Free Traffic Legal Advice

Case from tribunal at the location yesterday where review was turned down.

--------------

2240329909

The allegation in this case is failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn. The Appellant disputes this, asserting that the she did not perform a U-turn.

She says that she turned right into an alley with a view to parking there but there was already a vehicle there so she reversed back onto the road and continued her journey.

The Appellant criticises the quality of the signage but says that she knows that a U-turn is prohibited at this location. The quality of the signage is not material therefore but in any event I am satisfied the Enforcement Authority photographs show clear signage.

It is well established law that what is commonly described as a ‘‘No U turn’’ sign does not simply prohibit a manoeuvre in the precise parabola seen on the sign. The sign indicates that the motorist may not reverse his direction of travel, whether that be in one sweeping movement or by the use of forward and reverse gears.

The enforcement camera footage shows a clear example of the contravention with the vehicle using what looks like a vehicle crossover in order to perform a three-point-turn. I do not accept the circumstances described by the Appellant but even if I did she has not established anything which goes beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion. An Adjudicator has no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.

Decision Date   07 Nov 2024
Adjudicator   Philippa Alderson
Previous decision   Appeal refused
Appeal decision   Appeal refused
Direction   Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons   
The Appellant is seeking a review of the refusal of her appeal, such refusal being dated 2nd October 2024.
The Appellant has not attended today, despite having confirmed receipt of the review schedule letter. No explanation has been provided for her non-attendance. I therefore find it proportionate to decide the matter in her absence.
I have carefully considered the Appellant's written representations in support of this application.
A review hearing is not an automatic rehearing. In order to proceed with a review hearing, an adjudicator must be satisfied that at least one of the criteria set out below are met.
The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, Schedule 1, Part 2 deals with procedure relating to an application to review: 12 (1) The Adjudicator may, on the application of a party, review –(a) Any interlocutory decision; or (b) Any decision to determine that a notice of appeal does not accord with paragraph 2 or to dismiss or allow an appeal, or any decision as to costs, on one or more of the following grounds:– (i) The decision was wrongly made as the result of an administrative error (ii) The adjudicator was wrong to reject the notice of appeal (iii) A party who failed to appear or be represented at a hearing had good and sufficient reason for his failure to appear(iv) Where the decision was made after a hearing, new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing, the existence of which could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen (v) Where the decision was made without a hearing, new evidence has become available since the decision was made, the existence of which could not reasonably have been known of or foreseen; or (vi) the interests of justice require such a review.
An adjudicator may confirm, revoke or vary a decision.
Having considered the above criteria, I find that none are applicable in this case. Regulation 12 (b) (i) - (iii) are not relevant. There is no fresh evidence in this matter, and therefore subparagraphs (iv) and (v) are not relevant. In respect of subparagraph (vi), a party cannot simply ask for a review of the decision because they think it is wrong. Each review request will depend on its own facts. The availability of the review procedure should not be taken to mean that in every case where a litigant is unsuccessful, they are automatically entitled to a review - virtually every unsuccessful litigant thinks that the interests of justice require the outcome to be reconsidered. The ground only applies where something has gone radically wrong with the procedure involving a denial of natural justice or something of that order.
I find that no ground for review has been established I therefore refuse this application.

The Order states:

////////////////////
Commencement and Citation
1. This Order shall come into operation on the 18th July 2016 and shall be cited as the Redbridge (Prescribed Routes) (No. 1) Order 2016.
Revocations
2. This Order hereby revokes The London Borough of Redbridge (Prescribed Routes) (No. 4) Traffic Order 2003.
Definitions
3. "U-Turn" means a vehicle moving in one direction, turning so as to move in the opposite direction.
Interpretation
4. Save as provided in Article 5 of this Order, no person shall cause or permit any vehicle proceeding in the south-westbound direction on High Road Seven Kings and High Road Ilford to make a U-turn between a point 33 metres south-west of the south-western kerb line of Seven Kings Road and a point 20 metres south-west of the south-western kerb line of Clark's Road.
5. Nothing in this Order shall apply to:
   a. Anything done with the permission, or at the direction, of a police officer in uniform.
   b. Any vehicle being used for Police, Fire Brigade or Ambulance purposes when being used in an emergency
   c. Any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs placed in pursuant to Section 66 or Section 67 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
////////////////////


My [other] contention is that the Adjudicator's reference to Alexander is incorrect in that in Alexander, the vehicle didn't leave the 'road'.  Or to put it another way, if I were to overlay my case on top of Alexander, my vehicle took a right-turn into the entrance of Barons Keep, entering the private grounds completely and then leaving these via the exit gate by taking a left-turn.

@cp8759 Surely this has been misapplied? https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/560.html

The vehicle left the carriageway. Very imminent hearing.

The Panel Decision concerned 2110041915 and 2110032583. Yet this:

Azadegan -v- Hammersmith and Fulham

56. Following our findings as to exactly what constitutes a U-turn, we are satisfied that the manoeuvre carried out by the driver in this case was such a turn, which is prohibited. The contravention therefore occurred.
Accordingly, on Review of matter number 2110078336, the original decision to allow the appeal is REVOKED. The effect is the same as if the original appeal had been refused but, for the reasons set out at paragraph 9 above, on this particular occasion no further direction is necessary.

2110078336? Having looked at the DVD evidence again I find that the vehicle did not leave the road, as defined above. Had it done so and gone into the car park then there would have been no contravention.

The vehicle did not leave the road, however and the manoeuvre, I find, amounted to a U turn. I have to find therefore that the penalty notice was properly issued. It follows that I must refuse the appeal.

2110032583: On the other hand, a U-turn does not occur simply because a vehicle has travelled in the opposite direction. If a vehicle turns into a side road and performs a U-turn in the side road the emerge at the junction and travels in the opposite direction, no U-turn occurred on the main road even though the vehicle went in the exact opposite direction. The U-turn occurred on the side road. The Appellant appeared to have done just that although the turn was a three point turn as opposed to a U-turn, and it took place very close to the junction.



I am satisfied that the Appellant has in fact entered the minor road when he performed a three point turn. The contravention has not occurred. I am allowing the appeal.

**

I cannot fathom how the High Court case applies to this particular issue at all.

Great result and rightly so!! 

As advised by the more learned on this forum, I attended in-person and accompanied @Hippocrates who kindly offered to represent me, and it was lovely to meet the legend himself and see one of the forum maestros at work.  He allowed me to contribute whilst ensuring that I didn't put my foot in it.  His knowledge, the diplomacy with a small side-serving of candour and the mutually respectful relationship with the adjudicator, all whilst battling with his laptop was a sight to behold.

Along with the other Musketeers on here, a true credit to the forum and a saviour of those innocent motorists who are seen as a cash cow by our councils.  If only more of us were brave enough (circumstances permitting of course) to take them to tribunal and further if necessary, rather than just coughing up at first demand.

God bless him and the other unsung heroes on here.

Many thanks also to all others who contributed to the thread...is much appreciated.

Regards - NTIAEP

2240345188