224007474A
The Appellant did not attend but was represented by Mr Morgan, whose detailed submissions I note. However it seems to me unnecessary to arrive at a final view on the merits of those submissions as the Appeal falls to be allowed for more fundamental reasons.
I am not satisfied on the evidence that the manoeuvre seen in the CCTV amounts to a U-turn.. The vehicle appears to be making a sharp right turn into an adjacent road; nor am I satisfied that, if this was a U-turn, that the signs prohibiting that manoeuvre were clear and visible. The site photographs showing the sign are not of the best quality or very informative. It also sems to me that the PCN itself is defective in that it does not clearly state what sort of turn is referred to as the basis for its issue and thus does not state what the motorist is supposed to have done wrong. There are occasions where defects in wording can be covered by what is shown in the photographs but that is not so in the present case. In my view the PCN therefore does not comply with the requirement to state the grounds on which a penalty is said to be due, and no penalty can be demanded on the basis of it.
For all these reasons the Appeal is allowed.