Free Traffic Legal Advice

Approaching on Durham Road, I failed to notice the NRT signs on Coombe Lane, and turned left (through the NRT signs) then immediately into the prohibited right into the supermarket car park.

GSV here https://maps.app.goo.gl/9tsSe3EF7VFbxJTz5 .

The photo evidence shows the left hand NRT sign and my car, and the video clearly show the prohibited right turn happening.
My appeal, within the initial 14 days, was based on the location of the tree at the junction which obscures the left hand NRT sign - if I can't see it I can't obey it. The tree is itself visible in the video evidence and GSV. I provided my own photo taken at the junction itself showing that the tree hides the sign from a driver waiting at the junction to turn left similar to what you see on GSV.

I received rejection today via email/pdf. However, their description of the contravention, and their reasoning for rejection, is based on a different contravention - stopping in a yellow box. The evidence clearly shows there is no yellow box. The rejection letter does not state the original contravention code or description.

Original PCN here: https://postimg.cc/NKshW7CQ
Rejection letter here: https://postimg.cc/qNbFWfCG

Help requested:
- Can I appeal based on them accusing me of the wrong contravention in the rejection letter?
- Is there another appeal basis that I'm missing?

It's a classic case of "failure to cosider" because the letter doesn't even mention the alleged contravention on the PCN !
If it was me, I'd take them all the way to London Tribunals, which is, in fact, you next option appart from paying, of course.

Thanks to both Hippocrates and Incandescent.

My understanding of "failure to consider" having now read other posts, is they didn't adequately consider my appeal - is this reasoning complete? :
- on the rejection letter they do not state which contravention is alleged to have occurred, and
- their reasoning for rejection describes a different contravention (stopping in box junction rather than NRT) to that on the original PCN, and
- the evidence doesn't show me performing the box junction contravention described but not stated in the rejection?

Bit of clarification needed for my understanding: the text at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted states "A penalty charge notice under this section must..." -  is the Notice Of Rejection technically a PCN?

My draught Tribunal appeal text would currently be:

"The authority has failed to consider my appeal adequately, on a number of grounds:
1) The NOTICE OF REJECTION letter fails to state the alleged contravention clearly.
2) The authority states "We sent you a PCN because our camera evidence shows your vehicle stopped on a yellow box junction" - I believe they are possibly referring to a "31 - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited" contravention. This is not the contravention alleged on the original PCN.
3)The authority then continues on to describe when and how stopping in a box junction is and isn't permitted, and concludes that I did commit the contravention. The evidence shows no box junction, nor a box junction contravention occurring.

Given the above, it is clear that the authority has failed to consider my appeal adequately."

Too much. Fun time if you simply state: I rely upon my formal representations and the council's wholly unreasonable NOR in their entirety. There was no such contravention as alleged in the latter. 

I would rather do this on your behalf.

I simply must refer to this bunch in my Radio Jackie interview on Thursday.

Not published yet as awaiting for RBK's response. But it will be a corker. E mail sent re your case.

OP, the complete NOR pl.