Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: NTIAEP on May 21, 2024, 02:40:06 pm
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gITzAnSEU0c6cNu5VFwjPZcgrgiRH3ZN/view).
-
2240345188
-
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
;D
-
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
-
Both allowed.
-
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.
-
@Hippocrates that case is just a blatant example of someone who should have instructed a competent representative rather than proceeding as a litigant in person. The fact that the review adjudicator considered The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 for a London moving traffic contravention shows that unrepresented litigants are unable to assist the tribunal.
I'm trying to push adjudicators to start mentioning that unrepresented litigants who lose might have done better not to proceed as LiPs.
-
@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.
-
I have taken this case on.
-
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.
-
IMO, reference to Azadegan is misplaced. It pre-dates Alexander and frankly who cares what a council officer concedes, this doesn't make case law!
In Alexander(https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/560.html), the judge reiterates the fact that:
No person causing or permitting any vehicle to proceed in those lengths of Edith Road or Gliddon Road that lie between the common boundary of Nos. 21 and 23 Edith Road and the northern kerb-line of Talgarth Road shall cause or permit that vehicle to turn at any point in those lengths of roads so as to face in the opposite direction to that in which it was proceeding."
We can deduce that the Order's provisions in your case are similar, but frankly to launch a review without reference to this limb of the legal framework seems bizarre.
What does the Order in this case provide?
If it refers to the manoeuvre being made 'in the length of road' then bring this to the fore and then contrast with the CCTV and the first adjudicator's apparent acceptance that your car left the road.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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').
Well, maybe, but we deal in reality on this forum and many years of looking at PCNs and adjudications shows people who rely on papers-based hearings tend to lose.
-
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').
-
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.
-
Case details are available within previous messages in this thread.
Link to redacted request for review of appeal decision (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/472iqw2syo39n3iysbtbl/20241030_Request-for-Review-of-Adjudicators-Decision_case-ref-2240345188_redacted.pdf?rlkey=rtjcgj2bwy3l89y8sz22wnhz9&st=nni725w3&dl=0)
-
Sorry to be repetitive: we need to see the whole file and what you wrote in the application for review.
-
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
-
Decision was sent on 16/10/24 so have until 2359hrs tonight.
-
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.
-
Afternoon All
Given the above, I'm going to submit a challenge and request a review of the Adjudicator's decision. Currently in the process of drafting a doc with a view to send out later today. Any kind folks on here willing to review it for me, just to check that it makes sense and suggest any helpful pointers? If so, please PM with email address etc and I'll ping across to you as soon as I have something workable.
Regards - NTIAEP
-
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.
-
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.
1) How do go about asking for a review?
2) That's just it. I believe that I did completely cross what I perceive to be the 'building line' as depicted by the red line in the GSV image below.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kizth7jirw73j31cm7j3f/Google-SV_marked.JPG?rlkey=e750nqriap5210ahpi8r5vgp7&st=uuqxwtlp&dl=0
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KLmSDtnbVFzgarjo8
3) Exactly. There is case 2110041915
4) Agreed. But ultimately, haven't you performed a [series of] turns which make you head back in the direction from you approached (i.e. a u-turn)?
-
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.
-
image of TMO pertaining to this stretch of road attached.
(https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9xq0k7sw2hyq99y7pgvm1/TMO_LBR-No9-2016.JPG?rlkey=9udl7xnynz2ax73q7kyufgkik&st=d99q0qgn&dl=0)
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9xq0k7sw2hyq99y7pgvm1/TMO_LBR-No9-2016.JPG?rlkey=9udl7xnynz2ax73q7kyufgkik&st=d99q0qgn&dl=0
-
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
-
This location/prohibited u-turn came come several times on the old forum. The critical factor is whether the vehicle left the road and there is a panel decision on this that includes the case you cite. It looks like you may have done but maybe not quite and plenty of appeals have fallen with people using the same manoeuvre but often more obviously on the footway line.
Note that there is also a distance from the sign of 240 yards (not metres...) - probably within this but how to tell. But it may be the distance to the next u-turn sign as there are two.
The Panel decision in Azadegan (2110041915) where the Panel considered at what point a vehicle is deemed to have left the road. The finding at paragraphs 42 and 43 are that:
“A road is generally all land from the building line on one side to the building line on the other. It typically has a carriageway in the middle with footways on either side. A footway may include ‘crossovers’ which give access from the carriageway to adjoining premises. They may all be part of the road, as may grass verges, flower beds or paved areas.”
"44. In Glidden Road, although the vehicle enters the crossover to the adjoining block of flats, which we understand is called Baron’s Keep, the vehicle is on the road at all times. The road that the vehicle it is on at all times is Glidden Road."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Azadegan%2520and%2520Orphanides%2520%2528Panel%2520Hearing%2529.doc&ved=2ahUKEwjFxeGt-M6HAxUGZkEAHRh4BL8QFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2hrJTpzsPoRv556l0NkNUS
-
Looks OK to me. Good luck !
-
In the process of submitting the following for the tribunals. Any feedback?
The alleged contravention of “Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)” did not occur and the video and/or photo evidence provided by LBR does not prove otherwise.
Rather, the vehicle took a permitted right-turn onto private land, fully entering it (i.e. crossing the building line) and therefore completely leaving the carriageway and footway. At the timing and complete discretion of the driver (which is of no concern to LBR, nor does it have any authority to dictate), the vehicle then exited the same private land and proceeded to take a permitted left-turn on to the carriageway.
Please note:
- that there are no signs which prohibit either a ‘right-turn’ nor a ‘left-turn’ covering this specific stretch of carriageway;
- that once a vehicle has left the road, the ‘traffic management order’ does not apply. It therefore follows that even in the event of an immediate return to the road by the vehicle, this contravention cannot occur whatever direction the vehicle then travels in. Please see “London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham -v- Pirooz Azadegan” - Appeal number 2110041915 [para 42]
-
Cannot access the NOR.
any better?
-
Cannot access the NOR.
-
20240704_AF9860190A_NoR_redacted.pdf_new link (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/6wmhv9ehkq5d44lwjzuv8/20240704_AF9860190A_NoR_redacted.pdf?rlkey=r1qqi6af5bmxripr7pm3b1ois&st=ddpwv6p6&dl=0)
Lo & behold, Redbridge Council rejected my Reps (please see attached).
Hi ho,
Hi ho,
Off to the tribunal we go....
But before I proceed, should I? Any accompanying words of advice or wisdom?
Regards - NTIAEP
-
This is bolleaux. FGS.
-
Submitted my inital reps as follows:
"The alleged contravention did not occur and the video and/or photo evidence provided by LBR does not prove otherwise.
Rather, the vehicle took a right turn onto private land, fully entering it and completely leaving the carriageway. The vehicle then exited the private land and took a left turn on to the carriageway."
That will do, though I would hardly be surprised if they rejected.
@cp8759 how did you get the video onto YouTube?
If you use Google Chrome's inspect function you can find the actual URL where the video is hosted and you can download it from there, then you just upload it wherever you want.
-
Submitted my inital reps as follows:
"The alleged contravention did not occur and the video and/or photo evidence provided by LBR does not prove otherwise.
Rather, the vehicle took a right turn onto private land, fully entering it and completely leaving the carriageway. The vehicle then exited the private land and took a left turn on to the carriageway."
@cp8759 how did you get the video onto YouTube?
-
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T567O-wGUT0
It seems open and shut to me: you left the road and then re-entered the road, that is not a u-turn.
Post a draft on here first, but really there isn't much to add.
-
Yes - the vehicle completely entered the RGB carpark. I always ensure that it does (specifically for this reason) and have been doing so for the past few/several years, ever since they installed the CCTV. The reasons for entering the carpark of no concern or business of Redbridge council.
As far as I am concerned, I took a right-turn to enter the carpark and then exited the carpark by taking a left-turn.
Will wait for some more responses from fellow forum members before submitting any reps etc.
-
Looking at the video, your car does seem to clear the footway and enter the small RGB car park, so I suppose, in theory, no contravention has been committed. After all, what if you turned right into the car park to visit RGB on business, then came out and turned left to go back the way you came ?
However, such is the greed for cash at Redbridge, you'll probably have to take them to London Tribunals for an unbiased decision. First you must submit reps to Redbridge on the basis that the contravention did not occur, and their video shows no contravention.
-
......and have just received a 2nd PCN (again via post) for a repeat instance of the same alleged contravention, 3 days after the first alleged contravention.
-
Front page of PCN
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Good Afternoon all
I won't waste my time and energy in having a rant at Redbridge council.
Currently don't have a redacted copy of the PCN, so will post when I can. In the meantime, details are as follows:
PCN ref: AF9860190A
VRN: SAF17A
Location/Direction Junction of High Rd(Ilford) & Cricklefield Place (Westbound) (https://maps.app.goo.gl/KLmSDtnbVFzgarjo8)
I'm very wary of the 'No U-turn' 'For 110 Yards' signs that you can see in the GSV, so in order to head back in the opposite direction (i.e. Eastbound) to then take the left turn up Aldborough Rd South (you can't take a right turn into this road when heading West), I either:
1) take a left turn into Cricklefield Place, perform a 3-point turn further down this road and then exit it by taking a right turn; or
2) take a right-turn into the private carpark of RGB Electrical, making sure that the vehicle completely leaves the road/pavement and fully enters the carpark. Entirely within the bounds of the carpark, I then either:
a) perform a 3-point turn;
b) turn the vehicle round in one continuous movement;
and then exit left out of the carpark whilst either:
i) having to give-way to pedestrians/other vehicles; or
ii) in their absence, again in one continuous movement without stopping.
In this instance, the video evidence (which I can't save) provided by LBR shows b) ii) as referenced above.
Your thoughts/advice very welcome.
Regards - NTIAEP