Author Topic: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd. (Read 2234 times)

zeezee · « **on:** December 29, 2023, 10:54:20 pm »

Hi All,

The first post on the new forum - Looks and feels better!

So I turned right (prohibited) into a road that I was not supposed to. At the time I didn't see the signs but I have been back since and they are up.

Just posting up to see if there was any chance of me fighting this out from any angle.

Many Thanks for the help as always - whether it's a win or lose.

https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/ParkingPCN/Review

Incandescent · « **Reply #1 on:** December 29, 2023, 11:55:02 pm »

Both traffic light signal heads have a No Right Turn sign on them, plus there is a separate sign on the right-hand side of the road: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Szx9yqdqnYAcUBgr5
Video shows a clear contravention with no hesitation about making the turn.

I have to say I see no credible appeal based on their evidence. Did you just chance your arm and hope to get away with it, because that is what it looks like to me ?

However the PCN is flawed in the box headed "Do not ignore this notice"
It states you must pay the PCN penalty within 28 days of the date of the notice. In the same paragraph, it then goes on to say that you must either pay the PCN penalty or submit representations within 28 days from the date of service of the notice.

So when must you pay, because they've given you two separate 28 day periods to pay the PCN; which one is correct ?
The reason councils get this wrong is because the Act under which the PCN is served is itself flawed, mandating payment of the PCN 28 days from date of notice, and submission of representations from date of service of notice. Service is assumed in law to be 2 days after the notice date. So if you submit reps on day 30 from the date of notice, you're within the period for submitting reps, but out-of-time for paying the PCN !!

So by mis-stating the payment period the PCN is flawed and a nullity.

zeezee · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2023, 01:43:13 pm »

So my intention was not to do that right-turn, but when I realised that I had forgotten something at the Aldi, I quickly made a decision to do that right after passing the signs, so had no idea that it was a prohibited right (As opposed to doing a U-turn further down or turning into a road and coming back).

So you feel this is an obvious procedural impropriety and I can fight it down this route?

Incandescent · « **Reply #3 on:** December 30, 2023, 06:37:21 pm »

Quote from: zeezee on December 30, 2023, 01:43:13 pm

So my intention was not to do that right-turn, but when I realised that I had forgotten something at the Aldi, I quickly made a decision to do that right after passing the signs, so had no idea that it was a prohibited right (As opposed to doing a U-turn further down or turning into a road and coming back).

So you feel this is an obvious procedural impropriety and I can fight it down this route?

An argument based on the misundstood time period for paying and appealing in the LLA & TfL Act 2003 are a bit beyond most of the London Councils, so you tend to end up at London Tribunals with the full PCN penalty in play. Whether there is enough wrong on the PCN to convince an adjudicator, I'm not one to judge; it should do, bearing in mind councils expect total perfection from motorists ! See what the others say, but don't miss any deadlines.

Bear in mind we are in the Christmas-New Year Interregnum and people will be away.

Hippocrates · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2023, 08:31:13 pm »

@Incandescent: The PCN is ok in terms of the time periods. The law is an ass, actually. The so-called "conflation argument" is now fully dead and buried as the "or" is regarded by most adjudicators as disjunctive rather than conjunctive. I have researched many cases - and represented many too - on this issue.

The only possible issue is the TWOC ground which limits to theft.

I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances.

Incandescent · « **Reply #5 on:** January 01, 2024, 12:41:14 am »

Well, the LLA & TfL Act 2003 is certainly an ass ! It really is about time the Government forced London councils and TfL to use the Traffic Management Act 2004. I suspect the councils and TfL love it, because they can set their own PCN penalties, which are already twice the rest of the country.

zeezee · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2024, 07:11:40 pm »

I can confirm the car was not stolen - lol

Is it 14 working days or just consecutive days to get an appeal in?

Incandescent · « **Reply #7 on:** January 02, 2024, 11:23:04 pm »

Quote from: zeezee on January 02, 2024, 07:11:40 pm

I can confirm the car was not stolen - lol

Is it 14 working days or just consecutive days to get an appeal in?

14 days from date of notice
see 4 (8)(a)(iv)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/part/2/crossheading/penalty-charges/enacted

zeezee · « **Reply #8 on:** January 06, 2024, 08:38:27 pm »

not sure what else to add here - but this is what I got so far...

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

Dear council,

I am appealing this PCN based on procedural impropriety.

The PCN states you must pay the PCN penalty within 28 days of the date of the notice. But in the same paragraph, it then goes on to say that you must either pay the PCN penalty or submit representations within 28 days from the date of service of the notice.

So the question is when must you pay?, because the letter states 2 separate 28-day periods to either pay the PCN or submission of representations from the date of the notice; which one is correct?

I feel this is confusing/misleading and puts the motorist at odds.

please help to clarify

zeezee · « **Reply #9 on:** January 08, 2024, 02:02:10 pm »

I think I have until tomorrow to send it to them - Is this version good to send or have I missed something?

Hippocrates · « **Reply #10 on:** January 08, 2024, 02:32:33 pm »

Nope. This:

The only possible issue is the TWOC ground which limits to theft.

I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances.

zeezee · « **Reply #11 on:** January 08, 2024, 03:52:00 pm »

Quote from: Hippocrates on January 08, 2024, 02:32:33 pm

Nope. This:

The only possible issue is the TWOC ground which limits to theft.

I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances.

Thank you.

Not entirely sure if I understand - but I'll leave off what I've written then and add this paragraph and send it. Thank you

zeezee · « **Reply #12 on:** January 23, 2024, 10:05:33 pm »

Hi Guys,

The council has come back with the following response; Not sure where to go from here...

Hippocrates · « **Reply #13 on:** January 23, 2024, 10:12:26 pm »

Rubbish response re TWOC!

I say tribunal time and I am more than happy to represent.

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2110212199
Appellant Chidi Egenti
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM EA02WFR
PCN Details
PCN IS2284987A
Contravention date 12 Feb 2011
Contravention time 12:06:00
Contravention location Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5
Penalty amount GBP 120.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 07 Jul 2011
Adjudicator Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Egenti appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.

One of the issues that Mr Egenti raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr Egenti specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.

In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading.

The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal.

zeezee · « **Reply #14 on:** January 23, 2024, 10:57:15 pm »

Quote from: Hippocrates on January 23, 2024, 10:12:26 pm

Rubbish response re TWOC!

I say tribunal time and I am more than happy to represent.

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2110212199
Appellant Chidi Egenti
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM EA02WFR
PCN Details
PCN IS2284987A
Contravention date 12 Feb 2011
Contravention time 12:06:00
Contravention location Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5
Penalty amount GBP 120.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 07 Jul 2011
Adjudicator Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Egenti appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.

One of the issues that Mr Egenti raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr Egenti specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.

In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading.

The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal.

Yes, please re: the representation! lol -

Just from that response you think there is a chance of winning?

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd. (Read 2234 times)

zeezee

Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

Incandescent

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

zeezee

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

Incandescent

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

Hippocrates

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

Incandescent

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

zeezee

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

Incandescent

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

zeezee

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

zeezee

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

Hippocrates

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

zeezee

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

zeezee

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

Hippocrates

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.

zeezee

Re: Performing a prohibted turn, Redbridge, Ilford High Rd.