traffic penalty notice by cctv camera

[lamma]

she turned left into a street that didn't have a no entry sign on it (and a no no left turn sign before it) and is being done for it ?

[patdavies]

she turned left into a street that didn't have a no entry sign on it (and a no no left turn sign before it) and is being done for it ?

 

From the previous postings, the offence was that of not complying with the 'ahead only' signage.

 

This is as much an offence as ignoring 'no left turn' and 'no entry' signs (which would actually amount to 2 offences)

[lamma]

I agree Pat, that was my point really - there is no offense at all. she was going 'ahead only' and then performed a permitted turn. As I understand it the blue arrow does not mean you can't turn off the road. What is the diagram number of this sign in the TSRGD ? if its 652 that means one way traffic, it does not prohibit turning off the carriageway onto another as I understand it - and if it does there will be chaos on a lot of ring roads and dual carriageways !!

Edited January 6, 2009 by lamma

[crem]

I agree with lamma. The "ahead only" sign applies to the road it is shown on, and the OP was travelling "ahead only" on that road. I have never known this sign to imply you cannot turn off the road to the left or right unless there was also a "no right/left" sign before the junction and/or a "no entry" sign at the entrance.

 

It's certainly not what I would tell a pupil it means on a road and I experience plenty of "ahead only" blue signs on roads which have many turn offs from them that are not prohibitted, certainly not by that sign anyway.

[lamma]

Thanks. in absence of other signs prohibiting the turn one has to ask how many of these tickets have been issued ? if there are no signs prohibiting the left turn (seems very unlikely as its a two way street the driver turned into) then this is an absolute scandal in my view.

[patdavies]

'Ahead only' when signed at a junction means that no turns are permitted at that junction. Where the junction is traffic light controlled, arrows on the green will act in the same way or reinforce the signage for the junction.

 

This is different from the 'one way street' signage that you are describing above and the difference is signified by the shape of the sign. Circular is 'ahead only'; rectangular is 'one way'. It is explained in the Highway Code here. Second page of 'Signs giving orders'

[patdavies]

It's certainly not what I would tell a pupil it means on a road and I experience plenty of "ahead only" blue signs on roads which have many turn offs from them that are not prohibitted, certainly not by that sign anyway.

 

Everything depends on the shape of the sign - circular or rectangular. If circular, it is an offence to travel in any direction but straight ahead.

[crem]

Everything depends on the shape of the sign - circular or rectangular. If circular, it is an offence to travel in any direction but straight ahead.

 

I would agree with the shape of the sign being significant. I can't find any indication in the thread though of the sign being identified as circular or rectangular.

[RichardM]

You still have to ask whether the use of this sign has been set up to be deliberately misleading, and also whether there are indeed green arrows on the traffic lights.

 

I cannot recall ever seeing the use of this sign on a traffic light to prohibit a deviation from the straight line travel where there are other possible directions of travel. I can only ever recall the no left/right turn prohibition notice being used. This is our local main junction, which has a filter for left turns. You would think, if following Camden's example, that the two lanes for straight on traffic would have a blue arrow to give a positive direction of travel. Why do you think that Newport Council used a no left turn sign instead?

 

Edited January 6, 2009 by RichardM
to make my understanding clearer

[adamna]

Because you can turn right?

[RichardM]

Hadn't actually considered that one. You're right of course. Whoops my fault.

[lamma]

I must be having an off day - I can't find the circular variant in the TSRGD. Have looked twice. will try again, meanwhile anyone got the diagram number please ? have found 606 which points left. and 610 which is angled. anyone know what sign is actually at this location ?

Edited January 6, 2009 by lamma

[crem]

RichardM that photo has another interesting point on it. Notice the traffic island bollard with the blue "keep left" sign on it. Well it is quite apparent it is legal to pass either side of that island (otherwise how are you supposed to proceed straight on through the lights) so should really show a left and right arrow, (although that doesn't quite mean what they intend either as both sides don't end up at the same destination) or maybe they'd be better off with no arrow at all.

[patdavies]

Because you can turn right?

 

Or U turn

[patdavies]

RichardM that photo has another interesting point on it. Notice the traffic island bollard with the blue "keep left" sign on it. Well it is quite apparent it is legal to pass either side of that island (otherwise how are you supposed to proceed straight on through the lights) so should really show a left and right arrow, (although that doesn't quite mean what they intend either as both sides don't end up at the same destination)

 

Which is exactly why they can't use a left & right arrow

 

or maybe they'd be better off with no arrow at all.

 

Possibly so, but it seems fairly obvious to me that the left-hand lane must keep left of the bollard. This is reinforced by the fact that traffic proceeding straight ahead into the junction may not subsequently turn left.

[patdavies]

I must be having an off day - I can't find the circular variant in the TSRGD. Have looked twice. will try again, meanwhile anyone got the diagram number please ? have found 606 which points left. and 610 which is angled. anyone know what sign is actually at this location ?

 

606 is the circular sign. Schedule 16.13 explains the permitted variants

 

515, 515.1, 553, 557.3, 557.4, 573, 606*, 638.1, 639, 640, 640.2A, 660.7, 661.2A, 780.1A, 788, 810, 962, 962.1, 962.2, 2711*, 2713, 2717, 5013, 5014, 7104

 

*The arrow may also point vertically upwards.

 

The direction of the arrow or chevron may be varied with the arrow or chevron pointing horizontally to the left or to the right.

For 606, the arrow may be vertically upwards.

[lamma]

thanks have just found out the pics weren't showing for some reason. cleared up now after a browser clean.

[Spunkymonkey]

Point out that the 28 day reference to representations is not clearly defined. The payment is clearly defined (“The penalty charge of £120 must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice”). The period for representations is not so clearly defined (“We may disregard any representations received after the expiry of the 28-day period”).

 

I'd suggest that, in terms of natural language, the period they state for representations is absolutely clearly defined.

 

They state that you have a 28 day period from the date of the notice for payment, then go on to say

 

“We may disregard any representations received after the expiry of the 28-day period”

The point here is the use of the word "the". The word the, in the English language, has the effect of identifying a single and uniquely identifiable period. In this case, the only single and unique period they've defined is

 

"28 days from the date of this notice"

 

so they are quite specifically stating that you have 28 days from the date of the notice, rather than the date of service.

 

It's absurd to suggest that the council is unaware of that - they have a legal department which is employed to cover such matters. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that this is deliberate, which becomes a fraudulent representation by them.

[Spunkymonkey]

she was going 'ahead only' and then performed a permitted turn. As I understand it the blue arrow does not mean you can't turn off the road.

 

Whether or not that applies, there is still no offence since what the PCN accuses her of is:

 

"Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (driving the wrong way) in Shaftsbury Avenue"

 

That is very specific. Either she was driving the wrong way in Shaftsbury Avenue (not possible as it's a two way road) or she ignored a blue arrow in Shaftsbury Avenue. She didn't because there isn't one in Shaftsbury Avenue at that point.

 

Therefore, the offence she's accused of is one it's not possible to commit. It doesn't matter that they have video of her ignoring a sign on Bloomsbury because she hasn't been accused of that and courts are not in the business of saying "well, we know what you meant" as regards the framing of charges!

[NBeeee]

Evening Peeps!

 

I have a gnawing need to assist but it is quite likely that this will be my only post?

 

This info is essential to the OP and to another that has queried the outcome. If it doesn’t appear, don’t blame me! I’ll be taking a screenshot to show I’ve offered it. I sincerely hope there is no obstruction to people receiving such crucial info.

 

Aaaannnyyyway, getting off signs for a mo and back to the docs.

 

Yes the PCN is non-compliant. The major failure is to advise the correct period in which representations may be made. As they only advise a shorter period than that required by law then it is clearly prejudicial.

Corcorans1 actually surprised me. Having seemed a bit slow to understand early on, she went on to make quite a well written appeal. It is a pity that she has not received the message that the Camden response is entirely flawed, wrong, illegal, cheeky? and probably borders on malfeasance.

The (what was it it now?) correspondence officer? quotes the law back at her in a blatantly misleading way. Towards the end he makes reference to Schedule1 but rather conveniently fails to quote the content whereas he does for all other parts? No guesses why! Schedule1 is the part that proves he is WRONG. Such a blatantly misleading, false and prejudicial Notice of Rejection was enough in itself for the PCN to be cancelled and, should Camden have risked Adjudication they would have been torn to shreds IMO.

For ‘Carefulbloke’. Yes basically it is flawed as described and IMO winnable if well described. If you get lucky enough to get a similarly flawed rejection – laugh all the way to the bank.

 

On the ‘Do not pass to driver, etc’ issue. G&M derides it. It is a common sense issue whereby it potentially prejudices certain recipients. That being the case then the document itself is prejudicial irrespective of individual circumstances because those individual circumstances cannot be known by the Council.

It may well not have been ruled upon at Adjudication but quite how G&M is aware of every single Adjudication is beyond me? For me, it remains something worth pursuing.

G&M is clearly knowledgable. I fail then to understand that, whilst he derides one element of the appeal made, he fails to mention that the major legal challenge was correct and the response fatally flawed? Surely that information would have benefitted the OP. How odd – or not?

 

Big-up Hi (and probably goodbye, LOL) to Crem, Pin1Onu, Nero12, Jasmin2008, Michael Browne, lamma, Steve M, Adamna, Al27, Tony P, Tom Tubby, Nero12, jasmin2008, Pat Davies and anyone I’ve rather rudely forgotten!

P.S. thanks to Spunkymonkey who confirmed the issue.

[nero12]

I must be having an off day - I can't find the circular variant in the TSRGD. Have looked twice. will try again, meanwhile anyone got the diagram number please ? have found 606 which points left. and 610 which is angled. anyone know what sign is actually at this location ?

Have another look at the massive tsrgd download you suggested to me a while ago LOL

 

HNY mate. It been a while!

[nero12]

Evening Peeps!

 

I have a gnawing need to assist but it is quite likely that this will be my only post?

 

This info is essential to the OP and to another that has queried the outcome. If it doesn’t appear, don’t blame me! I’ll be taking a screenshot to show I’ve offered it. I sincerely hope there is no obstruction to people receiving such crucial info.

 

Aaaannnyyyway, getting off signs for a mo and back to the docs.

 

Yes the PCN is non-compliant. The major failure is to advise the correct period in which representations may be made. As they only advise a shorter period than that required by law then it is clearly prejudicial.

Corcorans1 actually surprised me. Having seemed a bit slow to understand early on, she went on to make quite a well written appeal. It is a pity that she has not received the message that the Camden response is entirely flawed, wrong, illegal, cheeky? and probably borders on malfeasance.

The (what was it it now?) correspondence officer? quotes the law back at her in a blatantly misleading way. Towards the end he makes reference to Schedule1 but rather conveniently fails to quote the content whereas he does for all other parts? No guesses why! Schedule1 is the part that proves he is WRONG. Such a blatantly misleading, false and prejudicial Notice of Rejection was enough in itself for the PCN to be cancelled and, should Camden have risked Adjudication they would have been torn to shreds IMO.

For ‘Carefulbloke’. Yes basically it is flawed as described and IMO winnable if well described. If you get lucky enough to get a similarly flawed rejection – laugh all the way to the bank.

 

On the ‘Do not pass to driver, etc’ issue. G&M derides it. It is a common sense issue whereby it potentially prejudices certain recipients. That being the case then the document itself is prejudicial irrespective of individual circumstances because those individual circumstances cannot be known by the Council.

It may well not have been ruled upon at Adjudication but quite how G&M is aware of every single Adjudication is beyond me? For me, it remains something worth pursuing.

G&M is clearly knowledgable. I fail then to understand that, whilst he derides one element of the appeal made, he fails to mention that the major legal challenge was correct and the response fatally flawed? Surely that information would have benefitted the OP. How odd – or not?

 

Big-up Hi (and probably goodbye, LOL) to Crem, Pin1Onu, Nero12, Jasmin2008, Michael Browne, lamma, Steve M, Adamna, Al27, Tony P, Tom Tubby, Nero12, jasmin2008, Pat Davies and anyone I’ve rather rudely forgotten!

P.S. thanks to Spunkymonkey who confirmed the issue.

G & M is knowledgeable, just like a row LOL

 

Maybe we could start with a clean slate and make 2009 a year without rows!

 

All the best Nics

[NBeeee]

just realised that the rejection letter i referred to and G&M's response is not in this thread!

 

The missing link is here! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/174358-appeal-against-pcn-turned.html?highlight=corcorans1

 

seems 'Spunky' had seen it but now the rest of you can.

 

Also on review I notice that she has a few days left if she has not paid. i hope she is seeing this!

-

[NBeeee]

so they are quite specifically stating that you have 28 days from the date of the notice, rather than the date of service.

 

It's absurd to suggest that the council is unaware of that - they have a legal department which is employed to cover such matters. Therefore, the reasonable conclusion is that this is deliberate, which becomes a fraudulent representation by them.

[/size][/font]

 

Indeed. Draw your own conclusions as to how she was subsequently misled on 22/12! I just happen to know she paid it on 24/12 - notable day that for a single mum, student nurse!

 

Complaint instigated to Camden! i have PMd her to advise of such action as I am acting only as an interested party - but WILL pursue.

[Spunkymonkey]

The missing link is here! http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/parking-traffic-offences/174358-appeal-against-pcn-turned.html?highlight=corcorans1

 

seems 'Spunky' had seen it ....

 

 

Nope, hadn't seen it, but it makes a damn good fantasy novel.

 

Not only that, if it was me I'd now be notifying my MP, putting a complaint into the Local Government Ombudsman and a fraud complaint into the local plod for criminal investigation.

 

The appeal clearly referred to the period allowed for representation and they have, whether direcly or by implication, told her that the "28 days from date of notice" applies by quoting inapplicable legislation. Even if she hadn't paid, that's a deliberate fraudulent representation (whereas the wording of the PCN could be regarded as simply not clear on the matter). As a result of their representation, the OP has suffered loss - not that it's necessary for her to do so in a fraud case, but it's obviously a more serious matter when an intent to cause loss actually causes it.

 

I'd probably also be warning them of the up-and-coming small claims case for the return of the charge, with interest, and my time / costs in researching the matter - discretion of the judge when a party has clearly acted unreasonably.

 

Then again, I like playing hard-ball and I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone else to risk taking that line on my say-so