Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: CCTV PCN Henshall Road, N1
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
mrmajestic
Im not the registered owner of the vehicle its my stepfather. Already emailed Islington. Here are my mails and their responses in chronological order:

8 JAN

Dear Islington Council,

I would like to appeal the above PCN received by my step-father, ....... of ........., NW3 ... via a notice to owner.

I am appealing the alleged contravention cited as 52JM for the following reasons;

1. The images sent via the notice to owner do not show the vehicle contravening any traffic signs. For the PCN to be valid, there should be evidence that a contravention was made. Are you able to provide images of the signs that you allege the vehicle passed in the PCN? If you cannot then the PCN is not valid.

2. The PCN alleges that that the vehicle failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle, motor vehicles. However, the signs at the entrance of the street are only visible when turning into Henshall Street. Once I've committed to doing that then stopping in the middle of a busy road (Balls Pond Road full of heavy traffic), might cause an accident, endanger my life (struck by oncoming traffic) or the lives of other drivers.

3. The signage at this location is not compliant with legal requirments. Note previous PATAS ruling:
"The appellant raises the issue of signage.
I am satisfied for the reasons given by my learned colleague Mr Greenslade in PATAS case reference 2090478790 decided on 23 November 2009 as upheld on review by my learned colleague Ms Jones on 4 March 2010 that signage at this location is not compliant with the legal requirements notwithstanding the reliance placed by the authority on Section 18 (1) (a) The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 that provision I note being referred to Mr Greenslade in his decision and thus I infer considered by him.
I accordingly find that the contravention has not been proved.
I allow the appeal."

The above three points would win a PATAS appeal. If you are unwilling to allow my appeal to stand then please provide detailed reasons to the above three points.

Kind regards,




22 JAN ANSWER:

Dear Mr ......

Penalty Charge Notice No. IS33110207 Date of Issue 09/12/2014 at 16:06
Location of Contravention Henshall Street, N1

Thank you for your email regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice which was recently received at this office.

As you were not the person upon whom the Penalty Charge Notice was served, the law does not allow us to treat your challenge as formal representations and thus you do not have the right to appeal to the independent adjudicators. The person to whom we sent the Penalty Charge Notice is the person who is responsible for the penalty charge, it is really for that person to make formal representations, within the time specified on the Penalty Charge Notice, against paying the charge, should they so wish.

However, I have reviewed this case and note that the PCN was issued for failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.

The enclosed photographs show that all motor vehicles are prohibited from entering Henshall Street from Balls Pond Road.

There are "no left turn" and "no right turn" signs in balls pond Road as well as the "no entry to motor vehicles" signs at the junction of Henshall street and Balls Pond Road.

The signage is compliant with the legislation and PATAS decisions from 5 years ago do not affect this case. Signage may have been amended since and each individual case is considered on its merits. The Traffic management Order for Henshall street is attached confirming its compliance with the legislation.

I am therefore upholding the charge.

Your choices now are to either to pay the penalty charge or allow the matter to progress against the person to whom we sent the Penalty Charge Notice. If no action is taken we may issue a Charge Certificate to that person advising that the right to appeal has expired and that the charge has increased to £195.00 I have decided that, if you wish to settle the matter, we can accept the discounted amount of £65.00 provided we receive that before 9 February 2015. Please bear in mind that on that date the charge will revert to £130.00 before increasing to £195.00 if the Charge Certificate is sent out.

You can make credit and debit card payment on - 020 7527 2000 - at any time. You can also pay on line at www.islington.gov.uk. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the address below. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number).


Yours sincerely


Steven Bolton
Correspondence and Appeals Officer
Traffic and Parking Services
Islington Council

Email. Islingtonparking@civica-rm.co.uk
Website. www.islington.gov.uk
Phone. Contact Islington 020 7527 2000
Fax. 020 7527 6496


MY ANSWER BACK ON 23 jan

Dear Mr Bolton,

Further to your response to my appeal, there seems to be a number of discrepancies as follows:

1. If you do not believe (or do not wish to treat this) as a formal representation, then surely you should not have replied to me? Therefore, since you have, should I understand that we have now made a formal representation or would you prefer my stepfather to copy paste this and email you directly? He's on cc and you've already entered into correspondence according to UK law. However for the avoidance of doubt please clarify.

2. The images you sent do not show the vehicle in question and the sign that you allege it has contravened in the same image. Apparently Islington Council has not positioned its cameras in the correct position in order to clearly show that an offence has taken place. Therefore I maintain that the PCN is not valid.

3. The no left turn and no right turn signs are not relevant if they were then the PCN should've included code number 50 "failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn" however there's no mention of that on the PCN.

For the above reasons and others (various procedural improprieties i.e.: failing to respond to the correct person), we reject your request to pay the PCN below and now would like to apply to PATAS so that we may address these points in further detail.

Please confirm that you will post the application form.


Sincerely,

.......

DIDNT HEAR ANYTHING SO SENT THIS ON 1ST FEB

Dear Mr Bolton,

Its been over a week since we emailed Islington Council but no reply has been received to my email below.

For the avoidance of doubt, the owner of the vehicle will email you directly also to confirm that the below marries with his position on this.

And I ask again for Islington Council to send the PATAS application form. We will contact PATAS anyway so that in the event that you do not send the form, then we will inform them of this and take the necessary action to ensure that this alleged contravention is defended under our full rights and remedies.

Kindly ensure that we receive a reply and/or confirm as soon as possible that at the very least, the PATAS application form will be sent.

Regards,

......... and ....... (owner of the vehicle)


RECEIVED THIS REPLY 2 FEB

Dear Mr .....

Penalty Charge Notice No. IS33110207 Date of Issue 09/12/2014 at 16:06
Location of Contravention Henshall Street, N1

Thank you for your e-mail regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) which was recently received at this office.

As confirmed by my colleague in his previous e-mail, as you were not the person upon whom the PCN was served, the law does not allow us to treat your challenge as formal representations and thus you do not have the right to appeal to the independent adjudicators. The person to whom we sent the PCN is the person who is responsible for the penalty charge, it is really for that person to make formal representations, within the time specified on the PCN, against paying the charge, should they so wish.

You have stated in your e-mail of 23 January 2015 that by entering into e-mail communication with you, we have entered into a formal process. However, this is not the case. Under legislation, we are only able to respond formally to the person to whom statutory documentation is issued. We are, however, able to address correspondence from a third party as formal representations providing we have written authority from the registered keeper to do so. In these circumstances, the registered keeper remains responsible for payment of the penalty charge. On this occasion, however, we have not received any correspondence from the registered keeper authorising us to address any correspondence from you as formal representations and as such, whilst we are able to respond to you, it is on an informal basis. The fact that the registered keeper has been "cc'd" into your e-mails does not provide authorisation for us to respond formally to you.

I fully acknowledge your statement that the images which my colleague have provided to you do not show the vehicle and the contravened signs in the same photograph. However, this is not a requirement in order to enforce the PCN.

The PCN needs to confirm details of the contravention which is identified to have occurred and the location where this was identified. The photographs on the PCN need to support this, but I would add that they are only a selection of the images available. However, the photographs provided by my colleague in his e-mail of 22 January 2014 are sufficient to confirm that adequate warning is given to drivers of the prohibition and that the area is monitored by CCTV cameras. When using the highway, it is the responsibility of the driver to take note of road signs in specific locations and to make sure that they understand any information or instruction given.

I have also taken full note of the comments made in your e-mail regarding the relevancy of the "no left" and "no right" signs which are in place in Balls Pond Road. In response to the comments you have made, I would advise that the purpose of these signs is to provide advance warning to drivers of the prohibition which is in place in Henshall Street. The PCN has not been issued under contravention code "50" for this reason.

Having reviewed the case myself today, I am satisfied that the correct decision was previously made by my colleague, Mr Bolton. Therefore, I will also be upholding the penalty charge.

Your choices now are to either to pay the penalty charge or allow the matter to progress against the person to whom we sent the PCN. If no action is taken we may issue a Charge Certificate to that person advising that the right to appeal has expired and that the charge has increased to £195.00 I have decided that, if you wish to settle the matter, we can accept the discounted amount of £65.00 provided we receive that before 16 February 2015. Please bear in mind that on that date the charge will revert to £130.00 before increasing to £195.00 if the Charge Certificate is sent out.

You can make credit and debit card payment on - 020 7527 2000 - at any time. You can also pay on line at www.islington.gov.uk. If you prefer to pay by cheque, please make it payable to LB Islington and send it to the above address. Please write the PCN number on the back of the cheque. You may also send postal orders (quoting the PCN number).


Yours sincerely


Kathryn Leech
Correspondence and Appeals Officer
Traffic & Parking Services

Islington Council
Islington Parking Appeals
PO Box 2019
Pershore
WR10 9BN

I ANSWERED SAME DAY (YESTERDAY)

Dear Ms Leech,

Thank you for this email.

Can you please check the emails received today as ...... has in fact already emailed Mr Bolton earlier today to inform him that he authorises me to submit representations on his behalf.

Can you confirm therefore that we have now made a formal representation? And send the PATAS application form? Also will you provide me with the legislation you refer to below in paragraph 3 so that I may properly understand my rights?

Regards,

..........
on behalf of (my stepfather)


And my stepfather had sent this email on 1st Feb:

Dear Mr Bolton,

My stepson Mr ........ has asked that I as owner of the vehicle in question contact you about the PATAS application form.

Would you please send a copy to me at
....................
as well as a copy to my stepson.

I understand my stepson's position on this alleged contravention and his wish to appeal against it. He has my full support.

Please let us hear from you promptly.

Yours truly,

.........


Mr Mustard
I think you are a bit stuck here. The council are correct on the point of the right to make representations being limited to the Owner (i.e. usually the registered keeper for a private car) and all you can do is resend the original representations saying they are from Mr Stepfather of NW3 (full name and address obviously) and ask the council to consider them out of time. If they don't reply by 15 Feb, which I think they will, ring them if that is possible and if not pay the £65 which is very fair of the council to re-offer.

Stepping outside of process always end in tears.
TarlCeper
no no no pay

look at the pics, what do you see?
DancingDad
QUOTE (TarlCeper @ Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 17:45) *
no no no pay

look at the pics, what do you see?


At the moment the pics are irrelevant as are any other points made in the challenges.

The facts are that the OP has responded to a postal PCN with no authority to do so and left the owner liable to a PCN that may well have been winnable.

That the owner has confirmed within the extended discount period should (but may not) be accepted by Islington.
And has been suggested, a repeat challenge complete with owners authority before the end of the renewed discount period may succeed to gain a formal NOR and hence chance for PATAS.

But I know of no legislation that forces Islington to accept anything that has gone to date as formal reps.
That is the barrier we need to break down before going further. Else grab the discount while it is on offer.
TarlCeper
RK needs to make reps fosho


and get some pics of the main road.
Hippocrates
The registered keeper/owner should retrospectively give the author of the reps said permission to have made them. But, they have replied. Daft. Moving on................................

Islington have amended all their parking PCNs but not their moving traffic PCNs. There are two problems with this PCN:

1. It conflates the two periods of payment and making reps. re service of a Charge Certificate: If you do not pay or........................

The law:

(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)state—

(i)the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

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

(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

(vi)the amount of the increased charge;

(vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and

(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.


2. The TWOC ground limits to theft only and requires a crime report.

Case Reference: 2110212199
Appellant: Mr
Authority: Islington
VRM:
PCN: IS2284987A
Contravention Date: 12 Feb 2011
Contravention Time: 12:06
Contravention Location: Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Decision Date: 07 Jul 2011
Adjudicator: Teresa Brennan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: Mr appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.

One of the issues that Mr raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.

In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30 th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading.

The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal.

hcandersen
I cannot find procedural fault with the authority. They've replied to the writer of a letter and explained that they are not considering these as reps. They've used their reply as a means of communicating with the RK as regards payment of the penalty etc.

The OP has acted foolishly, indeed even if they had been authorised the first letter was sent after the expiry of the 28-day period.

As already posted by others, either the RK or the OP should make formal reps and hope that these are not disregarded - given that the discount has been extended until 9 Feb the reps might be considered.
Hippocrates
I ask what reply if any has been made to the authorisation e-mail from the keeper to the council. I agree with the OP that it is questionable for them to issue a NOR for all intents and purposes.

I suggest one more contact with Islington re PATAS form and ascertain where matters stand and then appeal to PATAS.
mrmajestic
QUOTE (TarlCeper @ Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 17:45) *
no no no pay

look at the pics, what do you see?


I dont know, what? Sorry not being lazy, Ive won against Barnet twice in the past. I've spent hours combing the net for answers. So lets just get straight to the point please.

Found this and its the closest option I have found so far for winning at PATAS

Thanks to help from this board and invaluable references to past cases won at adjudication for CCTV tickets, I successfully had my PCN overturned! biggrin.gif

The adjudicator allowed it because the PCN itself should state that " CCTV images can be viewed at 'one of its offices specified by him' (him being me of course). This is as stated in the The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007: 2007 No. 3482 PART 2] - Items 5a and 6. PATAS cases (which can be accessed on their website) nos " 2120293222; 2130034162; 2130089798; 2130149029 all upheld appeals for this procedural impropriety and the adjudicator seemed releived to be able to immediately allow the appeal without having to consider the copious other documentation I had provided.

Which also included this other ground for appeal:

48. TMA Regulations 30 give the power to authorities throughout England to issue
PCNs for contraventions detected with a camera and associated recording equipment (approved device). The Secretary of State must certify any type
of device used solely to detect contraventions (i.e. with no supporting CEO evidence). Once certified they may be called an ‘approved device’. The Secretary of State recommends that approved devices are used only where enforcement is difficult or sensitive and CEO enforcement is not practical.

He didn't consider this but I thought this was a very strong ground also.

So thanks a million to those who advised me on this board and good luck to anyone fighting one of these insidious eye in the sky tickets.
TarlCeper
What does the PCN say the location is?
mrmajestic
QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 17:41) *
I think you are a bit stuck here. The council are correct on the point of the right to make representations being limited to the Owner (i.e. usually the registered keeper for a private car) and all you can do is resend the original representations saying they are from Mr Stepfather of NW3 (full name and address obviously) and ask the council to consider them out of time. If they don't reply by 15 Feb, which I think they will, ring them if that is possible and if not pay the £65 which is very fair of the council to re-offer.

Stepping outside of process always end in tears.


Thanks for this Mr Mustard, I think its the right thing to do. I might fill out the back of the NTO tomorrow evening with my stepfather, scan it and have him email it to Islington from his address.

What do you think would be the best track to contest this considering the copy paste of a previous win against CCTV I posted just now?

Come on guys if I can break them at Henshall Road it'll be a massive precedent for motorists coming after me....
TarlCeper
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 21:47) *
QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 17:41) *
I think you are a bit stuck here. The council are correct on the point of the right to make representations being limited to the Owner (i.e. usually the registered keeper for a private car) and all you can do is resend the original representations saying they are from Mr Stepfather of NW3 (full name and address obviously) and ask the council to consider them out of time. If they don't reply by 15 Feb, which I think they will, ring them if that is possible and if not pay the £65 which is very fair of the council to re-offer.

Stepping outside of process always end in tears.


Thanks for this Mr Mustard, I think its the right thing to do. I might fill out the back of the NTO tomorrow evening with my stepfather, scan it and have him email it to Islington from his address.

What do you think would be the best track to contest this considering the copy paste of a previous win against CCTV I posted just now?

Come on guys if I can break them at Henshall Road it'll be a massive precedent for motorists coming after me....



CCTV is a red herring. This is moving traffic offence. The leading case is Mr Miller v. Transport for London 214015350A, the person who did the reps at that hearing is a genius.

you need photos.
DancingDad
If this gets back on track and the signs are still as they were, 2090478790 is the telling case and one that I believe would be taken as a precedent (or as close as PATAS gets to one)
This was reviewed in the interests of justice after the signage was declared non-compliant and the review upheld that decision.

The question is whether or not the signs have changed and if so, do they now comply?
Streetview seems to be stuck in 2008 so no use to us. Anyone closer can get photos?
Some here come from 2011 and reading the above decision, would be the non compliant set.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60967&st=0

On a new challenge from the owner, I'd suggest sticking with what you have. Islington are practised at rejecting these but if they do oblige with an NOR, we may be able to tidy things up for PATAS with new ideas.
TarlCeper
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 22:57) *
If this gets back on track and the signs are still as they were, 2090478790 is the telling case and one that I believe would be taken as a precedent (or as close as PATAS gets to one)
This was reviewed in the interests of justice after the signage was declared non-compliant and the review upheld that decision.

The question is whether or not the signs have changed and if so, do they now comply?
Streetview seems to be stuck in 2008 so no use to us. Anyone closer can get photos?
Some here come from 2011 and reading the above decision, would be the non compliant set.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60967&st=0

On a new challenge from the owner, I'd suggest sticking with what you have. Islington are practised at rejecting these but if they do oblige with an NOR, we may be able to tidy things up for PATAS with new ideas.



check bing maps
then get the photos
mrmajestic
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 22:57) *
If this gets back on track and the signs are still as they were, 2090478790 is the telling case and one that I believe would be taken as a precedent (or as close as PATAS gets to one)
This was reviewed in the interests of justice after the signage was declared non-compliant and the review upheld that decision.

The question is whether or not the signs have changed and if so, do they now comply?
Streetview seems to be stuck in 2008 so no use to us. Anyone closer can get photos?
Some here come from 2011 and reading the above decision, would be the non compliant set.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60967&st=0

On a new challenge from the owner, I'd suggest sticking with what you have. Islington are practised at rejecting these but if they do oblige with an NOR, we may be able to tidy things up for PATAS with new ideas.



The signs have been updated since the case that you offer above with link. There are no right and left turn signs already. Theres the prohibited motor vehicle signs on either side of street opening AND they have added the CCTV sign (so we can't use that track anymore saying we weren't aware they were filming there).

For moving vehicles by the way, the legislation always takes priority over government recommendation. I think one really good approach is the one where the Council should only have CCTV where its not practical for CEOs to operate. In Henshall Street's case, its definitely possible for CEOs to be based there, the reason they arrant is because its a trap and they would give the game away if they were on site.

I think I should resend actual back of NTO tonight with my stepfather (as I should've done from the start). Try and get the official rejection. Then go to PATAS with new approach as mentioned moving vehicle and CEO should be on site / entrapment.

Thanks everyone for your help.



Can someone please check this link:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...015&hl=cctv

This is how another motorist won at PATAS as the PCN must state that the motorist is allowed to view the footage at their office. And it doesn't state that exactly.
DancingDad
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons.

Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment.

The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings.
If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows.
Which is it?

The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 11:30) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 3 Feb 2015 - 22:57) *
If this gets back on track and the signs are still as they were, 2090478790 is the telling case and one that I believe would be taken as a precedent (or as close as PATAS gets to one)
This was reviewed in the interests of justice after the signage was declared non-compliant and the review upheld that decision.

The question is whether or not the signs have changed and if so, do they now comply?
Streetview seems to be stuck in 2008 so no use to us. Anyone closer can get photos?
Some here come from 2011 and reading the above decision, would be the non compliant set.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=60967&st=0

On a new challenge from the owner, I'd suggest sticking with what you have. Islington are practised at rejecting these but if they do oblige with an NOR, we may be able to tidy things up for PATAS with new ideas.



The signs have been updated since the case that you offer above with link. There are no right and left turn signs already. Theres the prohibited motor vehicle signs on either side of street opening AND they have added the CCTV sign (so we can't use that track anymore saying we weren't aware they were filming there).

For moving vehicles by the way, the legislation always takes priority over government recommendation. I think one really good approach is the one where the Council should only have CCTV where its not practical for CEOs to operate. In Henshall Street's case, its definitely possible for CEOs to be based there, the reason they arrant is because its a trap and they would give the game away if they were on site.

I think I should resend actual back of NTO tonight with my stepfather (as I should've done from the start). Try and get the official rejection. Then go to PATAS with new approach as mentioned moving vehicle and CEO should be on site / entrapment.

Thanks everyone for your help.



Can someone please check this link:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...015&hl=cctv

This is how another motorist won at PATAS as the PCN must state that the motorist is allowed to view the footage at their office. And it doesn't state that exactly.


This is a red herring as it concerns other legislation which as DD says was decided last June at a panel decision.
TarlCeper

Is this Case Reference: 214015350A Appellant:Mr Benzion Miller?

I hear the person doing the reps at that hearing is a PCN genius but has now retired, what a shame.
Hippocrates
General Gogol to Zorin: "You will come back to us, comrade. No one ever leaves the KGB." A View to a Kill (1985) Not even The Black Beret. ninja.gif
Rob232
Surely the no motor vehicles signs are the wrong sign for the situation, it should be "no entry" signs since effectively it is a one-way street from the exit of the car-park to the junction of Balls Pond Road, as indicated by the give way triangle and double broken lines.
Looking at that patas case mentioned earlier 2090478790, the council agreed it should have been a no entry sign, but because it restricted cyclists, they "had no choice but to use the prohibition on motor vehicles signs". Why not have a plate below the no entry sign saying "except cyclists", even if they had to seek secretary of state approval, it would have been an option, surely.
To me, no motor vehicles means that past these signs, it would be wrong to drive a motor vehicle. The council supposedly put the restriction there to stop rat-runs after complaints from residents http://www.thecnj.com/islington/2009/06120...s061209_14.html .
How is access gained to and from the small car park if no motor vehicles are allowed? I presume users of the car park gain access from the other end where there are no restriction signs, and are allowed to turn right out of the car park and onto Balls Pond Road without receiving a PCN, even though they are technically violating the no motor vehicle restriction.
Should there be grey signs that denote the end of the no motor vehicles restriction?
Apologies if I have misunderstood anything, just adding my tuppence worth as usual.


mrmajestic
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 11:32) *
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons.

Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment.

The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings.
If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows.
Which is it?

The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it.



This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road.


Hippocrates
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:10) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 11:32) *
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons.

Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment.

The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings.
If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows.
Which is it?

The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it.



This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road.



How have these signs been updated? They are still in their infamous position surely i.e. on BPR? Therefore, contravention as stated on PCN did not occur.
TarlCeper
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 12:34) *
"Comrade Zorin, noone ever leaves the KGB." A view to a kill (1985) Not even The Black Beret. ninja.gif



Apparently, they are putting a statue up in his honour, I think it's only fair. The sacrifice was tremendous.

As regards BPR, the images on Bing are 2014.

There was once a member here who had an excellent list of cases, don't you think he should get a statue too?





Mr. Solomon represented the Appellant (who did not himself attend) today. The Authority was not represented.

Having viewed the CCTV footage, there is no doubt the appellant's vehicle made the turn described by the Authority. The issue is adequacy of signage. I have considered the site plan and still photographs provided by the Authority. On that evidence, whilst I am satisfied the signage may be adequate for vehicle proposing to turn left from Balls Pond Road into Henshall Street, I am not so satisfied for those turning right. This vehicle plainly made a right hand turn.

The site map shows only the signs at the entrance prohibiting cars and motorcycles. That is too late - the turn is well under way before they can be seen. There are no signs prohibiting turns on the map. The still photographs show one or more signs but not their location in relation to the signage. The Authority does have to show the signage was adequate and compliant and on this evidence I find they have not.

I allow the Appeal.
DancingDad
Well, all the ducks seem in a row for a successful appeal at PATAS.

Now the only issue is if it can get that far.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (TarlCeper @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 17:49) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 12:34) *
"Comrade Zorin, noone ever leaves the KGB." A view to a kill (1985) Not even The Black Beret. ninja.gif



Apparently, they are putting a statue up in his honour, I think it's only fair. The sacrifice was tremendous.

There was once a member here who had an excellent list of cases, don't you think he should get a statue too?




If you mean The Black Beret, this may be costly in view of his corpulence.

No idea who is the subject.
Mr Mustard
It is hard to tell from the photo but it looks like a single dotted line across the left (as we look into the no entry) of Henshall St and a double dotted line on the right with a give way triangle painted on the carriageway thus implying that the left hand side can be driven over to enter? Surely if you can't drive into this street the double dotted line should go all the way across as it did in 2009 (see photo on this link). Ambiguity should be construed in favour of the one who suffers by it.

What is really needed of course is a small island with room for a cyclist to get through the gap left for them and then proper no entry signs on the rest but that wouldn't make any money.

[Be warned: Moving traffic contravention enforcement is about to start in Barnet. I expect I'll end up checking them all and suggesting layout improvements.]
mrmajestic
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:30) *
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:10) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 11:32) *
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons.

Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment.

The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings.
If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows.
Which is it?

The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it.



This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road.



How have these signs been updated? They are still in their infamous position surely i.e. on BPR? Therefore, contravention as stated on PCN did not occur.



OK got you. Was at my parents last night, stepdad signed the back of NTO for appeal. Was planning to post that in today. Maybe I should state exiting reasons on there just to get them to send me the Rejection and PATAS application?

Will scan and get my stepdad to email too.

Then when I appeal to Patas go for the non compliant signage? Just thinking if i do that now on NTO, they may not respond at all as they fear they could lose on that point??

Trying to be strategic.... :-)
Hippocrates
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 09:56) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:30) *
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:10) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 11:32) *
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons.

Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment.

The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings.
If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows.
Which is it?

The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it.



This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road.



How have these signs been updated? They are still in their infamous position surely i.e. on BPR? Therefore, contravention as stated on PCN did not occur.



OK got you. Was at my parents last night, stepdad signed the back of NTO for appeal. Was planning to post that in today. Maybe I should state exiting reasons on there just to get them to send me the Rejection and PATAS application?

Will scan and get my stepdad to email too.

Then when I appeal to Patas go for the non compliant signage? Just thinking if i do that now on NTO, they may not respond at all as they fear they could lose on that point??

Trying to be strategic.... :-)

There is no NTO in this matter! Which document do you mean?

The enforcement process: http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/en...vingtraffic.htm
mrmajestic
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 11:46) *
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 09:56) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:30) *
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 14:10) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 4 Feb 2015 - 11:32) *
Claiming CEO could be on site with a moving traffic offence will fail for obvious reasons.

Forget the no left turn/right turn signs except as without them there is lack of pre-warning leaving a motorist stuck if they only realise the restriction at the last moment.

The no vehicle signs. Key point is where they are. If on Henshall, the council have taken note of the review case already shown and approach is to argue on lack of warnings.
If they are still in same place, they cannot apply to Henshall as the case shows.
Which is it?

The viewing of videos is less open now since a panel hearing in June, not closed but be careful with it.



This is the image sent to me by Islington Council which I have checked and is up to date. This is the entrance to Henshall Street as viewed from Balls Pond Road.



How have these signs been updated? They are still in their infamous position surely i.e. on BPR? Therefore, contravention as stated on PCN did not occur.



OK got you. Was at my parents last night, stepdad signed the back of NTO for appeal. Was planning to post that in today. Maybe I should state exiting reasons on there just to get them to send me the Rejection and PATAS application?

Will scan and get my stepdad to email too.

Then when I appeal to Patas go for the non compliant signage? Just thinking if i do that now on NTO, they may not respond at all as they fear they could lose on that point??

Trying to be strategic.... :-)

There is no NTO in this matter! Which document do you mean?

The enforcement process: http://www.patas.gov.uk/tmaadjudicators/en...vingtraffic.htm


Sorry you are right it was a PCN received by post. But on the back is the right to challenge it. I mean I willl send them that. I need to get an official rejection letter in order to get to PATAS....
Hippocrates
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent.
mrmajestic
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 17:25) *
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent.



We ended up emailing them again this time sent from my stepfather last week on Friday. They have only now responded to the first email that my stepfather sent basically restating the same thing that they do not regard my initial email as representation and it seems that they are disregarding the second email sent from him.

The government legislation clearly states that parking authorities are supposed to be flexible with those making reps. Islington arrant at all. Its obvious that he has authorised me to make reps on his behalf. Both Barnet and Hackney were happy to deal with me directly its only Islington that are being shitty with me.

Im thinking at this point to actually go directly to PATAS and make the application with them regardless. I believe that we are entitled to do that and Islington Council is obglied to respond.
mrmajestic
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 17:25) *
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent.


In the end I phoned and they confirmed that the rejection letter would be sent. The formal appeal had been made on the basis that the prohibited vehicle signs are not compliant due to one of them clearly being situated on Balls Pond Road and not on Henshall St.

Now I also have the PATAS form from them and can fill it out for my stepfather to sign.

The question is, whats the exact legislation that I am referring to which makes the signs non-compliant?

Thanks for your help. Can upload their rejection letter if you would like to see it.

DancingDad
Sounds like good news.
Get the NOR and PATAS forms in your hands and we can breathe a sigh of relief.
Then register the appeal, even if with simple Signs are not compliant therefore contravention did not occur.
And make sure Dad signs it. He can add authority for you to deal with it.

RE legislation, pull up the previos cases already linked, from memory all that is needed is in them.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Mon, 16 Feb 2015 - 09:26) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 17:25) *
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent.


In the end I phoned and they confirmed that the rejection letter would be sent. The formal appeal had been made on the basis that the prohibited vehicle signs are not compliant due to one of them clearly being situated on Balls Pond Road and not on Henshall St.

Now I also have the PATAS form from them and can fill it out for my stepfather to sign.

The question is, whats the exact legislation that I am referring to which makes the signs non-compliant?

Thanks for your help. Can upload their rejection letter if you would like to see it.

Let's see it.
mrmajestic
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 16 Feb 2015 - 19:17) *
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Mon, 16 Feb 2015 - 09:26) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 17:25) *
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent.


In the end I phoned and they confirmed that the rejection letter would be sent. The formal appeal had been made on the basis that the prohibited vehicle signs are not compliant due to one of them clearly being situated on Balls Pond Road and not on Henshall St.

Now I also have the PATAS form from them and can fill it out for my stepfather to sign.

The question is, whats the exact legislation that I am referring to which makes the signs non-compliant?

Thanks for your help. Can upload their rejection letter if you would like to see it.

Let's see it.



Thanks for replying will upload tonight.
mrmajestic
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Wed, 18 Feb 2015 - 10:47) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 16 Feb 2015 - 19:17) *
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Mon, 16 Feb 2015 - 09:26) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 5 Feb 2015 - 17:25) *
I would phone them and record it and get a name. I am not happy with this situation at all and it is very rare that I advise phoning a council. This is urgent.


In the end I phoned and they confirmed that the rejection letter would be sent. The formal appeal had been made on the basis that the prohibited vehicle signs are not compliant due to one of them clearly being situated on Balls Pond Road and not on Henshall St.

Now I also have the PATAS form from them and can fill it out for my stepfather to sign.

The question is, whats the exact legislation that I am referring to which makes the signs non-compliant?

Thanks for your help. Can upload their rejection letter if you would like to see it.

Let's see it.



Thanks for replying will upload tonight.







Hippocrates
TWOC ground clearly limits to theft and there is no requirement to produce a police crime reference.
Mr Mustard
My view is that when councils offer the 50% just before PATAS it is because they think there is a good chance they will lose.
mrmajestic
QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 17:05) *
My view is that when councils offer the 50% just before PATAS it is because they think there is a good chance they will lose.



Hi Mr Mustard!! Hows it going?

Really interesting point. Because they dont have to do that at all....

QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 16:25) *
TWOC ground clearly limits to theft and there is no requirement to produce a police crime reference.



Sorry I didn't understand.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (mrmajestic @ Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 17:26) *
QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 17:05) *
My view is that when councils offer the 50% just before PATAS it is because they think there is a good chance they will lose.



Hi Mr Mustard!! Hows it going?

Really interesting point. Because they dont have to do that at all....

QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 16:25) *
TWOC ground clearly limits to theft and there is no requirement to produce a police crime reference.



Sorry I didn't understand.


Case Reference: 2110212199
Appellant: Mr
Authority: Islington
VRM:
PCN: IS2284987A
Contravention Date: 12 Feb 2011
Contravention Time: 12:06
Contravention Location: Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Decision Date: 07 Jul 2011
Adjudicator: Teresa Brennan
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: Mr appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.

One of the issues that Mr raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.

In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30 th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading.

The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal.

Mr Mustard
Hi Hippocrates. Far too busy, got £millions of debts to collect but still done 31 pcn this year. Lost 1
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 20:36) *
Hi Hippocrates. Far too busy, got £millions of debts to collect but still done 31 pcn this year. Lost 1

Hi Mr M. My position is the exact opposite: I owe millions and have done very few PCNs! Apologies mrmajestic.
mrmajestic
NEED HELP!!

Guys we have a response from Islington Council against my appeal using "Signs aren't compliant as they weren't located in the right place". Which is that they state that the law enables them to place the signs as close as is practicable.

Please see enclosed screen shots showing Islington's argument.

Have postponed the PATAS hearing for another month. I need to find a counter argument against Islingtons new argument. Please help.








hcandersen
The authority's case appears to rest on there being additional 'banned turn' signs in the major road and that they would expect a motorist to 'stop' before executing a turn, and by implication once they're stopped they could read the signs.

Let's deal with the second issue first. There is no requirement to 'stop' and therefore any sign placed in such a way that it cannot be read without stopping cannot be compliant. See the reference to 'No Entry' signs on page 26 here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...-chapter-03.pdf

These should be sited with the backline and angled if necessary. I don't see why the same requirements do not apply to the sign in question.

As regards the first point, the 'banned turn' signs are not prescribed for use with the signs in question, they have a broader scope.
mrmajestic
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 13 Apr 2015 - 21:51) *
The authority's case appears to rest on there being additional 'banned turn' signs in the major road and that they would expect a motorist to 'stop' before executing a turn, and by implication once they're stopped they could read the signs.

Let's deal with the second issue first. There is no requirement to 'stop' and therefore any sign placed in such a way that it cannot be read without stopping cannot be compliant. See the reference to 'No Entry' signs on page 26 here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...-chapter-03.pdf

These should be sited with the backline and angled if necessary. I don't see why the same requirements do not apply to the sign in question.

As regards the first point, the 'banned turn' signs are not prescribed for use with the signs in question, they have a broader scope.



Thanks for this hcandersen.

I checked the link but I didn't find anything in there stating that motorists need to stop to read signs. Re the angling of the sign also, don't forget that it applies to both directions so in which direction would it supposed to be angled? Surely if angled in one direction then unreadable from the other?

Would be great to have the legislation concerning the "banned turn" signs and how/whether they are prescribed for use with the signs in question.
i need help
Case Reference: 2150083841
Appellant: Mr Jon xxxxxxxx
Authority: Islington
VRM:
PCN: IS33010100
Contravention Date: 23 Oct 2014
Contravention Time: 10:15
Contravention Location: Henshall Street N1
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
Decision Date: 14 Apr 2015
Adjudicator: Jennifer Shepherd
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: I heard from the appellant in person at a hearing today. He challenges the Penalty Charge Notice on the basis that both the advance warning signage of the banned right-hand turn, and the 'Motor vehicles prohibited' signs in Diagram 619 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 ( as amended) situated at the entrance to Henshall Street are poorly sited.

The CCTV recording was unavailable for viewing today, either by direct link form the authority's case on appeal, or on the authority's website. The appellant, the driver, Mr Lightstone, told me that he had only been provided with the still images provided with the authority's case put to this tribunal. I have not therefore had the advantage of seeing the CCTv images.

I am aware that the signage arrangements for this banned entry into Henshall Street have been the subject of a number of appeals, including several in recent months, and one in particular (Appeal number 2140483923) where a hearing took place in December 2014, at which my colleague Adjudicator Stanton-Dunne hear full argument from both the appellant and officers from the authority. The signage arrangements have frequently been upheld, not least of which in that appeal, the Adjudicator finding against the appellant on arguments put forward similar to those raised by Mr Lightstone in this.

However I conclude that on the evidence before me today, and in the light of guidance given in the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 - which it appears may not have been considered previously by colleagues - this appeal should be allowed on the basis that the signage may be insufficient.

Firstly and most importantly I have considered the banned right hand turn sign which is to serve as advance warning on the approach on the Balls Pond Road. Mr Lightstone says that this is situated to face oncoming traffic at a distance of some 30-40 metres in advance of the junction with Henshall street, and not at the junction itself. He says that he did not see it as he was approaching at that point because at that moment he had not intention to turn into Henshall Street. It was only when he ran into stationary traffic that he realised that it may be advantageous to turn right, and he had not seen the warning.

Paragraph 4.7 of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 advises that :-

"4.7 Where traffic is prohibited from turning into a side road at an unsignalled T-junction (see figure4-4), a sign to diagram 612 or 613 as appropriate should be provided at the junction. A map-type advance direction sign, if provided, should indicate the prohibited turn by incorporating a diagram 612or 613 roundel."

It seems that this advises either or both an 'at junction' banned right hand turn sign in Diagram 612, and/or a map-type advance warning sign with the Diagram 612 roundel. In this case it appears that the banned right hand turn roundel simpliciter has been used but sited at a point where it is to serve as an advance warning, at 30-40 metres. This would seem to be at odds with the advice in the Manual, and that of itself does appear to reinforce the argument that it is inadequate for purpose.

On the other hand were the roundel in Diagram 612 situated at the junction with Henshall Street, then the motorist would clearly be fixed with notice because it would be present at the point that he makes the manoeuvre. Had the advice in the Manual been brought to the attention of Adjudicator Stanton Dunne he may have concluded that it was of application in the matter.

In this case therefore I give some weight to that Guidance and conclude that the 612 was outwith that guidance and that it was not adequate advance notice.

Turning to the signs on either side of Henshall Street facing Balls Pond Road, I note that both, while substantially compliant with requirements ('Motor vehicles prohibited' in sign 619) that they are set well back into Balls Pond Road on either side of Henshall Street and that this permits ( as in this case) an appellant to argue that he could not see them ( as in this case) because they were obscured by stationary large vehicles. In this case the appellant points to (in the still image) at least one double decker bus which is stationary on the left side of Henshall Street at the time of the incident and which he say obscured his view of it. This may well have been the case. However I cannot verify from the evidence before me whether his view of the other sign was similarly obscured by a double decker on the other side - the still image does not show this and I have not seen the CCTV recording. The appellant's evidence was strongly to the effect that his view was obscured and even though I approached such clarity of recall with caution, from my perusal of the position of the signs on either side of Henshall Street I am forced to conclude that in heavy traffic this is at least possible.

The remaining sign is of course those 'Give Way' road markings which should be present at the junction and in accordance with one way traffic only. The still images are not clear and in respect of those showing the entrance to Henshall Street itself, in both cases cars obscure the view. The appellant argued that the traffic was too heavy to permit him an unencumbered view and that in any event he had no reason to anticipate such markings - he had not seen either the warning or the 'entrance' signs.

It was therefore my conclusion that in this appeal and on these facts to conclude that the appeal should be allowed.
mrmajestic
QUOTE (i need help @ Thu, 16 Apr 2015 - 10:37) *
Case Reference: 2150083841
Appellant: Mr Jon xxxxxxxx
Authority: Islington
VRM:
PCN: IS33010100
Contravention Date: 23 Oct 2014
Contravention Time: 10:15
Contravention Location: Henshall Street N1
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
Decision Date: 14 Apr 2015
Adjudicator: Jennifer Shepherd
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: I heard from the appellant in person at a hearing today. He challenges the Penalty Charge Notice on the basis that both the advance warning signage of the banned right-hand turn, and the 'Motor vehicles prohibited' signs in Diagram 619 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 ( as amended) situated at the entrance to Henshall Street are poorly sited.

The CCTV recording was unavailable for viewing today, either by direct link form the authority's case on appeal, or on the authority's website. The appellant, the driver, Mr Lightstone, told me that he had only been provided with the still images provided with the authority's case put to this tribunal. I have not therefore had the advantage of seeing the CCTv images.

I am aware that the signage arrangements for this banned entry into Henshall Street have been the subject of a number of appeals, including several in recent months, and one in particular (Appeal number 2140483923) where a hearing took place in December 2014, at which my colleague Adjudicator Stanton-Dunne hear full argument from both the appellant and officers from the authority. The signage arrangements have frequently been upheld, not least of which in that appeal, the Adjudicator finding against the appellant on arguments put forward similar to those raised by Mr Lightstone in this.

However I conclude that on the evidence before me today, and in the light of guidance given in the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 - which it appears may not have been considered previously by colleagues - this appeal should be allowed on the basis that the signage may be insufficient.

Firstly and most importantly I have considered the banned right hand turn sign which is to serve as advance warning on the approach on the Balls Pond Road. Mr Lightstone says that this is situated to face oncoming traffic at a distance of some 30-40 metres in advance of the junction with Henshall street, and not at the junction itself. He says that he did not see it as he was approaching at that point because at that moment he had not intention to turn into Henshall Street. It was only when he ran into stationary traffic that he realised that it may be advantageous to turn right, and he had not seen the warning.

Paragraph 4.7 of the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 advises that :-

"4.7 Where traffic is prohibited from turning into a side road at an unsignalled T-junction (see figure4-4), a sign to diagram 612 or 613 as appropriate should be provided at the junction. A map-type advance direction sign, if provided, should indicate the prohibited turn by incorporating a diagram 612or 613 roundel."

It seems that this advises either or both an 'at junction' banned right hand turn sign in Diagram 612, and/or a map-type advance warning sign with the Diagram 612 roundel. In this case it appears that the banned right hand turn roundel simpliciter has been used but sited at a point where it is to serve as an advance warning, at 30-40 metres. This would seem to be at odds with the advice in the Manual, and that of itself does appear to reinforce the argument that it is inadequate for purpose.

On the other hand were the roundel in Diagram 612 situated at the junction with Henshall Street, then the motorist would clearly be fixed with notice because it would be present at the point that he makes the manoeuvre. Had the advice in the Manual been brought to the attention of Adjudicator Stanton Dunne he may have concluded that it was of application in the matter.

In this case therefore I give some weight to that Guidance and conclude that the 612 was outwith that guidance and that it was not adequate advance notice.

Turning to the signs on either side of Henshall Street facing Balls Pond Road, I note that both, while substantially compliant with requirements ('Motor vehicles prohibited' in sign 619) that they are set well back into Balls Pond Road on either side of Henshall Street and that this permits ( as in this case) an appellant to argue that he could not see them ( as in this case) because they were obscured by stationary large vehicles. In this case the appellant points to (in the still image) at least one double decker bus which is stationary on the left side of Henshall Street at the time of the incident and which he say obscured his view of it. This may well have been the case. However I cannot verify from the evidence before me whether his view of the other sign was similarly obscured by a double decker on the other side - the still image does not show this and I have not seen the CCTV recording. The appellant's evidence was strongly to the effect that his view was obscured and even though I approached such clarity of recall with caution, from my perusal of the position of the signs on either side of Henshall Street I am forced to conclude that in heavy traffic this is at least possible.

The remaining sign is of course those 'Give Way' road markings which should be present at the junction and in accordance with one way traffic only. The still images are not clear and in respect of those showing the entrance to Henshall Street itself, in both cases cars obscure the view. The appellant argued that the traffic was too heavy to permit him an unencumbered view and that in any event he had no reason to anticipate such markings - he had not seen either the warning or the 'entrance' signs.

It was therefore my conclusion that in this appeal and on these facts to conclude that the appeal should be allowed.


The above is brilliant! Thanks so much for sending. Do i understand that you yourself are the appellant? If so congratulations!!

Mr Mustard, would be great to get your take on the above. Seems to be the way to go.
DancingDad
Don't forget some of the other cases in support
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...st&p=620802
mrmajestic
QUOTE (Mr Mustard @ Thu, 19 Feb 2015 - 20:36) *
Hi Hippocrates. Far too busy, got £millions of debts to collect but still done 31 pcn this year. Lost 1



Hi Mr M, did you get that info I sent you?
Mr Mustard
Sorry, been busy. Far too many PCn on my desk & a real job.

I had spotted that the use of a no left turn sign no. 612 or no right turn 613 should only be sited at the junction and not 50m before it. The advice is in Chapter 3 Traffic Signs Manual at para 4.18 and the chief adjudicator picked this up. Her decision was in october and your alleged contravention was not until December. Councils are meant to take note of adjudicator's decisions so should have changed the sign. I think they can be discounted i.e. traeted as not existing and then that leaves you just with the poor sighting of the signs at the junction itself which get obscured by traffic until too late and it was dark in December at 4pm which makes them harder to see.

I also note that the Zengrab authorisation is only for bus lanes (unless I missed the moving traffic authorisation somewhere?) You might be able to argue that the PCN is invalid as the right to use the camera in this way has not been produced.

Best of luck.
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.