Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Mpesm on May 31, 2024, 05:37:43 pm
-
I would follow my advice; but, then I would say that wouldn't I?
-
I’m of a mind to challenge as l9ng as I can still pay the discounted rate which i think can.
It's impossible to say as you've redacted the date of the PCN, contrary to the guidance (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/). If you're going to make representations, I'd suggest you do so sooner rather than later, and that you do so via the council website (keep a screenshot of the confirmation page). The discount will be reoffered if you make representations during the discount period.
The criminal offence the poster mentioned was that you 'appeared' to have stopped with your front over/across the stop line at the traffic lights from the video. It maybe though from the camera angles this may not have been the case at all and you did indeed stop short.
I really wouldn't worry about it, the police does not take action for such de-minimis offences anyway, and even if they wanted to the 14 day deadline for a NIP to be served expired many, many weeks ago.
-
The reversal into into the main highway from a side road was merely a recommendation that you should not do this as Highways Code 201 says.
The criminal offence the poster mentioned was that you 'appeared' to have stopped with your front over/across the stop line at the traffic lights from the video. It maybe though from the camera angles this may not have been the case at all and you did indeed stop short.
-
Thanks everyone for your responses, very much appreciated
Sorry I haven’t replied before now, I didn’t realise I had any responses as not had notifications.
Noted about my illegal reversal into a main road (must do better!)
I will read through the judgement but seems the ruling is against me.
I did think the road name was wrong too.
I’m of a mind to challenge as l9ng as I can still pay the discounted rate which i think can.
I will update you.
Thanks again.
-
I'd change "2. The manoeuvre as shown does not constitute a U turn." to "2. The manoeuvre as shown does not constitute a U turn in Clayhall Avenue"
I disagree because it gives them too much information. This is all about tactics. Let them deduce and reply accordingly. In my experience, it is always best never to spell it out for them.
-
I'd change "2. The manoeuvre as shown does not constitute a U turn." to "2. The manoeuvre as shown does not constitute a U turn in Clayhall Avenue"
-
Ok try this:
Dear Redbridge
Ref: PCN VRM
I make these formal representations against the said PCN as follows:
1. The video does not show the face of any sign allegedly passed.
2. The manoeuvre as shown does not constitute a U turn.
In light of the above the contravention is not proved and did not occur. Please cancel the PCN.
Yours faithfully
Registered Keeper
Address
*************
(The reversing into the main road is irrelevant as this is a decriminalised matter so I would certainly not mention it. If they wish to raise it, let them do so.)
-
IMO, there was no 'U-turn' in the side road, the car drove in and reversed out.
The contravention is 50U - performing a prohibited turn (no U turn) in Clayhall Redbridge. There is a no U turn sign which I was aware of. They have provided video evidence but i can’t find the legal definition of a U turn, only it’s a 180 move to point your car in the opposite direction.
Just re-read the OP's post.
They knew of and saw the 'No U-turn' sign. (I thought originally that they were contesting its presence).
Then the OP posted: 'I believed a U-turn had to be a continuous movement causing the 180 degree change of direction'.
However, if they read the High Court judgment they will see how, in the words of the judge, 'absurd' this interpretation is. The judge gave the example of a skilled motorist executing a continuous manoeuvre because they and their vehicle could and contrasted this with a less able motorist and car: the former committing the contravention and the latter not. An 'absurd' interpretation of the intent of the restriction in his words.
OP, the adjudicator is bound by the High Court judgment so I suggest you read this as it will likely answer your question as you've expressed it above.
-
...There is no doubt in my mind that had the manoeuvre taken place wholly within the limits a Claymore Ave. then there is no debate - see the judgment...
True, but had the manoeuvre taken place wholly within the limits of Claybury Broadway then there is also no debate, the council have neither erected no-u-turn signs on Claybury Broadway nor specified that location on this PCN.
...There is no doubt in my mind that had the manoeuvre taken place wholly within the limits a Claymore Ave. then there is no debate - see the judgment...
How would an adjudicator take a purposive approach to a restriction placed on Claymore Ave. but not on Claybury Broadway? Surely the purpose of that combination is to make motorists perform any change of direction on a less busy road, which the video shows they did. I would still argue that the OP did do something wrong (reversing from a minor road to a major), but not the thing this PCN accuses them of.
-
Bear in mind that the adjudicator will 99% be aware of the authority as I have included.
-
I love the rhythm, flow and meaning of the phrase used in para. 51 of the High Court judgment:
'excessive exegetical sophistication'.
There is no doubt in my mind that had the manoeuvre taken place wholly within the limits a Claymore Ave. then there is no debate - see the judgment. So an adjudicator would be asked to take a contrary view when the car leaves the boundaries of Claymore by a couple of feet? Given the detailed reasoning contained in the judgment and the weight placed on taking a purposive approach to the restriction, IMO don't bet on it.
-
Sorry, IMO that is a U turn. If you had gone further down the road - and not reversed back onto the main road - you may get away with it. The purposive action is a U turn. There is authority on this.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/SKMBT_C454e14031216470.pdf
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Azadegan%20and%20Orphanides%20%28Panel%20Hearing%29.doc
You could make the point that the sign is not shown in the video and hope they mess up.
-
The facts are that your car entered Clayhall Avenue heading in a NE direction and left heading in a SW direction.
But there has to be some point at which it is acceptable to travel in the other direction having passed a no-U-turn sign, it's not a lifelong ban from using the other carriageway or from changing direction elsewhere. I seem to recall 'leaving the road the sign applies to' to be the extent of the restriction, and the the video proves the OP did leave the road where the offence is alledged to have occurred. If I was the OP, I'd take this to the adjudicator.
IMO, your only hope - with the full penalty in play- is to try and trip up the authority procedurally.
I think they did. The u-turn was in Claybury Broadway, not Clayhall Avenue.
-
I'm in agreement with Roy.
the OP made a right turn fully crossing the white junction divider line entering Into Clayhall Broadway.
he then made a left reverse turn out of Broadway (contrary to the HC but irrelevant)
He then drives forward to the stop line.
I'm at a loss as to how you can be doing a "U" turn when you fully enter a different side road.
does the sign say no "U" turns or no 3point turns?
-
The facts are that your car entered Clayhall Avenue heading in a NE direction and left heading in a SW direction.
The driver probably entered and turned round in order to avoid the no U-turn in Woodhall, but their reason is not the central issue.
Your car effected this volte face by turning within some 20m of entering.
The U-turn link provided will explain the court's view which is now case law. I suggest you read this carefully before deciding whether you think you have a defence against the practical aspects of the contravention.
True, there's no U-turn sign visible in the video, but it's there as GSV shows, unless the circular sign is some random and unrelated sign.
IMO, your only hope - with the full penalty in play- is to try and trip up the authority procedurally.
-
In my opinion not a U turn. It's worth going to tribunal on this as the council haven't provided a photo of the sign that you are alleged to have ignored. They will have to provide that in their evidence pack, but don't tell them that.
-
In my opinion the video shows a u-turn Claybury Broadway, not a u-turn in Clayhall Avenue. It may also shows some other offences, but that's irrelevant to defending against this particular PCN.
For the benefit of Mpesm who might not know this, the Council only get one stab at issuing a PCN, so they can't go back and accuse you of something else if you win this because they got the location wrong or picked the wrong offence.
-
If you go to London Tribunals and look at their Key Cases list, you'll find what they consider to be U-turns. A panel of adjudicators was set up to make a decision so future cases could be determined consistently
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/key-cases?field_subjects_value=U-Turn&combine=
-
I believed a U-turn had to be a continuous movement causing the 180 degree change of direction, but this is from very old posts on Pepipoo. Realistically OP has turned into the side road, then reversed out onto the main road, then pulled forward. 3 distinctly different manoeuvres.
I'm also not sure OP has crossed the stop line, rather just the camera angle.
-
FWIW I'd say it was a U-turn, and I suspect the tribunal would agree.
BTW you also reversed into a main road, contrary the HC Rule 201, and stopped with the front of your car over the stop line (criminal offence).
-
Happy Friday everyone
I hope you can help with a PCN I have received.
The contravention is 50U - performing a prohibited turn (no U turn) in Clayhall Redbridge. There is a no U turn sign which I was aware of. They have provided video evidence but i can’t find the legal definition of a U turn, only it’s a 180 move to point your car in the opposite direction.
Would it be worth me appealing?
Location https://maps.app.goo.gl/fFbfyjib7qoAjMPF6
Link to the video https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zoCxh3d5ENQGHRfRejxS14K-SmlOspuF/view?usp=sharing
I have uploaded the PCN
Thanks in advance.
M
[attachment deleted by admin]