Footage? I posted the video.
Apart from the website issue a basic fact if playing dumb is in the appeal below - if you came in the other end you would have breached a no entry but not a blue arrow.
Case reference 2230158559
Appellant xxxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM OV64 DVB
PCN Details
PCN HG49158232
Contravention date 30 Nov 2022
Contravention time 10:54:00
Contravention location Angel Way
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Apr 2023
Adjudicator Jack Walsh
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons This is an allegation of failing to comply with a one-way restriction. As with any restriction, it is incumbent on the enforcement authority (EA) to provide signage of the prescribed kind that is adequate to inform road users of the restriction.
In this case, there is evidence of 'one way' signage on the street in question, in one of the photographs provided by the EA. The 'one way' signage faces motorists proceeding in the correct direction on the street. There is also, it would appear from the marked map, 'no entry' signage preventing motorists from entering the street in the wrong direction. It is possible that the appellant's motor vehicle passed that signage. However, not only is there no direct evidence that the 'no entry' signage was present and that the appellant's vehicle passed it, the PCN was not issued for failing to comply with a 'no entry' sign.
The CCTV footage shows the appellant's vehicle pulling off from the kerb and driving in the wrong direction on the street specified in the PCN. There is no evidence at all, however, that it ever passed, in the correct direction, any 'one way' signage. Rather, precisely because it was driving in the wrong direction, there is no evidence that the driver saw anything other than the backs of the 'one way signs'. There is no evidence that there was signage of the prescribed kind that was available for this motorist to see.
I am afraid that the wrong contravention was alleged here, with the wrong evidence. If there had been evidence that the vehicle drove, in the correct direction, past the 'one way' signage and then turned to drive in the opposite direction, the contravention would have been capable of proof. Alternatively, if there had been evidence that the vehicle drove past 'no entry' signs then the PCN could have been issued for that contravention.
On the evidence I am unable to find the contravention that was actually alleged, proved.
It is with considerable regret that I have to allow this appeal because the representations and the notice of appeal are of a type upon which I commented in 2220387017 Uddin v. LB Redbridge. Both documents appear to have been written in the same hand but, quite remarkably, have totally different content and even use different names. I have no doubt whatsoever that they are both generic works of fiction written by the same prolific but careless author. These 'Uddin' type representations and appeals are a scourge and a waste of public money.
