Leeds City Council, 50J Performing a prohibited turn (camera enforcement), Banned Turn Green Inc Stonegate Rd

Hi,

Thanks for looking into this. There aren't any traffic lights at the top of this junction.

This is the top of that junction: https://imgpile.com/m/l5M7SHk

Is there any argument in that the signage is not even visible in their camera footage? I linked to that video in my original post.

Unless I can argue legally the signage is not adequate, I'm not sure how much of a case I have. What would be main points be, are their set regulations on what type of signs there should be at a junction like this? Especially one where historically you used to be able to turn right.

I am still awaiting for my FOI request on this junction. I've just nudged them because it's passed 20 days.

*apologies for the typos

I've received a response regarding my FOI request. They've sent most of the information requested as below:

1. PCNs issued at this specific location
a. The date on which camera enforcement commenced and the date on which the first PCN was issued.
28th November 2025
 
b. The number of vehicle contraventions detected by the camera, broken down by month.
month and

c. The number of PCNs actually issued, broken down by month (same figures provided for b & c).

Banned
Turn        No. Issued
Nov-25 - 162
Dec-25 - 373
Jan-26 - 281
Feb-26 - 382
Mar-26 - 446
Apr-26 - 352
May-26 - 448
Jun-26 - 409
Jul-26 - 359
Aug-26 - 394
 
d. The total number of PCNs issued at this location since enforcement commenced.
3606
 
2. Representations and cancellations
Please provide:
a. The number of representations/challenges received concerning PCNs issued at this specific location.
112
 
b. The number of those PCNs subsequently cancelled?
Appeal Accepted 28
 
c. Where this information is recorded, the number of representations which referred to:
•    unclear or confusing signage;
•    confusion about the road layout or permitted movements;
•    the junction having been altered or reconfigured; or
•    motorists believing that the manoeuvre was permitted.
•    the alleged contravention did not occur
•    Other compelling reasons
See response to Q2d. below
 
d. The number of PCNs cancelled following representations on any of the above grounds. –
Appeals done by the appellant are not recorded as for reasons why, this is not something we record, this also answers Q2c.
 
3. Signage and road layout
Please provide copies of, or links to, any documents held by the Council showing the signage, road markings and road layout relating to this prohibited turn at the time camera enforcement commenced, including: -
•    relevant site plans or drawings;
•    photographs;
•    details of the signs installed and their positions;
•    details of the road markings;
•    records of any subsequent changes to the signs, markings or road layout; and
•    any inspection or compliance records relating to the signage and markings before enforcement commenced.
We are continuing to collate information relevant to this request and will provide a further response when it is available.
 
4. Traffic Regulation Order
Please provide a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order, amendment order or other legal instrument which creates the prohibited turn enforced by this camera, together with any relevant map, schedule or plan.
Please also confirm:
the date on which the restriction came into force;
the precise prohibited movement covered by the order; and
whether the order has subsequently been amended.
 
I can confirm that the information you have requested is reasonably accessible to you by other means and is therefore exempt from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.  The relative information, Traffic Regulation Order and associated plans are publicly available via Leeds TraffWeb at the following link: https://leeds.traffweb.app/   As the information is already publicly available and reasonably accessible, the authority is not required to provide it again under the Act. If you have any difficulty accessing the information using the link above, please contact us and we will be happy to provide further assistance.

The numbers seem telling. If the signage was clear surely these numbers should be going down since it was introduced. They seem consistently high. Is this a strong argument should I appeal?

Just had a thought that if this is a mandatory left turn, why don't the traffic lights green phase show left turn arrows.

For me the whole signage array here is a Dog's Breakfast, an indicative of a cheap and nasty scheme. I would go for the council failing in their duty to erect adequate signage to convey the restriction, but you'll only get a positive result at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. If th council had put green directional arrows on the traffic lights green phase, plus a NRT sign below, I don't think you would ever succeed

So it now is up to you; take the Double-or-Quits gamble at TPT or just cough-up the discount. I have to say, though,  that I don't think success is 'slam dunk'.

Here's Regulation 10 of LATOR 1996: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18

Thanks for your assessment. The council have send some more images of the plans and junction as well as the stats I've dropped above. I'd love to get any feedback on these figures. They have not dropped since it was implemented at the end of November 2025, surely if the signage was adequate these figures should have dropped after people got used to the change.

Here's what the council sent over: https://imgpile.com/p/4whaf3C

This is a straightforward question of whether or not an adjudicator will find the overall signage scheme to be adequate.

On the minus side we have the fact that there are 3 clues that went begging:

- an advance warning sign, a bit to the left but there to be seen
- a statutory no right turn sign
- an arrow on the road, it also is a statutory sign

Neutral: Signage would be better if a second turn right sign was on the opposite side of Stonegate so it is front of a driver when they decide what to do at the give way line.

Plus side: The Sxchedule 3 General Directions of TSRGD requires the sign to be placed 'When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point.' and I think it should be adjacent to the give way sign. Will an adjudicator agree? There is only one way to find out. Forget about the discount and start an Appeal at TPT.

Would I do that if it was me? probably not.

This is a straightforward question of whether or not an adjudicator will find the overall signage scheme to be adequate.

On the minus side we have the fact that there are 3 clues that went begging:

- an advance warning sign, a bit to the left but there to be seen
- a statutory no right turn sign
- an arrow on the road, it also is a statutory sign

Neutral: Signage would be better if a second turn right sign was on the opposite side of Stonegate so it is front of a driver when they decide what to do at the give way line.

Plus side: The Sxchedule 3 General Directions of TSRGD requires the sign to be placed 'When the sign is placed to indicate the point at which a restriction, requirement or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed as near as practicable to that point.' and I think it should be adjacent to the give way sign. Will an adjudicator agree? There is only one way to find out. Forget about the discount and start an Appeal at TPT.

Would I do that if it was me? probably not.

Thank you so much for your assessment @mrmustard. I was on that junction just yesterday and low and behold a car turned right. Is there anything to be deduced from the figures they've sent over that will support my case?  Also is there any further argument to use that in their own video of the alleged contravention that you can't even see any signs that indicate it's a left turn only except the floor marking.

No & no.

Okay, thanks.

Just another observation, respect of the advanced warning sign with the mapping of the route. This is placed just ahead of a bus stop, so if a bus is at the stop that first sign can easily be missed as you navigate around the bus.

I suggest you stop hypothesising.

If you want to say that there was a bus - an argument which you did not advance at the reps stage and which would IMO p***-off the adjudicator- as a result of which you did not see the sign, then say so. The adjudicator would then look at the video to test your assertion, and IMO not agree.

Your arguments regarding the contravention were advanced in your reps and would therefore be in evidence at a hearing.

As this contravention is regulated by the TMA, General and Appeals Regs then I suggest you change your focus.

Procedural impropriety;

1. The PCN states that the date of service of the NOR, and therefore the date which starts the 28-day clock, is 30/9/2026. I refer the adjudicator to para. 3 page 2 of the NOR which states:
' The Penalty Charge of £70 is now payable. This must be paid before the end of the 28 days beginning with the date of service of this Notice 30/9/2026.'

At para. 6 the NOR states:
'If you do not appeal and do not pay the Penalty Charge within the period set above, Leeds City Council may serve a Charge Certificate on you increasing the penalty charge by 50%. '

As no other period is mentioned in the NOR, then I ask the adjudicator to accept that the latter statement must refer to the period 'of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the Notice 30/9/2026.'

Although not stated in the NOR, the date of service is presumed to be 2 working days after posting.

The date of posting was Thurs. 24 Sept. It therefore follows that the date of service was Mon. 28 Sept. 2 whole days before the date stated in the NOR. The NOR makes no reference to how the date of service is to be calculated and therefore it must be the case that the recipient would act upon the date given i.e. 30 Sept, and by doing so place themselves in serious jeopardy because they do not have this time; the adjudicator could reject an appeal submitted on 29th or 30th and the authority could serve a Charge Certificate.

I submit that this is a material defect in the NOR and thereby a 'procedural impropriety'.

The authority has also failed to address the issue of 'costs' within the NOR, which again is a procedural impropriety.

Should the authority argue that the latter is covered within the Tribunal notice which is included after the signature block, not referenced within the NOR and therefore does not form part of the decision notice, I would submit that this hardly helps them as that sheet states that 'you should appeal within 28 days of delivery of this notice' which is not what is required to be included in the NOR but seems to form part of an information sheet prepared by the Tribunal to help guide prospective appellants in the context of the obligatory wording in a NOR.

Some thoughts.