Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please post the PCN and also a GSV link.

Please tell us your movements to get to the start of the video.

@Incandescent

I believe she was travelling from North Street, then took a left at the traffic lights (ASDA junction) onto London road, and then further up made the left turn into James Street. She then did a u-turn (seen in the video), dropped my son off at the end of the road, then took a right back onto London road.


I've posted links to PCN and GSV below:

PCN

GSV

I have posted a draft representation below.

I write to formally contest the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that there was no contravention of an order, or failure to comply with an indication on a sign.

The driver entered James Street from the correct end of the road. She then performed a U-turn and drove back out the way she came. In doing so, she passed the reverse side of the "one way" sign. There were no "no entry" signs present at the point of entry or anywhere visible to the driver.

The contravention alleged 29J, failing to comply with a one-way restriction requires evidence that the driver passed prescribed "one way" signage facing them, and then failed to comply with it. That situation did not occur here. The driver entered lawfully from the correct end, and when she exited, she saw only the back of the sign, which carries no legal instruction to a road user.

I rely on the decision of Adjudicator Jack Walsh in case 2230158559 (London Borough of Havering, 15 April 2023), which allowed an appeal against an identical 29J contravention on precisely this basis. The adjudicator held that because the vehicle was travelling in the wrong direction, there was no evidence the driver ever saw or could have seen any prescribed one-way signage facing them. He concluded that the wrong contravention had been alleged and that it was incapable of proof on the evidence available.

The same applies here. The CCTV footage will show the vehicle entering from the correct end, making a U-turn, and exiting. It cannot show the driver passing a "one way" sign face-on and ignoring it, because that did not happen.

I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Appeals are won here when coming from further back but some adjudicators likely to say that having just driven past the one way sign then it's a contravention and you were on notice. 

But the left-hand sign is behind hoarding - see case below. And maybe the only way out is to enter the car park?



Case reference   2240458865
Appellant   Saima Khatun
Authority   London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
VRM   PK22SRU
   
PCN Details
PCN   BZ80968742
Contravention date   06 Sep 2024
Contravention time   17:59:00
Contravention location   James Street
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   12 Nov 2024
Adjudicator   Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   Ms Parin Begum has attended the hearing by telephone today as the authorised representative of the appellant. Ms Begum tells me that she was also a passenger in the car at the time of the alleged contravention.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of failing to comply with a one way restriction in James Street.
The CCTV footage from the Council does not show the appellant's car being driven past any one way signage. The footage shows one way signage facing traffic in the opposite direction on turning into James Street. A motorist cannot fail to comply with a sign which is not facing them.
Even turning in from the junction, the signage in place was not fit for purpose because the sign on the left hand side of the road was completely obscured from view by construction hoarding.
I also accept the appellant's evidence that the other end of James Street was blocked off due to construction works. The appellant has explained that she had to turn back when she came to the top of the road. A motorist cannot fail to comply with a restriction where compliance ceases to be a physical possibility.
I allow the appeal for these reasons.

@stamfordman @Hippocrates @Incandescent
Any thoughts on my second draft?

I write to formally contest the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that there was no contravention of an order, or failure to comply with an indication on a sign.

The driver entered James Street from the correct end of the road. She then performed a U-turn and drove back out the way she came. In doing so, she passed the reverse side of the "one way" sign. There were no "no entry" signs present at the point of entry or anywhere visible to the driver.

The contravention alleged — 29J, failing to comply with a one-way restriction — requires evidence that the driver passed prescribed "one way" signage facing them, and then failed to comply with it. That situation did not occur here. The driver entered lawfully from the correct end, and when she exited, she saw only the back of the sign, which carries no legal instruction to a road user.
Furthermore, at the time of the alleged contravention, the one-way sign on the left-hand side of James Street was obscured by construction hoarding and was not visible to the driver upon entry. A motorist cannot be found to have failed to comply with a sign that was not visible to them.

I rely on two directly relevant tribunal decisions:

Case 2240458865 — Khatun v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (12 November 2024), which concerned an identical 29J contravention on James Street itself. Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne allowed the appeal on the basis that the CCTV footage did not show the vehicle passing any one-way signage facing the driver, that the left-hand sign was completely obscured by construction hoarding, and that a motorist cannot fail to comply with a sign that is not facing them.

Case 2230158559 — London Borough of Havering (15 April 2023), in which Adjudicator Jack Walsh allowed an appeal against an identical 29J contravention, holding that the contravention requires proof that the driver passed prescribed one-way signage face-on. Where a vehicle travels in the wrong direction, the driver sees only the backs of the signs, and the contravention is incapable of proof.
The CCTV footage in this case will show the vehicle entering from the correct end, making a U-turn, and exiting. It cannot show the driver passing a "one way" sign face-on and ignoring it, because that did not happen. The signage was in any event not fit for purpose due to the hoarding obstruction.

I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.