DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 16699--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: taffer87
Date: March 3, 2024, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This should support de minimis
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this
vehicle failed to comply with a no entry sign. The appellant's
claim that he reversed through signage to give way to another
vehicle is I find fully supported by the council's online
footage of the incident. This does amount to a breach of the no
entry prohibition but given the reason for it my noting that the
vehicle having reversed past signage then almost immediately
proceeded forward I am satisfied that it amounts to no more than
a de minimus transgression thereof and I accordingly find that
the contravention did not occur.
#Post#: 16701--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 3, 2024, 4:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Totally different circumstances IMO, de minimis is not
applicable as the whole vehicle from the rear bumper to the back
of the front wheels was in contravention and I wouldn't refer.
#Post#: 16703--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: taffer87
Date: March 3, 2024, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> Totally different circumstances IMO, de minimis is not
applicable as the whole vehicle from the rear bumper to the back
of the front wheels was in contravention and I wouldn't refer.
>
--- End Quote ---
if it does end up at tribunal there is really no harm by raising
de minimis (is there?) and some adjudicators are more friendly
than others so you never know. Doesn’t mean this is the only or
central point
this is pretty close to de minimis and whether it is one side or
the other of the de minimis threshold should be left to
adjudicators (provided the OP wants to take to tribunal anyhow)
#Post#: 16717--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: March 3, 2024, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The OP isn't at tribunal, they've yet to decide whether to pay
the discount or submit reps. If submitting reps is risk free,
and I don't know whether it would be, then submit reps. But if
there's doubt as to whether the discount would be re-offered
with unsuccessful reps then unless there are other more
substantive grounds then IMO the OP should consider the
discount.
#Post#: 16720--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: antman40
Date: March 3, 2024, 11:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A representation has been submitted based on De Minimis. Let's
see what the council's response will be.
Thank you for all your comments.
#Post#: 16730--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 3, 2024, 1:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought some technical issues were going to be included?
#Post#: 17513--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: March 17, 2024, 7:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> The link/click idea now doesn't work as per one recent
decision?
>
--- End Quote ---
That's just one adjudicator, most do accept it.
#Post#: 19204--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: antman40
Date: April 7, 2024, 6:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello.
I've had a response from Waltham Forest Council. They have
cancelled the PCN the appeal based on De Minimis has been
accepted. I guess there wasn't enough evidence in the video
footage to enforce the PCN as the signs cannot be seen and the
vehicle had only used the space to perform a 3-point turn which
is clearly evident and not illegal in any way nor did the
vehicle drive head-on or forwards through the signs.
Thank you all for your assistance and advice. Much appreciated.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 19207--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: MrChips
Date: April 7, 2024, 7:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Wonders never cease! Well done.
#Post#: 19211--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for 3-point turn with no prohibited signage for U-turn.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 7, 2024, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I just love it! Get it? :D
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1389.0;attach=5890
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page