Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello, I'm hoping someone may be able to help with this PCN that my father has received. Seems lots of people have been caught out here on other posts I've spotted so looking for advice on the best course of action at this time. Is an appeal worth it here? If so, I would be very grateful if someone could help with the appeal please.

Details of the PCN:

Council - Ealing
The alleged contravention - 32JD Failing to proceed in direction shown on blue sign
Location - Greenford - I believe at the junction of Greenford Road / The Broadway / Ruislip Road

I have included links below to the pictures of the PCN and CCTV images and video provided by the council on viewmypcn.

https://imgpile.com/p/EXMdZBh

Please post a GSV link so we can see what is on the traffic lights you were standing at.

Thanks for your response Incandescent. I'm 99% sure this is the junction based on the video, however I will double check with my father in the morning.

So here is a less crowded GSV view (Sept 22) showing the traffic light displays: -

and another for Aug 21

Note the mandatory right turn arrow.
The views show that the LH lights are for the LH lane and display green arrows for straight ahead and left. When this array is green, the RH lane array is red, then when the LH lane array is red, the RH lane array shows a green mandatory right turn arrow. So the inference from the video, which doesn't show the traffic light displays, is that your father went ahead on red.  However, by not showing the traffic lights, and hence the signs passed, he could well have a case at London Tribunals, but must, of course, first submit representations to Ealing.

If you go onto GSV and then to the street view, at top left of the view in the black box, you'll see the date of the view, then to the right (in blue text), 'See more dates' This only appears if there are more views.

It's best if you or your father write the representations to the council.They have to prove their case, so for reps, (which will be rejected no matter how valid), you just need to say that the video does not show you passing and restrictive signs or aspects on the traffic lights and leave it at that.

Problem with all the decriminalised legislation is that "representations", and "appeals" are used far too often for the same thing; they aren't. Only adjudicators rule on 'appeals', everything else submitted against a PCN or a Notice to Owner, are 'representations, ('reps' for short). Even councils commonly get this wrong, so I understand your confusion, but the key point is that representations are submitted to councils and also Transport for London who have a financial interest in the result. Appeals are dealt with by adjudicators who have no financial interest in the result. 

By rejecting virtually all reps (sorry !!), they ruthlessly game the system for their financial benefit. This is because on getting a rejection, most people, (like >95%),  then just cough-up to get the discount, knowing little or even nothing about the law and regulations that govern enforcement of PCNs. Many people don't even realise it is a civil not a criminal matter and think if they take the matter to adjudication, they'll be charged huge sums if they lose. This is totally incorrect; the maximum possible financial exposure is the full PCN penalty which is payable if one loses at adjudication; there are no additional costs whatever. Some even worry they may get a CCJ. This is impossible in the present system which was very carefully written to make sure CCJs can never be awarded for parking and traffic contraventions involving council PCN enforcement.

The point about submitting reps is that you can only take a case to the adjudicators once you have had reps to the council rejected; that is how the system works.
You also hope that they will shoot themselves in the foot in their reply and this happens more times than you might think. Replies that are complete tosh are commonplace, and then give the basis for an appeal to the adjudicators.  Total misstatements of the law are very common, like that for Yellow Box Junctions. Also, if you just roll-over and cough-up, they benefit even more by having to do virtally no work at all to get their money. We call it "Joing the Mugged Club".

To be frank, I don't think your father has a strong case for an adjudication at London Tribunals or even any case. Nobody has posted so far to suggest one.

If it brings closure, then pay the discount, by all means. Note that the council will re-offer it when rejecting his reps. so nothing lost. Any reps based on mitigation are almost certain to be rejected, and I see no case base on the traffic signs at the location. One just has to be very careful when driving around London, because such are the huge sums now being accrued from PCN penalties, one has to wonder why central government hasn't stepped in to stop this ruthless, venal, and rapacious racket.

PCN revenues in London based on over 9.5 million PCNs per annum
, if all paid at the discounted rate, gives a revenue of over £750 million pounds. (Evidence from Mr Mustard, one of our regulars on here).

Yes, that appeal text looks as it it could win, but that particular one didn't. Whilst winning adjudications can be quoted in reps, an adjudication is not a ruling that applies to all similar cases subsequently. We have seen, over the years, adjudicators actually failing to follow their own previous adjudication on identical cases ! They don't have to justify anything at all, except at a judicial review, if the aggrieved appellant can afford it, and almost nobody can.