from the South on Maze Hill. Incidentally it is also obscured travelling from the North. I never noticed this whilst committing the alledeged "offence" as the no entry is barely visible on approach.

The road entrance has been narrowed to one lane allowing cars out of the junction but not in. No part of Park Vista is indicated as a one way street, and a sign says bikes are permitted through the entrance.

The No right turn approaching from the north is obscured by a bush (the offence is wrongly stated on FPN as no right turn but i made a left turn travelling from south)

Any advice on how to fight this would be greatly appreciated. I have not yet produced any documents. I'm thinking; first challenge the FPN on its credibility, mistakes, and the fact the officer never saw the incident, in a letter copied to Court, CTO and Police. I will suggest it is quashed before they waste time in court. I will also ask for the relevant proof of adequate training and credentials of officers involved and ask to disclose all notes taken on the incident before a court hearing.

I will also produce a report on the unsuitable nature of the signage, with photos, as a back up should it end up in court.

Additionally, advice on the following would be very helpful:

How should I approach producing documents if i don't want to surrender the license? Do i simply write to court and wait for hearing or turn up at Police station with docs and refuse to surrender the counterpart?
Where might i find statutory information on how much of a no entry sign is required to be visible when turning from a perpendicular highway?

Below are some photos of the signage and FPN.

Many Thanks


Yoe have been given a provisional fixed penalty which incorporates a requirement to produce your documents within the next 7 days. You must do this you simply tell the clerk you produce to that you do not want to surrender your licence and that you will be opting for court. Once you have done this you can consider what to do next.

Writing to the CPS and courts is a waste of time. If you have a defence you will be expected to supply it at a trial, they won't consider any defence unless it is a statutory defence or so compelling as to mean they could not get a conviction.

The piece of paper you have then becomes irrelevant as do any errors unless the summons is for the wrong offence.

Forget about training records etc they are a waste of time and you probably won't get them. You must also understand your photos are of no use whatsoever. Taking a photo of a sign from a footpath proves nothing. FWIW the positioning of the signs appears fine. They would be clearly visible at the turn. The fact you could see the no left turn sign pretty much holes your case.
So you missed a no left turn sign and then two no entry signs you claim were obscured. Your credibility is not enhanced by what are very obviously carefully positioned photographs. As you say, contravening a no entry sign is an endorsable offence, which clearly you committed. You could try writing to point out the errors made in the hope that the ticket will be cancelled out of embarrassment but there is no legal basis to escape this from what you say. Having been stopped at the time, the recording of your registration number incorrectly causes you no confusion. The legal position is that you either accept the fixed penalty offered, despite the errors, or do not do so and the matter will go to court where minor errors on the ticket will be irrelevant, the officers will say what they saw. Obscured signs may form a defence but it is difficult to believe that in that position they would be unreadable and your photographs are frankly unconvincing. You will not find a statutory instrument such as you seek, the local authority has a duty to install and maintain road signs and there is no further detail. You can find some case law on the subject in Coombes
BTW we would be interested in your technique to challenge speeding allegations. This site is about giving advice and it sounds like you have some to give.

2008. One speeding NIP was contested because it arrived some time after the offence. The letter had been sent second class post so I located the Post Office delivery figures for LB Croydon where the alleged offence took place and forwarded the information on the average length of time for second class delivery. The Police are required to do everything in their power to ensure NIP arrives within 14 days and because the figures for postal delivery times fell out side this in combination with the date on the letter, I argued that they had not fulfilled their duty. This was sent in a letter to Court, CTO and Police including a request for evidence and detail relating to individuals involved and maintenance of the camera.

I received a response from Police arguing this was not the case and that this would be discussed in a hearing. I never heard anything more.

Another case 2009: NIP was received for speeding offence. I wrote challenging the credentials of the person/people processing the evidence, also asking for training records and maintenance and calibration records for the camera. I asked for the details of all the individuals involved so as i may approach them to supply evidence and to be a witness in court.

Again, I heard nothing more about it.

Do you feel that i was just lucky? Or has there been some fundamental change in the way that motoring offences are dealt with? TBH my understanding has been that I am entitled to this evidence from the police in order to form a defense in court but often the man power and desire to follow through to court is not there on the side of the Police therefore cases never arrive. The court system is also overcrowded and does not have time to hear these contested small offences.

I am relying on this being the case in relation to this current incident. If these specials don't have the time or means to put up a statement or show up in court the case against me will be dropped. There is also to my knowledge no photographic or video evidence to say that i actually committed an offence, this can also work in my favour in a hearing, in combination with the mistakes on FPN and because, as is likely, the officers account of the incident will be as incompetent.
So no defence whatsoever.

Just fancy taking your chances again... rolleyes.gif

BTW, if your NIP was actually sent 2nd class, (as opposed to discounted 1st class), you could have saved yourself a lot of trouble...
Your first case sounds like it could have been won at trial on the legal merits. The second one was simply luck. This one will fall into the luck category, I think.
You are entitled to evidence the prosecution intend relying on, to assist your defence or if it harms the prosecution case. However all these requests for officers training records and requests to see them is now viewed by the court as fishing. The CPS will release the evidence they intend relying upon, in this case the 1 officer who saw what you did plus the one who dealt with you. They need no special qualifications or training as this was a simple routine job. If you want to go fishing you will have to convince a court that what you need is relevant to your defence.

By asking for lots of officers to go to court you automatically increase your costs if you lose. In this case I would agree with SP that your defence is going to be hoping the prosecution cock up.
Does it not matter that the sign is a no left turn. but the nip says you turned right?
QUOTE (spider.s3 @ Sat, 29 Jun 2013 - 18:21) *
Does it not matter that the sign is a no left turn, but the nip says you turned right ?

There is no NIP.
QUOTE (spider.s3 @ Sat, 29 Jun 2013 - 18:21) *
Does it not matter that the sign is a no left turn, but the nip says you turned right ?

It isn't an NIP. As already explained the OP knows what he did. If he opts for court it should be corrected when the summons is issued.

His only hopes are that the CTO cancel the ticket for no good reason or that the summons is wrong. A lot to hope for on chance.
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 29 Jun 2013 - 18:21) *
QUOTE (spider.s3 @ Sat, 29 Jun 2013 - 18:21) *
Does it not matter that the sign is a no left turn, but the nip says you turned right ?

There is no NIP.

sorry i ment FPN
As Dixie has said, it's not really a vital error unless the officer carries it over into his evidence in court and doesn't correct it. However, the officer writing the ticket didn't see the offence occur, so it's unlikely to matter.
I thought that in London, no left/right turns were decriminalised and dealt with by local authority not the Police. I may be wrong but if you look in the parking section, there are plenty of cases where people have been done on a camera by LA.

If Police can also issue a FPN that means potentially you could get done twice, 1 by police, 2 by LA.
The Rookie
You can be done be either, but AIUI double jeopardy still applies so you shouldn't be 'done' twice.

Worth checking the TRO to see if it's all in order for the no entry....
Thank you all for you valued advice.

I have produced documents but not surrendered licence. Officer at station I produced said he fealt I had valid grounds to fight so that swung it for me. Will post once matter has been resolved for your records.
QUOTE (SpraggaHatchet @ Sun, 7 Jul 2013 - 11:52) *
Officer at station I produced said he felt I had valid grounds to fight so that swung it for me.

What did you tell him that you didn't tell us?
Earl Purple
A no left turn is "decriminalised" when it would be legal to enter the target road but simply not from that point. In this case the actual offence is passing a no-entry sign which is not decriminalised but is now endorsable.
There have been some suggestions that a no-entry with exceptions is non-endorsable, and even that 'except cycles' is not a permitted variant.
That is correct, but there is a further complication in that the LH sign has the exception sign and the RH one does not!
Barry S
Looking at the location in GSV ( from May 2012) , as well as the signage and "temporary" barrier, there's also an "AHEAD ONLY" marking (and associated arrow) on the carriageway and it's a 20mph zone as well, so I'd suggest the OP should invest in a Lottery ticket if he manages to get away with it!
In the OP's pictures:

There is no writing or signage on the road itself,

The two no entry signs are different,

The road layout implies the road he turned into is a two way street

There are no bollards in the road

The left hand no entry sign, cant be seen until you've turned into the road

The right hand no entry signs position is to say the least ambiguous.

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 © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.