Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello.

I've received another PCN from Waltham Forest. I only used the space to reverse and do a 3-point turn then back onto a two-way road (Acacia Road) there are no camera enforcement signs mounted anywhere on Acacia Road neither are there traffic signs prohibiting U-turns and I did not drive fully into Verulam Avenue. Video footage did not highlight 'CONTRAVENTION'.

Can anybody kindly assist with an appeal on this? Thank you.

https://imgur.com/a/iZvq6Ss

But there is 'prohibited signage' preventing entry into Verulam Avenue.

There is indeed. And there is no need for "camera enforcement signs".

The PCN is for contravention 51- Failing to comply with a no-entry sign. The vehicle did not drive the whole vehicle's length into the road or 10 metres into the road it only did a reversing manoeuvre, a 3-point turn as seen in the video.

Surely a contravention can only stand if a vehicle fully drives through a prohibited sign as in the video footage this did not occur.

IMO the best you could argue is de minimis and you did not see the sign as you were reversing.  They will reject of course.  I saw the video.

De Minimis? How do I use this in an appeal?

The legal maxim is "de minimis non curat lex", which is usually translated as "the law does not concern itself with trifles". So you need to argue (and evidence) that you only crossed the line by a trifling amount - 3", 6" or whatever.

As above, I don't give much for your chances.

I don't see how any adjudicator would consider this de-minimis, if it were an exit from a motorway slip road it would be prosecuted by the police and I don't see that de-minimis would get you anywhere. A no entry sign is an absolute prohibition and I wouldn't run a de-minimis argument on this one.

The only angle I can see here is an attack on the wording of the notice, specifically on the basis that the ground that you're not the owner suggests it is mandatory to supply the information on who you bought the vehicle from or who you sold it to, while the law says you only have to supply this information if you have it. The notice could mislead you into thinking that if you're recently bought or sold the vehicle but no longer have the buyer's or seller's details then you can't make representations, which is misleading.

@mrmustard you've previously mentioned the Lopez decision on this point but I don't have the case number?

The council will inevitably reject so this would require risking the full amount at the tribunal.

@antman40 you need to decide if you want to risk the full penalty on a technical argument, if you want to give it a go I'm happy to draft a representation for you.

OK, I hear what is said, but this PCN is just venal money-grubbing. A minor street with almost no traffic at all; crazy ! But then who am I to counter the council money-making apparatus !

Re de minimis, with respect the wrong signs are being looked at.

While the 'zone end' signs draw the eye, the No Entry signs are actually separate and sit further forward, in fact almost in line with the road markings.

Virtually the complete van was in contravention. De minimis is a no-hoper.

Also, GSV is only 1 year old and shows the No Entry signs and IMO and adjudicator would accept this evidence, which they could find for themselves, as proving that these signs were in situ using the balance of probabilities test.

What the hell the end of Pedestrian Zone signs refer to, I've no idea. I cannot find else anything which corresponds, but it's not germane to the OP's case.