illegal u-turn, but i turned right and came back to road

[welshpete]

I was driving north on wood lane in Hammersmith between a40 and Ducane Rd. Since i was going in the wrong direction i turned right into the entrance to a very large building and then came back onto the road to go south. I got a ticket via a camera for an illegal u-turn. I though a u- turn ws turning in the carriageway. I can't find a sensible legal definition of a u-turn. Can anyone help?

[lamma]

if you engaged reverse it was not a u-turn, it was a three point turn. if you turned off the carriageway and came back it was not a u-turn. Go see the video or get a copy and then appeal. Or just appeal as they will have to 9are supposed to) provide the video to both you and PATAS for the appeal. If they contest the appeal.

[crem]

if you engaged reverse it was not a u-turn, it was a three point turn. if you turned off the carriageway and came back it was not a u-turn.

 

I would agree with lamma on that. A U-turn would need to be executed without leaving that actual carriageway you were originally on. The way you describe it, you;

1 turned right off the road,

2 did a U-turn within the entrance to the building,

3 turned left from entrance back onto road.

 

As I am sure the area you did the U-turn was either private land as part of the building, or seperate roadway not covered by the TRO banning the U-turn, then I would maintain the "contravention did not occur" in your appeal.

[Robert John Hughes]

I was driving north on wood lane in Hammersmith between a40 and Ducane Rd. Since i was going in the wrong direction i turned right into the entrance to a very large building and then came back onto the road to go south. I got a ticket via a camera for an illegal u-turn. I though a u- turn ws turning in the carriageway. I can't find a sensible legal definition of a u-turn. Can anyone help?

 

Pete I was in exactly the same position as you on the 28th January. A camera operator does not know what an U turn is. I turned right into a large building complex behind the two bollards. See Google maps photos. I parked having to reverse at one point. I got out of the drivers door to get a map from the rear seat. Got back in, checked the map while parked safely off the road, and only then after a couple of minutes or more did I set off again. This operator thinks it was an U turn. Get the councils definition of an U turn, and ask what qualifications in understanding the Highway code and safe driving this camera operator has to be harassing safe drivers. If he has no qualifications. No full driving licence. Is he fit for post? I attach my altered Google photo to help in my defence.

[sailor sam]

Pete I was in exactly the same position as you on the 28th January. A camera operator does not know what an U turn is. I turned right into a large building complex behind the two bollards. See Google maps photos. I parked having to reverse at one point. I got out of the drivers door to get a map from the rear seat. Got back in, checked the map while parked safely off the road, and only then after a couple of minutes or more did I set off again. This operator thinks it was an U turn. Get the councils definition of an U turn, and ask what qualifications in understanding the Highway code and safe driving this camera operator has to be harassing safe drivers. If he has no qualifications. No full driving licence. Is he fit for post? I attach my altered Google photo to help in my defence.

 

 

Hi Robert and welcome to CAG

 

No he isn't fit for the post if that were the case. Having looked at your scenario, I would say you did perform a 'U'-turn and I am qualified. The area where you 'parked' is adjacent to a footpath and appears to be an entrance to the BBC building so to perform your turn, you would of had to have stopped across the entrance thus blocking it and then driven along the footpath between the bollards. This area would still be within the carriagway to which the restriction applies. Here is a more wider view; http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Wood+Lane,+Hammersmith&aq=0&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=12.948388,46.362305&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Wood+Ln,+Hammersmith,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.515917,-0.226588&spn=0,0.090551&z=14&layer=c&cbll=51.515917,-0.226588&panoid=MsXzIbBHC2fqgtKdMBmZMw&cbp=12,352.3,,0,-4.3

 

If you are asking for advice rather than assisting the OP, then can I suggest you start your own thread.

[sailor sam]

I was driving north on wood lane in Hammersmith between a40 and Ducane Rd. Since i was going in the wrong direction i turned right into the entrance to a very large building and then came back onto the road to go south. I got a ticket via a camera for an illegal u-turn. I though a u- turn ws turning in the carriageway. I can't find a sensible legal definition of a u-turn. Can anyone help?

 

If your situ was the same as the above, then my view is the same; you performed a 'u'-turn.

[green_and_mean]

If you had turned left onto a drive way and used it to 'u turn' I would tend to agree it wasn't a 'u turn' it was a right turn from the drive. I would however consider what you did was a u turn, stopping half way through doesn't really alter the fact you charged direction by 180 degrees.

[TheBogsDollocks]

In any appeal I suggest including the text below, keeping in any bold, italics etc. The text was drafted with the intention of turning tables so that the council has to prove the penalty charge is lawfully imposed. Just because they have a photo/footage of an alleged contravention does not necessarily mean a contravention actually occurred. Councils, like everybody else, make mistakes, so it’s always worth scrutinising their actions.

 

 

It is noted that the penalty charge has been imposed under the provisions of section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).

 

It is necessary to make the council aware that section 1(2) of the 2003 Act advises that the powers of section 4 of the 2003 Act will only apply from the “appointed day”. Section 3 gives direction as to what constitutes the “appointed day” and it directs in relation to a borough council that it is such a day as may be fixed by resolution of the borough council. It is important to note that any such resolution is subject to and must be in full accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the 2003 Act.

 

Section 3(5) of the 2003 Act requires that the resolution of the council fixing the “appointed day” and the general effect of the provisions of the 2003 Act coming into operation as from that day must be published in a local newspaper and in the London Gazette at least 3 months before the commencement of the “appointed day”.

 

Considering the above, I require the council to provide evidence that the council has passed, in regard to section 4 of the 2003 Act, such a resolution fixing the “appointed day”. In addition, I require evidence that a notice was published in both a local newspaper and the London Gazette. Section 3(6) of the 2003 Act details what specific items the council should provide as evidence.

 

6) Either a photostatic or other reproduction certified by the officer appointed for that purpose by the borough council or by Transport for London to be a reproduction of a page or part of a page of any such newspaper or the London Gazette bearing the date of its publication and containing any such notice shall be evidence of the publication of the notice, and of the date of publication.

 

I must advise the council that the contravention can only be enforced if it has been correctly enabled in accordance with the law and therefore I need to establish whether it has been. I will remind the council that in the key case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council, the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. An appellant requesting access to the evidence when an allegation is made against them is a reasonable act and not to provide the evidence when asked is an unreasonable act since any failure by the council to provide any evidence will prejudice an appellant’s ability to consider whether they have reasonable grounds to continue to adjudication.

 

Further, by serving the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the council are alleging that I contravened section 4(5) of the 2003 Act by either failing to comply with a prescribed order or failing to comply with a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. However, the PCN does not inform me which one these two applies. Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires a PCN to state the grounds on which the council believe a penalty charge is payable. According to section 4(5) of the 2003 Act there are only two grounds and the contravention description given on the PCN, although it makes reference to a particular traffic sign, it does not tell me whether that particular traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign or whether I contravened a prescribed order that the traffic sign simply gives effect to. This information is important as it is required to enable me to learn whether I breached the ground (whereby a penalty charge is payable) given under section 4(5)(a) or 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act. Withholding this information may be considered prejudicial by the courts since an appellant may spend time trying to obtain a prescribed order in preparation for an appeal when in fact the relevant traffic sign may not be regulated by a prescribed order but by some other statutory provision, as scheduled section 36 traffic signs often are. It is critical to remember that on receipt of a PCN a person has no more than 28 days to prepare an appeal and an appellant can ill afford to waste time on establishing whether they contravened a prescribed order or a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is my belief that section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires this information to be stated on the PCN and the failure of the council to do so raises doubt about the lawfulness of the PCN served.

 

As the PCN fails to confirm whether it is being served on the ground given under section 4(5)(a) or section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act, I hereby require the council to confirm this point. Where the council claim it is under section 4(5)(a) then I require the council to provide me with a full copy of the prescribed order that they believe has been contravened and I require the council to explain fully what article or articles they believe were contravened and to direct me to the specific entry for the location concerned within the relevant schedule. If the prescribed order has been amended then it is necessary that these amendments are also provided in full. Where the council claim that the PCN was served under the provision of section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act then I require the council to provide evidence that the traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is a requirement of section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) that a section 36 traffic sign be “lawfully placed”. Section 36(2) of the 1988 Act provides that a section 36 traffic sign is lawfully placed only if the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement, or it is expressly provided by or under any provision of the “Traffic Acts” that section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to the sign or to signs of a type of which the sign is one. Considering this, it is necessary for me to establish whether the scheduled section 36 traffic sign has been lawfully placed. Therefore, I ask the council to confirm what legal provision gives effect to the scheduled section 36 traffic sign that I am alleged to have contravened.

 

A photo of my vehicle against the backdrop of a traffic sign is not proof of a contravention. I will remind the council that where they serve a PCN then the burden of proof in regard to any alleged contravention remains with them. As such, I will only be satisfied that a contravention occurred if the evidence requested provides unequivocal proof of a contravention.

 

Yours with love, hugs & kisses.

 

For some reasons smiley faces have appeared but where they show then the section is 4(eight).

[Robert John Hughes]

You are wrong in stating that I blocked the entrance. The left lane where I was parked off the road behind the two bollards was blocked off for building works. As Welsh pete says it is now a building site. So by your own definition being the building works side of the two bollards I was off the road. I was not blocking an entrance. It was safe driving. I did not drive along the footpath. I drove in off the road behind the bollards, manouvered and parked. Got out fetched the map from the back of the car, sat again checked map, and pulled out crossing the path and not driving along it. The camera evidence shows that I was parked off the road for over a minute and 15 seconds at least. All traffic entering and leaving that site has to turn right, and come out again. Does this change your advice.

What is your definition of an u turn? You have not provided one.

I think you are trying to do a difficult helpful job here, thanks for your attention in this matter .

RJHughes driver since 1970. IAM No. 181473

[Robert John Hughes]

What is the purpose of the Highway code? To fill the coffers of a council, or to ensure safe driving procedures are followed. ?

Surely any definition of an U turn would refer to the safety aspect. Please define an U turn.

Which is more dangerous and also polluting. To drive around not able to make a safe change of direction, or when an opportunity arises to make a safe change in direction and keep your journey short. Not contravening any road signs in so doing. Not that any are seen on any of the google cameras in the vicinity.

If you turn off the carriageway, manouvered stopped and after a period of time, safely rejoin said carriageway are you saying that you cannot change direction by 180°. This is what you aappear to be saying.

[sailor sam]

You are wrong in stating that I blocked the entrance. The left lane where I was parked off the road behind the two bollards was blocked off for building works. As Welsh pete says it is now a building site. So by your own definition being the building works side of the two bollards I was off the road. I was not blocking an entrance. It was safe driving. I did not drive along the footpath. I drove in off the road behind the bollards, manouvered and parked. Got out fetched the map from the back of the car, sat again checked map, and pulled out crossing the path and not driving along it. The camera evidence shows that I was parked off the road for over a minute and 15 seconds at least. All traffic entering and leaving that site has to turn right, and come out again. Does this change your advice.

What is your definition of an u turn? You have not provided one.

I think you are trying to do a difficult helpful job here, thanks for your attention in this matter .

RJHughes driver since 1970. IAM No. 181473

 

No where in this thread so far has anyone mentioned 'buliding works'. While I conceed that the google images will be out of date and perhaps do not show the situ at the time of your 'incident', I am basing my opinions on the available information. Your diagram shows that you turned right at a point where it is intended to turn into the BBC complex and nothing more. The area in which you stopped isn't a designated parking or stopping area... it is a entrance road works or not. I would also say that by making your 'turn' in that area would put you in possible conflict with pedestrians as you have had to of crossed the footway twice and a pedestrian would not of expected a vehicle to be turning there. As priviously pointed out, the fact that you stopped half way through the turn is irrelevant. It would appear from Google that the restriction begins at the end of the central reserve after the junction with the A4 although I cannot quite make out the plate beneath the sign. I think it says 'for 150 yards'. Defintion of a U-turn; Turning your vehicle 180 degrees within a carriageway by making single 'U' shaped turn. This would be illegal if your vehicle has to cross a kerb or footway, crosses un-broken white lines, where there is a restriction in place prohibitting you to do so. If however you had actually entered the BBC site, turned around and exited in the normal way then you would totally correct. But then the BBC may have had something to say about it!

 

By all means appeal if you believe your grounds are valid and let us know the outcome.

[green_and_mean]

In any appeal I suggest including the text below, keeping in any bold, italics etc. The text was drafted with the intention of turning tables so that the council has to prove the penalty charge is lawfully imposed. Just because they have a photo/footage of an alleged contravention does not necessarily mean a contravention actually occurred. Councils, like everybody else, make mistakes, so it’s always worth scrutinising their actions.

 

 

It is noted that the penalty charge has been imposed under the provisions of section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”).

 

It is necessary to make the council aware that section 1(2) of the 2003 Act advises that the powers of section 4 of the 2003 Act will only apply from the “appointed day”. Section 3 gives direction as to what constitutes the “appointed day” and it directs in relation to a borough council that it is such a day as may be fixed by resolution of the borough council. It is important to note that any such resolution is subject to and must be in full accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the 2003 Act.

 

Section 3(5) of the 2003 Act requires that the resolution of the council fixing the “appointed day” and the general effect of the provisions of the 2003 Act coming into operation as from that day must be published in a local newspaper and in the London Gazette at least 3 months before the commencement of the “appointed day”.

 

Considering the above, I require the council to provide evidence that the council has passed, in regard to section 4 of the 2003 Act, such a resolution fixing the “appointed day”. In addition, I require evidence that a notice was published in both a local newspaper and the London Gazette. Section 3(6) of the 2003 Act details what specific items the council should provide as evidence.

 

6) Either a photostatic or other reproduction certified by the officer appointed for that purpose by the borough council or by Transport for London to be a reproduction of a page or part of a page of any such newspaper or the London Gazette bearing the date of its publication and containing any such notice shall be evidence of the publication of the notice, and of the date of publication.

 

I must advise the council that the contravention can only be enforced if it has been correctly enabled in accordance with the law and therefore I need to establish whether it has been. I will remind the council that in the key case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council, the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. An appellant requesting access to the evidence when an allegation is made against them is a reasonable act and not to provide the evidence when asked is an unreasonable act since any failure by the council to provide any evidence will prejudice an appellant’s ability to consider whether they have reasonable grounds to continue to adjudication.

 

Further, by serving the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) the council are alleging that I contravened section 4(5) of the 2003 Act by either failing to comply with a prescribed order or failing to comply with a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. However, the PCN does not inform me which one these two applies. Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires a PCN to state the grounds on which the council believe a penalty charge is payable. According to section 4(5) of the 2003 Act there are only two grounds and the contravention description given on the PCN, although it makes reference to a particular traffic sign, it does not tell me whether that particular traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign or whether I contravened a prescribed order that the traffic sign simply gives effect to. This information is important as it is required to enable me to learn whether I breached the ground (whereby a penalty charge is payable) given under section 4(5)(a) or 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act. Withholding this information may be considered prejudicial by the courts since an appellant may spend time trying to obtain a prescribed order in preparation for an appeal when in fact the relevant traffic sign may not be regulated by a prescribed order but by some other statutory provision, as scheduled section 36 traffic signs often are. It is critical to remember that on receipt of a PCN a person has no more than 28 days to prepare an appeal and an appellant can ill afford to waste time on establishing whether they contravened a prescribed order or a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is my belief that section 4(8) of the 2003 Act requires this information to be stated on the PCN and the failure of the council to do so raises doubt about the lawfulness of the PCN served.

 

As the PCN fails to confirm whether it is being served on the ground given under section 4(5)(a) or section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act, I hereby require the council to confirm this point. Where the council claim it is under section 4(5)(a) then I require the council to provide me with a full copy of the prescribed order that they believe has been contravened and I require the council to explain fully what article or articles they believe were contravened and to direct me to the specific entry for the location concerned within the relevant schedule. If the prescribed order has been amended then it is necessary that these amendments are also provided in full. Where the council claim that the PCN was served under the provision of section 4(5)(b) of the 2003 Act then I require the council to provide evidence that the traffic sign is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign. It is a requirement of section 36(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (the 1988 Act) that a section 36 traffic sign be “lawfully placed”. Section 36(2) of the 1988 Act provides that a section 36 traffic sign is lawfully placed only if the indication given by the sign is an indication of a statutory prohibition, restriction or requirement, or it is expressly provided by or under any provision of the “Traffic Acts” that section 36 of the 1988 Act shall apply to the sign or to signs of a type of which the sign is one. Considering this, it is necessary for me to establish whether the scheduled section 36 traffic sign has been lawfully placed. Therefore, I ask the council to confirm what legal provision gives effect to the scheduled section 36 traffic sign that I am alleged to have contravened.

 

A photo of my vehicle against the backdrop of a traffic sign is not proof of a contravention. I will remind the council that where they serve a PCN then the burden of proof in regard to any alleged contravention remains with them. As such, I will only be satisfied that a contravention occurred if the evidence requested provides unequivocal proof of a contravention.

 

Yours with love, hugs & kisses.

 

For some reasons smiley faces have appeared but where they show then the section is 4(eight).

 

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES AND TRANSPORT FOR LONDON ACT 2003

NOTIFICATION OF NEW POWERS

Notice is hereby given that the Council of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham passed a Resolution on 30 June 2004, with regard to the above Act. The 15 of November 2004 has been fixed as the appointed day on which the provisions of sections 4, 5, 7 and 16 of the above Act shall come into operation with regard to road traffic contraventions within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

The general effect of this is that in order to promote safety on the highway, the Local Council:

 

(a) will have the powers, replacing those of the Metropolitan Police, to enforce the moving traffic offences scheduled in the above Act. From the appointed day, moving traffic offences will no longer be criminal offences, but will be contraventions for which a Penalty Charge Notice may be issued;

(b) may issue a Penalty Charge Notice to the registered owner of a lorry contravening a lorry ban order within the borough;

© may legally prevent damage to public footways and verges by executing such traffic management measures as necessary.

 

The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham will also commence an education awareness campaign approximately 4 weeks before the appointed day to advise motorists and residents with further detailed information.

 

P Nicholls, Head of Highways and Engineering

 

 

11 August 2004.

[TheBogsDollocks]

That's very commendable G&M but no one is asking you to provide the evidence. Now lets see if the parking office drones can find that notice in a copy of the local newspaper or London Gazette from 2004 and get it certified by the appropriate officer and provide evidence of the formal resolution and all the other evidence requested. I'm hoping they will be too lazy to do this.

Edited February 14, 2011 by TheBogsDollocks

[green_and_mean]

That's very commendable G&M but no one is asking you to provide the evidence. Now lets see if the parking office drones can find that notice in a copy of the local newspaper or London Gazette from 2004 and get it certified by the appropriate officer and provide evidence of the formal resolution and all the other evidence requested. I'm hoping they will be too lazy to do this.

 

It doesn't have to as far as I'm aware, next you will be stating they provide proof that the TMA 2004 has been passed in Parliament.

[TheBogsDollocks]

It doesn't have to as far as I'm aware, next you will be stating they provide proof that the TMA 2004 has been passed in Parliament.

 

No need to be flippant and condescending G&M. I know it's your trademark and you take some perverse pride in it but it's worn thin and become very tedious....yawn!

 

Asking a council to prove that a resolution was passed and advertised in accordance with the law is a perfectly reasonable thing to do since enforcement is founded on such a resolution having been made. I don't just accept everything is hunky dory just because a council employee (such as yourself) says it is, I prefer to see the evidence for myself. I expect most if not all London Boroughs have passed a resolution, in which case they should have no trouble proving it. This is only one aspect of the appeal and there are other hurdles in the appeal for the council to jump over should they clear this hurdle.

 

If the OP thinks my appeal has no merit then that's OK, it does not need to be used. If a good solid appeal point comes along (I hope it does) then my offering will not be needed but if one doesn't come along then my offering may provide a little hope where there is none and should the points not be fully and competently replied to (as I hope) then that will only serve to make any further appeal stronger.

 

I know you like to always have the last word in any debate but you would be better serving the OP (which is what this thread is about) by coming up with a solid point for an appeal rather than focusing on stamping your superiority over me.

[green_and_mean]

No need to be flippant and condescending G&M. I know it's your trademark and you take some perverse pride in it but it's worn thin and become very tedious....yawn!

 

Asking a council to prove that a resolution was passed and advertised in accordance with the law is a perfectly reasonable thing to do since enforcement is founded on such a resolution having been made. I don't just accept everything is hunky dory just because a council employee (such as yourself) says it is, I prefer to see the evidence for myself. I expect most if not all London Boroughs have passed a resolution, in which case they should have no trouble proving it. This is only one aspect of the appeal and there are other hurdles in the appeal for the council to jump over should they clear this hurdle.

 

If the OP thinks my appeal has no merit then that's OK, it does not need to be used. If a good solid appeal point comes along (I hope it does) then my offering will not be needed but if one doesn't come along then my offering may provide a little hope where there is none and should the points not be fully and competently replied to (as I hope) then that will only serve to make any further appeal stronger.

 

I know you like to always have the last word in any debate but you would be better serving the OP (which is what this thread is about) by coming up with a solid point for an appeal rather than focusing on stamping your superiority over me.

 

I'm not a Council employee I'm actually self employed but it still annoys me to see my money wasted on Council staff answering stupid requests just because you want to be awkward! If there are valid grounds of appeal then appeal but wasting public money on time wasting arguments and FOI requests serves no purpose whatsoever other than waste my and every other tax payers money. I wasn't rude to you or stamping my authority I was simply saving the OP wasting everyones time requesting a document a 5 year old is able to google. You are the one that said they had to prove they had passed the resolution yet have failed to indicate where this is stated in any 'law'? As with traffic orders its a public document which the OP can inspect along with thousands of other documents at Hammersmith town hall. It actually does make me laugh that you have now resorted to grasping at straws rather than credible appeals I guess Councils must be more on the ball than they used to be!

[TheBogsDollocks]

Yawn!!!!zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[green_and_mean]

Yawn!!!!zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

 

Very mature!!

[TheBogsDollocks]

Very mature!!

 

Na na na na na!

[sailor sam]

Can I ask why you are wasting your time and effort here? The OP only posted once which was 9th May 2009.

[Tony P]

The OP only posted once which was 9th May 2009.

Yes.

But the thread came alive again yesterday with post #4 from a new poster (NP) with a similar problem at about the same location.

Your post suggests you may now be unaware of this, which is surprising considering the first response to the NP was from someone called ... eerrrmm ... sailor sam.

 

But I do agree the hair pulling, pinching and nose waving is not really worthy of the others - nor of assistance to the OP, NP or any FP or any one else interested in the topic.

[honeybee13]

Come on chaps, I'm sure we can all be civil.

 

HB

[sailor sam]

Deleted

[sailor sam]

Yes.

But the thread came alive again yesterday with post #4 from a new poster (NP) with a similar problem at about the same location.

Your post suggests you may now be unaware of this, which is surprising considering the first response to the NP was from someone called ... eerrrmm ... sailor sam.

 

But I do agree the hair pulling, pinching and nose waving is not really worthy of the others - nor of assistance to the OP, NP or any FP or any one else interested in the topic.

 

You obviously didn't read my post (#5) properley Tony! You would of see that I advised the NP to start his own thread.

[clarridges]

Hi,

We have had exactly the same problem - on 22nd February. There were building works and the main entrance was fenced off (which I believe would be the BBC). We have appealled and have been sent a notice of rejection of representation, but we now attend to make an appeal to the adjudicator.

Should we pay the £60 fine now - and ask for a refund in the appeal? Problem is, we had 2 cars following each other so we have got 2 fines rather than one.

In the photographic evidence there are no evidence of No U-Turn signs on the main carriageway of Wood Lane. We turned around in the building site entrance - through the 2 bollards.

Just wondering how you have got on with your appeal?

Many Thanks