Free Traffic Legal Advice

Afternoon All....quick update and request for further advice/thoughts.

Received a response (appeal refused ) from London Tribunals as follows:

////////
Adjudicator's Reasons

This vehicle on the council's case, on two occasions, performed a prohibited turn it carrying out a u-turn on Ilford High Road when prohibited by signage from doing so.
The case upon which the appellant relies is not recorded on tribunal systems under the reference number provided (2110041915).
I acknowledge that on both of these occasions the vehicle turned right onto private land it then exiting that land turning left onto the carriageway.
The High Court in R v (Alexander) v The Parking Adjudicator and London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2014] EWHC 560 (Admin) has confirmed that a 'no u-turn' sign includes a prohibition on any manoeuvre that allows the motorist to turn around and go back the way he came. There is no requirement on the motorist to have driven in one continuous sweep; a three point turn or other manoeuvre is included in the sign commonly known as a 'no u turn' sign.
I am bound by decisions of the High Court.
I am satisfied on the evidence before me applying that decision that these contraventions have
occurred.
The appeal is refused.

Andrew Harman
Adjudicator
15th October 2024
////////


It seems the Adjudicator has completely disregarded my reference to and reliance upon para42 of the Azadegan panel hearing.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.562847,0.0934338,17.69z?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

By the same token, would I be right in saying that any vehicle which is travelling along High Rd (Westbound), takes a left turn into either Cricklefield Place or Clark's Rd and then irrespective of the time lapsed, exits the same road by taking a right turn back onto High Rd (Eastbound), has performed a prohibited u-turn?

Could the same be argued for a vehicle which travelling along High Rd (Westbound), takes a left turn into:
a) Highbury Gardens and goes anti-clockwise around the block; or
b) New Rd and somehow turns around;
and then exits New Rd by taking a right turn back onto High Rd (Eastbound)?
Surely these are also then classed as u-turns???

Do I have any other recourse or do I just take this [twice] on the chin?

Thoughts/advice welcome.

Regards - NTIAEP

You can ask for a review of the decision but I don't think you'll get one.

I didn't think you'd win this as for me you didn't leave the road but went on a publicly accessible part of the road extending to the building line.

There is case 2110041915 so not sure what he's on about there.

Of course you can exit the main road and go down a side road and turn around and turn back in the opposite direction provided those turns are allowed.

Review info:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/how-can-i-challenge-outcome-my-appeal

The no u-turn zone is there to protect against potentially dangerous turning by drivers trying to defeat the right turn. So if you want to defeat it by going down a side road that's not an issue as it's nothing to do with the contravention.

Hang on. We need to see the whole file to advise re a review which is a very technical exercise. Please do not shoot anything off first. You have 14 days from the decision. When did you receive it? IMO you are too late.

Submitted the request for a review and have received the following response from London Tribunals:


"Having considered your correspondence, the adjudicator has decided that your case should be listed
as an application for review.

Your case will enter the list for a decision on [ddmmyyyy] and will be considered by an
adjudicator as soon as possible after that date.

If, on considering the application, the adjudicator decides that the previous decision should be
reviewed, the review may be conducted immediately or scheduled to be heard at a later date.\\\\\\\2

Case details are available within previous messages in this thread.


Link to redacted request for review of appeal decision

I take it your tribunal hearing was done on papers?  As in you didn't attend (either in person, remotely or by phone?)

It would seem to me this is a classic case to emphasis why it is always important to not rely on papers.

That is correct.  But why should it make a difference?  Surely the outcome should be based only and solely on the circumstances of the case and the evidence presented (to which I would have had nothing to add to had I 'attended').

On average, adjudicators hear ca. 15 cases a day. I recently won a review because the original adjudicator made a mistake. It was a postal hearing. If I had been there, the mistake would not have happened.  If you want help with this, you need to PM me. Dropbox files are no good for me.