Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN 50R offence (U-turn in a no right turn)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Incredulous
Dear Forum Members,

I am looking for your collective help and advise please, thank you.

Yesterday (11/02/2014) I received a PCN for a 50R offence, which is for turning right in a no right turn, in this case - during the restricted hours of 07:30-09:30.

The offence date/time: 21/01/2014 08:38
The PCN date: 10/02/2014
The issuing local Authority: Waltham Forest

I have requested the video evidence - captured by one of the smart car cameras. The footage clearly shows my car, performing a safe continuous manoeuvre u-turn, in the no right turn road. Please can you help and advise?

I have attached the PCN notice to this posting along with the link to the footage.
Video footage pertaining to my PCN
enter: FR22427640
enter: BN57EZD


My questions are, can I appeal;

1: On the statutory grounds that "no offence occurred" as I did not commit the signed and stated offence 50R of turning right in a no right turn, as I performed a u-turn in continuous movement?

2: on the grounds of "de minimis" as I did not turn right and therefore the authority is being particularly over zealous and unreasonable in issuing the PCN.

3: The signage on the right side of the road is posted after the junction, not 5m before it as I believe is the rule (is this correct?)

4: The Sign on the left of the road had a large white van parked very near to it and therefore rendered it less than obvious to drivers.

Should my appeal be worded in officious style no nonsense language and can you help with templates for this, no problem if not, any help is appreciated, thank you.

I have read around the different sites and forums online and come up with these references (below) that may be useful in providing advice for any others caught in this situation...

http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/Moving%20traffic.htm#50
"The key element is that signs must be clearly visible in advance of when you undertake the manoeuvre"


http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk/movin...ention-code-50/
This site states the following:
You should remember that the contravention is failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited manoeuvre and not making a prohibited manoeuvre. The authority will need to demonstrate evidence of before, during and after the contravention. Specifically the vehicle approaching the sign, making a prohibited manoeuvre and continuing.

The "and continuing" part is the bit that I didn't do, as I performed a u-turn not a right turn.


http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/appeals.htm
This site suggests going through the wording of the PCN to make sure that it is clear, not confusing or contradictory and all the necessary legal phrasings are present. I think that they are correct in my case.

Please can you help and advise me? I am new to this site and forums in general so I hope that I have complied with the rules of the site and followed the FAQs correctly.


References:
http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk
http://www.penaltychargenotice.co.uk
http://www.appealnow.com

SchoolRunMum
Can you show us the rest of the PCN please? Does it state how long you have to appeal because on page one it doesn't?

Yes to your questions below]; you can appeal and no it doesn't need to be in special office/legalese language. We don't do templates (better to set it out in your own words like below):

QUOTE
My questions are, can I appeal;

1: On the statutory grounds that "no offence occurred" as I did not commit the signed and stated offence 50R of turning right in a no right turn, as I performed a u-turn in continuous movement?

2: on the grounds of "de minimis" as I did not turn right and therefore the authority is being particularly over zealous and unreasonable in issuing the PCN.

3: The signage on the right side of the road is posted after the junction, not 5m before it as I believe is the rule (is this correct?)

4: The Sign on the left of the road had a large white van parked very near to it and therefore rendered it less than obvious to drivers.
Mad Mick V
From the video you did enter Connaught Avenue to complete your u-turn and this is the basis of the Councils case and its grounds to issue the PCN.

However as you rightly claim there was no intention to drive down Connaught Avenue and the entry was de minimis at best.

The Joint Annual Report of the Traffic and Parking Adjudicators 2011-2012 contains their understanding of what a u-turn should mean, because there is no legal definition. In terms of u-turn contraventions they were concerned about the situation where a vehicle left the road (in such a case where the Traffic Order might not apply). In their considerations they helpfully noted:-

The Adjudicators also found it to be irrelevant that the reverse gear may be utilised but that once a vehicle had left the road, the Traffic Management Order did not apply. It therefore followed that even in the event of an immediate return to the road by the vehicle, the contravention cannot occur whatever direction the vehicle then travels in. However the Adjudicator reaffirmed that, as always, each case will turn on its own facts and that the road is generally all land from the building line on one side to the building line on the other. It typically has a carriageway in the middle with footways on either side. A footway may include ‘crossovers’ which give access from the carriageway to adjoining premises. They may all be part of the road, as may grass verges, flower beds or paved areas.

A bit left field perhaps but I read this to mean you never left Station Road in completing your u-turn.

Mick
EDW
The manoeuvre here was not r turn but a u turn, there is no case to answer.

However for future use people should look at the video AND USE THEIR EYES

Why are the signs not lit despite it being a gloomy am with car lights on?

More importantly why is there a time plate with a no turn sign? That need DfT approval.


Mad Mick V
Here's your sign approval:-

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2158.pdf

Looks like they should be on both sides of the street from the plans and before the turning (not after).

Mick
EDW
QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sun, 16 Feb 2014 - 15:58) *
Here's your sign approval:-

http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-2158.pdf

Looks like they should be on both sides of the street from the plans and before the turning (not after).

Mick



Yes, both should be just before the turn as per the plan, I would also argue that there should be advance warning/reroute signs.

Hippocrates
They have very recently changed the wording of their PCNs possibly on 10th February; however, yours is still non-compliant ....

Dear Sirs

Ref: PCN.............................VRM..........................

I refer to the authorisation below and all correspondence between the council and me.

Notwithstanding the changes you have made largely I note this is a fourth attempt to get your PCN in order. Regretfully, it is not.

Page 1 states:

If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period as set out in Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act, an increased charge may be payable....

The law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

1(1)(3): The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.

That is the representations period! 28 days beginning with the date of service!

This is the payment period below:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

4(8)(iii): that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

Therefore, both periods have been totally confused and messed up. Further confusion has been caused and the law is that where there is any ambiguity the matter must be resolved in favour of the disadvantaged party.

Therefore, I require you to cancel this PCN forthwith.

Yours faithfully

NAME....................ADDRESS............................

PM me for further personal help if you wish as their PCNs are in the local press next week.
madandy
There is another line of approach here.

What if you had completed the U-turn IN ADVANCE OF or BEYOND the junction?

The offence relates to change of direction of travel at termination of manouvre. If he had driven round 540 degrees then that would have to be TWO banned right turn offences. This is blatant fishing.

Hippocrates

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Reference: 2130499100
Appellant: Mr Dennis Kaye
Authority: Transport for London
VRM: M436POM
PCN: GT55895236
Contravention Date: 09 Aug 2013
Contravention Time: 16:17
Contravention Location: Wbnd Eastern Av / Hainault Rd
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign
Decision Date: 09 Jan 2014
Adjudicator: Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: Mr Kaye is represented by his son-in-law, Mr Richard Kingswood and by Mr Albert Herbert.

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (turning in the wrong direction). The location was at a set of traffic lights in Eastern Avenue/Hainault Road.

I do not agree with the submission made by Mr Herbert that the wording of the alleged contravention is incorrect by reference to the wording with Diagram 609 in Schedule 2 to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 1994. The wording accompanying the Diagram states that vehicular traffic must turn ahead in the direction indicated by the arrow. The wording added in brackets on the PCN "turning in the wrong direction" is, in my view, merely explanatory of the main wording.

I do, however, agree with the submission that there was no contravention of the instruction to drive in the direction shown by the blue arrow. The blue arrow directed traffic to bear right at the lights as distinct from driving straight on or bearing to the left. The signage at this location is safety critical because a vehicle driving straight ahead would cause a major collision with oncoming traffic.

Mr Kaye's vehicle complied with the direction to turn to the right and it then proceeded to make a U-turn. There was no signed prohibition on making a U-turn after turning to the right. If TfL wishes to prohibit U-turns, then it should deploy no U-turn signs as it does at other sets of lights. A motorist looking at a blue arrow sign to bear right or left at a set of lights will not read from that sign that a U-turn is prohibited. There is of course a separate offence of making a prohibited U-turn.

I accept the evidence of Mr Kingswood that, on 22 November 2013, a no U-turn sign was put in place at these lights. This re-enforces my conclusion that the blue arrow direction sign is not adequate or effective to prohibit a U-turn.

Mr Herbert also submits that the wording of the PCN is defective in another respect. The wording states that a penalty charge of £130 is payable before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. It goes on to state that, if the recipient fails to pay the penalty charge or to make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, a charge certificate may be issued. TfL states that the date of service is the date of the notice so that there is no inconsistency between these provisions and no resulting confusion to the motorist.

The date of the notice cannot be the date of service because the notice is not received by the recipient on the date of issue. There is clearly a difference between a period of 28 days from the date of the notice and a period of 28 days from the date of service. A person who can establish that service was not effected will of course be able to secure the revocation of a charge certificate.


It follows that there is scope for confusion here on the part of the recipient of the notice. The question is whether or not there is non-compliance with the statutory provisions about the wording to be included in the PCN. I am referred to The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and specifically to Section 4.

Section 4 includes the particulars that must be included in a PCN and the contents are mandatory. The PCN must state that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. The TfL PCN is clearly compliant in that respect. However, the PCN must also state that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable. The TfL PCN states that an increased charge may be payable if the PCN is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice. That is not the 28 day period referred to in the mandatory wording of Section 4. It follows that the PCN is defective.

The appeal is therefore allowed firstly on the finding that the alleged contravention did not occur and secondly on the finding of a defective PCN.










madandy
The video intrigues me by a potential issue relating to it's length.

It lasts 30 seconds.

What I find interesting is that had they cut it off after 15 seconds then it would indeed look as if you had done a right turn.

I am just wondering is there are any rule relating to length of video. I have seen others where the story could be contrived by virtue of editing and indeed may well have been.
Incredulous
Here is the rear page of the PCN as requested in the thread above. It states that I have 28 days from the date the notice was served which in my case is 10/02/2014, but I have been advised that the law allows 2 days from service to be included here, so 12/02/2014 would be day 1 of the 28 day period.

Thank you for your comments on my posting, everyone has been incredibly helpful.

All the best.

Hi Mick

Thank you for your advice and the quoted article - but particularly for your explanation below, I hope it helps other people who come across this thread. My representation has been made, we'll see where it goes.

"A bit left field perhaps but I read this to mean you never left Station Road in completing your u-turn."


Regards,

Alison
Incredulous
QUOTE (madandy @ Mon, 17 Feb 2014 - 12:33) *
The video intrigues me by a potential issue relating to it's length.

It lasts 30 seconds.

What I find interesting is that had they cut it off after 15 seconds then it would indeed look as if you had done a right turn.

I am just wondering is there are any rule relating to length of video. I have seen others where the story could be contrived by virtue of editing and indeed may well have been.



Hi, Yes, if they had cut the footage short I would have been scuppered because as it was I couldn't remember the event without the footage so would have probably ended up believing it and paying the fine. It would be very useful to know if there is a rule relating to length of footage. Maybe it is just that it runs until the car exits the shot and as mine didn't, as I was doing a uturn, it was longer...
SchoolRunMum
The PCN looks OK to me except you still haven't shown all of it that I could see. We haven't seen the appeals page (could be flawed in wording).

I viewed the footage and would say you clearly did a U turn and did not 'turn right'. So the contravention did not occur.
Incredulous
Hi, sorry not to have included the full PCN, the wording on the 1st page that I attached in the original post was inconsistent and therefore grounds for appeal, along with me not actually performing a right turn and the signage not complying fully with the approval criteria, I have a 3 pronged appeal so am hoping that is sufficient.
Thank you for your help along the way.
Hippocrates
Very clearly, the PCN on page 1 states the payment period correctly once, and incorrectly once by referring to Schedule 1 of the Act, which is the representations period. Therefore, confusion and ambiguity are caused.

The head of parking should resign as, under her watch, this fiasco has been allowed to continue for over 4 years.
Neil B
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 23 Feb 2014 - 10:39) *
Very clearly, the PCN on page 1 states the payment period correctly once, and incorrectly once by referring to Schedule 1 of the Act, which is the representations period. Therefore, confusion and ambiguity are caused.

The head of parking should resign as, under her watch, this fiasco has been allowed to continue for over 4 years.


More than 4 years I think.
The version prior to the last one was actually all correct but only used for about 2-3 months!! LOL.

Shouldn't speculate but I think this latest flaw results from them misunderstanding an Adjudication at some point.
i.e. Getting pulled for neither mentioning the correct reps period nor Sch 1 wherein it could be found -- they've misunderstood the reason they should mention Sch 1.
I fail to see how any organisation can be so consistently incompetent: It really isn't that difficult.

The back will be interesting.

---------------
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sun, 23 Feb 2014 - 11:22) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Sun, 23 Feb 2014 - 10:39) *
Very clearly, the PCN on page 1 states the payment period correctly once, and incorrectly once by referring to Schedule 1 of the Act, which is the representations period. Therefore, confusion and ambiguity are caused.

The head of parking should resign as, under her watch, this fiasco has been allowed to continue for over 4 years.


More than 4 years I think.
The version prior to the last one was actually all correct but only used for about 2-3 months!! LOL.

Shouldn't speculate but I think this latest flaw results from them misunderstanding an Adjudication at some point.
i.e. Getting pulled for neither mentioning the correct reps period nor Sch 1 wherein it could be found -- they've misunderstood the reason they should mention Sch 1.
I fail to see how any organisation can be so consistently incompetent: It really isn't that difficult.

The back will be interesting.

---------------


I am informed head of parking was installed around December 2009. No version ever has been correct and several OPs have had their cases not contested and one has had costs awarded. This is the council's take:

The wording on the PCN’s has been changed on three occasions since 03/05/2011 and the dates are as follows: 22/08/2012, 01/05/2013 and 31/05/2013. I have attached for your information examples of each PCN and its wording from 03/05/2011.


It has been changed now four times, of course, including this one of the current OP. The one before that was appalling: five times misstated reps. period. They cancelled three before PATAS, although appeals had been registered. They do not understand the peculiarity of this legislation; however, they do not understand that NOTICE TO OWNER and "procedural impropriety" are also foreign to this contravention.

If it were not for the fact they sent a "doctored" PCN in Case 2100599897 to Mr Houghton - grave mistake - with correct/missing wording on it, and then sent out defective ones afterwards!, I would give them the benefit of the doubt and put this down to incompetence. But, their response recently etc and the history of this indicates otherwise. To wriggle out of misfeasance, person(s) would have to admit ignorance. Tough cos, if they do that, they should resign anyway. No good trying to pass the buck and blame it on their legal team: the decisions, though few, of course, spell it out for them and they have taken not a blind bit of notice.


http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...100#entry649424

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry762081

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry797942

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry850694

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...=20#entry872290


And another two have had theirs cancelled via DNC very recently.
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.