Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello people. Just received this same PCN in the post, same location same alleged contravention: 50u - u-turn. Will make my own thread in the coming days but just raising a few points as I'm fairly local to the area.

- As seen on the GSV when comparing dates, this no U-turn signage is fairly new. Never was there for many years whilst the no-left-turn has always been there. I always did this specific manoeuvre as there was, up until now, nothing prohibiting it. Clearly this is a response to those doing what we do however, surely there has to be clear and adequate signage for THOSE coming from York Road. This is because, well people live off York Road, AND there exists Mill Road which is a common rat route into the North West Ilford/Cranbook area (IG1 3XX)   The start of the No-U-Turn zone is indicated with a sign adjacent to Paddypower (before York Rd when travelling northbound on A123 - Cranbook Road). There is no indication that we are in this no-u-turn zone if we have not driven through Cranbook Road before/in the journey. This leads into my next point

- You are unable to see the sign and be aware of the U-turn prohibition due to almost every car's A-pillar blocking view of that sign when driving right underneath it letalone turning right. It is also placed on the off-side rather than the near side. There are also no advance warning signs like there are with school streets and no left/right turns (precisely what the junction with York Road and Cranbook Road is). Surely, it should be mandatory to have a bigger 'white' square sign like we see in many other high-revenue junctions detailing the specific prohibitions entailing to this junction.

What did you write?

@LondonTraveller84 You're right and I'm delaying my reps to mine as I'm sure that I want to be fighting this at tribunal raising the points you mentioned as per forum advice (delaying reps until around the 25th day where they should be busy sending a charge certificate)

As for pre-signage, it makes sense for this junction. Where a side road enters into a main road and the main road has some sort of restriction on it for x amount of yards/miles/metres... there must be a first sign indicating it. This is the case for this No U-turn zone, with the first sign being at Paddypower and for the opposite way being near Wellesley Road traffic lights. Any repeater signs are to be taken as first-time signs if the main sign was unable to be seen, as in this case. Our case is that drivers are unable to clearly see those repeater signs on both sides due to the angle, height and A-pillar's of cars blocking view of it when turning left and the immediate attention paid to traffic coming from the right as well as the pedestrian crossing. Especially when you previously didn't know about the restriction. To be honest, since this ticket, I have been paying attention to the restriction and only not doing a U-turn due to foreknowledge. Not due to the signs, and obviously now, just by experience... it is easier to see because you've been caught out once.

Near where I live, there is a road known as Browning Road, E12 and there is a bridge which is a no cars/bikes zone except for buses, taxis and permit holders. There are 2 signs, one nearside and offside AND there is a pre-sign warning of the bridge restriction on Rectory Road. Despite that sign existing, a tribunal was won because the tree slightly covered the sign and it was unclear/slightly invisible for those coming from Chesterford Road (Y-junction with Rectory Road). Surely the same can apply here, especially when both roads are fairly busy and high volume of pedestrians almost at any time of the day...

 

Not the PCN issue?

Sorry? confused? you want me to reattach the PCN, this is for the U Turn after a No right turn, caught on their CCTV by an operator

I assume you're referring to the link for 'moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information', which refers to 28 days argument? If so, nope I did not use this as there was no mention of this as a point for this u turn PCN.

** UPDATED *** Having just looked back at your intial reply here, you had a link reference as point 3 to ' 53j Perrymans Farm Road', which at the end did mention the 28 days, but at that point I had not registered/processed it fully as it was close to the deadline to submit, hence left it out at that point.

So are you saying the argument to win this case is around this 28 day wording and not to do with the actual u turn/signage etc?

PCN issue is stronger.

This PCN/28 day argument was used for another case you advised on, at the same road/junction and contravention, which the council rejected, along with many other arguments the OP used around the location and road markings etc - I assume your PCN isue is a point to be used and won at adjudication? If yes then i'll see this one through till teh end, as todays the last day for discounted rate :O

Im reviewing your explanation around the PCN 28 days technical argument, to get my head around it, as I do remember you mentioning this point once before on a different case I had but I struggled to full understand the argument, due to the wording and it being above my head . I'll try and draft up a formal response, including your point and others from the similar case (even though they've been rejected, it'll be more ammunition).

This is the case for this No U-turn zone, with the first sign being at Paddypower and for the opposite way being near Wellesley Road traffic lights. Any repeater signs are to be taken as first-time signs if the main sign was unable to be seen, as in this case. Our case is that drivers are unable to clearly see those repeater signs on both sides due to the angle,

There are two signs one across the road, and then one more further down after the traffic light which is concealed and difficult to see from the turning. Councils argument is the sign across teh road is the first sign in our case and visible, but yes we're arguing the difficulty in seeing this for a number of reason - All if not the majority of which have been used in another case, and each rejected

https://ibb.co/93CPXHQf
https://ibb.co/5gwKxSFy
https://ibb.co/dwZSxvRG

Near where I live, there is a road known as Browning Road, E12 and there is a bridge

I'm very familiar with this road and the restirction, as I was one of the few groups/roads that were fighting to have this expanded to a few additional roads, which actually meritted being part of the zone, took it to the whole 9 yard but the council leaders had made their mind even when we had countered all their points

Could you link the tribunal case which was rejected and any others pertaining to this location please.

Its not gone to tribunal yet it seems, rather its been at the informal/formal appeal - https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/penalty-charge-notice-for-u-turn/


@Hippocrates - My formal appeal below, although point 1 and 2 are not actually mandatory requirements it seems from what I have read, nonetheless have added them as additonal points. Point 3 (your case) so far I've seen has been rejected it seems by Redbridge LA on two occasions on other cases here, although both at informal appeal, so I expect the same here.


1. Signage Positioning

Firstly as you approach Cranbrook road from York Road, there is no sign on York Road, giving advance warning to the driver that they are about to enter onto a road where there is a prohibition, leaving little no chance of doubt or avoidance.

Secondly the 'no U-turn' sign that you refer which was not noticeable for a number of reason (visibility, positioning, distance and location), is on the opposite side of the road, signage must be clearly visible to the direction of traffic it applies to, a sign on the opposite side of the road is generally ineffective and can be confusing as can be seen in this instance.


2. Visibility and Puffin Controlled Area

The ‘no U-turn’ sign you have referred to is placed within a ‘puffin controlled area’ (zig-zag lines), where many road signs are prohibited from being placed, to ensure clear visibility for drivers in ensuring full concentration is on pedestrians using the crossing, which is exactly why after ensuring that any traffic coming from the right had cleared on Cranbrook road, as the driver then turns into Cranbrook road, the focus would instantly if not in parallel turn to the left, to ensure pedestrians and potential dangers from that side of Cranbrook road are covered, making it very difficult to perform all 3 tasks and then to also be expected to look at a road sign on the opposite side of the road.

Also the TSRGD ( TSRGD 2016, reg. 2 and Sch 1) prohibits the use of all road signs (with a few exceptions, eg no-right-turn) from being placed within zig-zag lines of


3. Validity of the PCN

Lastly I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at
Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

 (v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.
 Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
 (iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make   representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable. adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.

OK.