URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 29277--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: July 9, 2024, 12:33 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Cannot access the NOR.
       #Post#: 29283--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: July 9, 2024, 1:09 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
       >
       > Cannot access the NOR.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       any better?
       #Post#: 31606--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: July 30, 2024, 5:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       In the process of submitting the following for the tribunals.
       Any feedback?
       The alleged contravention of “Performing a prohibited turn (no
       U-turn)” did not occur and the video and/or photo evidence
       provided by LBR does not prove otherwise.
       Rather, the vehicle took a permitted right-turn onto private
       land, fully entering it (i.e. crossing the building line) and
       therefore completely leaving the carriageway and footway.  At
       the timing and complete discretion of the driver (which is of no
       concern to LBR, nor does it have any authority to dictate), the
       vehicle then exited the same private land and proceeded to take
       a permitted left-turn on to the carriageway.
       Please note:
       - that there are no signs which prohibit either a ‘right-turn’
       nor a ‘left-turn’ covering this specific stretch of carriageway;
       - that once a vehicle has left the road, the ‘traffic management
       order’ does not apply. It therefore follows that even in the
       event of an immediate return to the road by the vehicle, this
       contravention cannot occur whatever direction the vehicle then
       travels in. Please see “London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
       -v- Pirooz Azadegan” - Appeal number 2110041915 [para 42]
       #Post#: 31614--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: July 30, 2024, 7:15 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Looks OK to me. Good luck !
       #Post#: 31627--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: July 30, 2024, 9:21 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       This location/prohibited u-turn came come several times on the
       old forum. The critical factor is whether the vehicle left the
       road and there is a panel decision on this that includes the
       case you cite. It looks like you may have done but maybe not
       quite and plenty of appeals have fallen with people using the
       same manoeuvre but often more obviously on the footway line.
       Note that there is also a distance from the sign of 240 yards
       (not metres...) - probably within this but how to tell. But it
       may be the distance to the next u-turn sign as there are two.
       The Panel decision in Azadegan (2110041915) where the Panel
       considered at what point a vehicle is deemed to have left the
       road. The finding at paragraphs 42 and 43 are that:
       “A road is generally all land from the building line on one side
       to the building line on the other. It typically has a
       carriageway in the middle with footways on either side. A
       footway may include ‘crossovers’ which give access from the
       carriageway to adjoining premises. They may all be part of the
       road, as may grass verges, flower beds or paved areas.”
       "44. In Glidden Road, although the vehicle enters the crossover
       to the adjoining block of flats, which we understand is called
       Baron’s Keep, the vehicle is on the road at all times. The road
       that the vehicle it is on at all times is Glidden Road."
  HTML https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Azadegan%2520and%2520Orphanides%2520%2528Panel%2520Hearing%2529.doc&ved=2ahUKEwjFxeGt-M6HAxUGZkEAHRh4BL8QFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2hrJTpzsPoRv556l0NkNUS
       #Post#: 41015--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Pl
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: October 16, 2024, 7:43 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Afternoon All....quick update and request for further
       advice/thoughts.
       Received a response (appeal refused :'( ) from London Tribunals
       as follows:
       ////////
       Adjudicator's Reasons
       This vehicle on the council's case, on two occasions, performed
       a prohibited turn it carrying out a u-turn on Ilford High Road
       when prohibited by signage from doing so.
       The case upon which the appellant relies is not recorded on
       tribunal systems under the reference number provided
       (2110041915).
       I acknowledge that on both of these occasions the vehicle turned
       right onto private land it then exiting that land turning left
       onto the carriageway.
       The High Court in R v (Alexander) v The Parking Adjudicator and
       London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham [2014] EWHC 560 (Admin)
       has confirmed that a 'no u-turn' sign includes a prohibition on
       any manoeuvre that allows the motorist to turn around and go
       back the way he came. There is no requirement on the motorist to
       have driven in one continuous sweep; a three point turn or other
       manoeuvre is included in the sign commonly known as a 'no u
       turn' sign.
       I am bound by decisions of the High Court.
       I am satisfied on the evidence before me applying that decision
       that these contraventions have
       occurred.
       The appeal is refused.
       Andrew Harman
       Adjudicator
       15th October 2024
       ////////
       It seems the Adjudicator has completely disregarded my reference
       to and reliance upon para42 of the Azadegan panel hearing.
  HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.562847,0.0934338,17.69z?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAxMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
       By the same token, would I be right in saying that any vehicle
       which is travelling along High Rd (Westbound), takes a left turn
       into either Cricklefield Place or Clark's Rd and then
       irrespective of the time lapsed, exits the same road by taking a
       right turn back onto High Rd (Eastbound), has performed a
       prohibited u-turn?
       Could the same be argued for a vehicle which travelling along
       High Rd (Westbound), takes a left turn into:
       a) Highbury Gardens and goes anti-clockwise around the block; or
       b) New Rd and somehow turns around;
       and then exits New Rd by taking a right turn back onto High Rd
       (Eastbound)?
       Surely these are also then classed as u-turns???
       Do I have any other recourse or do I just take this [twice] on
       the chin?
       Thoughts/advice welcome.
       Regards - NTIAEP
       #Post#: 41020--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: October 16, 2024, 8:05 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       image of TMO pertaining to this stretch of road attached.
       [img]
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9xq0k7sw2hyq99y7pgvm1/TMO_LBR-No9-2016.JPG?rlkey=9udl7xnynz2ax73q7kyufgkik&st=d99q0qgn&dl=0[/img]
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/9xq0k7sw2hyq99y7pgvm1/TMO_LBR-No9-2016.JPG?rlkey=9udl7xnynz2ax73q7kyufgkik&st=d99q0qgn&dl=0
       #Post#: 41050--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: October 16, 2024, 10:37 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       You can ask for a review of the decision but I don't think
       you'll get one.
       I didn't think you'd win this as for me you didn't leave the
       road but went on a publicly accessible part of the road
       extending to the building line.
       There is case 2110041915 so not sure what he's on about there.
       Of course you can exit the main road and go down a side road and
       turn around and turn back in the opposite direction provided
       those turns are allowed.
       #Post#: 41072--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: NTIAEP
       Date: October 16, 2024, 12:09 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
       >
       > You can ask for a review of the decision but I don't think
       you'll get one.
       >
       > I didn't think you'd win this as for me you didn't leave the
       road but went on a publicly accessible part of the road
       extending to the building line.
       >
       > There is case 2110041915 so not sure what he's on about there.
       >
       > Of course you can exit the main road and go down a side road
       and turn around and turn back in the opposite direction provided
       those turns are allowed.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       1) How do go about asking for a review?
       2) That's just it.  I believe that I did completely cross what I
       perceive to be the 'building line' as depicted by the red line
       in the GSV image below.
  HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/kizth7jirw73j31cm7j3f/Google-SV_marked.JPG?rlkey=e750nqriap5210ahpi8r5vgp7&st=uuqxwtlp&dl=0
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/KLmSDtnbVFzgarjo8
       3) Exactly.  There is case 2110041915
       4)  Agreed.  But ultimately, haven't you performed a [series of]
       turns which make you head back in the direction from you
       approached (i.e. a u-turn)?
       #Post#: 41079--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
       of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
   DIR By: stamfordman
       Date: October 16, 2024, 12:42 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Review info:
  HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/how-can-i-challenge-outcome-my-appeal
       The no u-turn zone is there to protect against potentially
       dangerous turning by drivers trying to defeat the right turn. So
       if you want to defeat it by going down a side road that's not an
       issue as it's nothing to do with the contravention.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 5
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page