DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 44644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 8, 2024, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Case from tribunal at the location yesterday where review was
turned down.
--------------
2240329909
The allegation in this case is failing to comply with a sign
indicating a prohibited turn. The Appellant disputes this,
asserting that the she did not perform a U-turn.
She says that she turned right into an alley with a view to
parking there but there was already a vehicle there so she
reversed back onto the road and continued her journey.
The Appellant criticises the quality of the signage but says
that she knows that a U-turn is prohibited at this location. The
quality of the signage is not material therefore but in any
event I am satisfied the Enforcement Authority photographs show
clear signage.
It is well established law that what is commonly described as a
‘‘No U turn’’ sign does not simply prohibit a manoeuvre in the
precise parabola seen on the sign. The sign indicates that the
motorist may not reverse his direction of travel, whether that
be in one sweeping movement or by the use of forward and reverse
gears.
The enforcement camera footage shows a clear example of the
contravention with the vehicle using what looks like a vehicle
crossover in order to perform a three-point-turn. I do not
accept the circumstances described by the Appellant but even if
I did she has not established anything which goes beyond
mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a
matter of their discretion. An Adjudicator has no power to
direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the
contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and
served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Previous decision
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
The Appellant is seeking a review of the refusal of her appeal,
such refusal being dated 2nd October 2024.
The Appellant has not attended today, despite having confirmed
receipt of the review schedule letter. No explanation has been
provided for her non-attendance. I therefore find it
proportionate to decide the matter in her absence.
I have carefully considered the Appellant's written
representations in support of this application.
A review hearing is not an automatic rehearing. In order to
proceed with a review hearing, an adjudicator must be satisfied
that at least one of the criteria set out below are met.
The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022,
Schedule 1, Part 2 deals with procedure relating to an
application to review: 12 (1) The Adjudicator may, on the
application of a party, review –(a) Any interlocutory decision;
or (b) Any decision to determine that a notice of appeal does
not accord with paragraph 2 or to dismiss or allow an appeal, or
any decision as to costs, on one or more of the following
grounds:– (i) The decision was wrongly made as the result of an
administrative error (ii) The adjudicator was wrong to reject
the notice of appeal (iii) A party who failed to appear or be
represented at a hearing had good and sufficient reason for his
failure to appear(iv) Where the decision was made after a
hearing, new evidence has become available since the conclusion
of the hearing, the existence of which could not reasonably have
been known of or foreseen (v) Where the decision was made
without a hearing, new evidence has become available since the
decision was made, the existence of which could not reasonably
have been known of or foreseen; or (vi) the interests of justice
require such a review.
An adjudicator may confirm, revoke or vary a decision.
Having considered the above criteria, I find that none are
applicable in this case. Regulation 12 (b) (i) - (iii) are not
relevant. There is no fresh evidence in this matter, and
therefore subparagraphs (iv) and (v) are not relevant. In
respect of subparagraph (vi), a party cannot simply ask for a
review of the decision because they think it is wrong. Each
review request will depend on its own facts. The availability of
the review procedure should not be taken to mean that in every
case where a litigant is unsuccessful, they are automatically
entitled to a review - virtually every unsuccessful litigant
thinks that the interests of justice require the outcome to be
reconsidered. The ground only applies where something has gone
radically wrong with the procedure involving a denial of natural
justice or something of that order.
I find that no ground for review has been established I
therefore refuse this application.
#Post#: 44680--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 8, 2024, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, reference to Azadegan is misplaced. It pre-dates Alexander
and frankly who cares what a council officer concedes, this
doesn't make case law!
In
Alexander(
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/560.html),<br
/>the judge reiterates the fact that:
No person causing or permitting any vehicle to proceed in those
lengths of Edith Road or Gliddon Road that lie between the
common boundary of Nos. 21 and 23 Edith Road and the northern
kerb-line of Talgarth Road shall cause or permit that vehicle to
turn at any point in those lengths of roads so as to face in the
opposite direction to that in which it was proceeding."
We can deduce that the Order's provisions in your case are
similar, but frankly to launch a review without reference to
this limb of the legal framework seems bizarre.
What does the Order in this case provide?
If it refers to the manoeuvre being made 'in the length of road'
then bring this to the fore and then contrast with the CCTV and
the first adjudicator's apparent acceptance that your car left
the road.
#Post#: 45014--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Pl
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: November 11, 2024, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Order states:
////////////////////
Commencement and Citation
1. This Order shall come into operation on the 18th July 2016
and shall be cited as the Redbridge (Prescribed Routes) (No. 1)
Order 2016.
Revocations
2. This Order hereby revokes The London Borough of Redbridge
(Prescribed Routes) (No. 4) Traffic Order 2003.
Definitions
3. "U-Turn" means a vehicle moving in one direction, turning so
as to move in the opposite direction.
Interpretation
4. Save as provided in Article 5 of this Order, no person shall
cause or permit any vehicle proceeding in the south-westbound
direction on High Road Seven Kings and High Road Ilford to make
a U-turn between a point 33 metres south-west of the
south-western kerb line of Seven Kings Road and a point 20
metres south-west of the south-western kerb line of Clark's
Road.
5. Nothing in this Order shall apply to:
a. Anything done with the permission, or at the direction, of
a police officer in uniform.
b. Any vehicle being used for Police, Fire Brigade or
Ambulance purposes when being used in an emergency
c. Any person who causes any vehicle to proceed in accordance
with any restriction or requirement indicated by traffic signs
placed in pursuant to Section 66 or Section 67 of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
////////////////////
My [other] contention is that the Adjudicator's reference to
Alexander is incorrect in that in Alexander, the vehicle didn't
leave the 'road'. Or to put it another way, if I were to
overlay my case on top of Alexander, my vehicle took a
right-turn into the entrance of Barons Keep, entering the
private grounds completely and then leaving these via the exit
gate by taking a left-turn.
#Post#: 47710--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 1, 2024, 7:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have taken this case on.
#Post#: 48687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 6, 2024, 1:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] Surely this has been misapplied?
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/560.html
The vehicle left the carriageway. Very imminent hearing.
#Post#: 48693--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: December 6, 2024, 2:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] that case is just a blatant
example of someone who should have instructed a competent
representative rather than proceeding as a litigant in person.
The fact that the review adjudicator considered The Civil
Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and
Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 for a London moving traffic
contravention shows that unrepresented litigants are unable to
assist the tribunal.
I'm trying to push adjudicators to start mentioning that
unrepresented litigants who lose might have done better not to
proceed as LiPs.
#Post#: 48796--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 7, 2024, 12:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Panel Decision concerned 2110041915 and 2110032583. Yet
this:
Azadegan -v- Hammersmith and Fulham
56. Following our findings as to exactly what constitutes a
U-turn, we are satisfied that the manoeuvre carried out by the
driver in this case was such a turn, which is prohibited. The
contravention therefore occurred.
Accordingly, on Review of matter number 2110078336, the original
decision to allow the appeal is REVOKED. The effect is the same
as if the original appeal had been refused but, for the reasons
set out at paragraph 9 above, on this particular occasion no
further direction is necessary.
2110078336? Having looked at the DVD evidence again I find that
the vehicle did not leave the road, as defined above. Had it
done so and gone into the car park then there would have been no
contravention.
The vehicle did not leave the road, however and the manoeuvre, I
find, amounted to a U turn. I have to find therefore that the
penalty notice was properly issued. It follows that I must
refuse the appeal.
2110032583: On the other hand, a U-turn does not occur simply
because a vehicle has travelled in the opposite direction. If a
vehicle turns into a side road and performs a U-turn in the side
road the emerge at the junction and travels in the opposite
direction, no U-turn occurred on the main road even though the
vehicle went in the exact opposite direction. The U-turn
occurred on the side road. The Appellant appeared to have done
just that although the turn was a three point turn as opposed to
a U-turn, and it took place very close to the junction.
I am satisfied that the Appellant has in fact entered the minor
road when he performed a three point turn. The contravention has
not occurred. I am allowing the appeal.
**
I cannot fathom how the High Court case applies to this
particular issue at all.
#Post#: 48994--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 9, 2024, 6:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Both allowed.
#Post#: 49016--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: December 9, 2024, 8:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great result and rightly so!! :)
As advised by the more learned on this forum, I attended
in-person and accompanied [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] who
kindly offered to represent me, and it was lovely to meet the
legend himself and see one of the forum maestros at work. He
allowed me to contribute whilst ensuring that I didn't put my
foot in it. His knowledge, the diplomacy with a small
side-serving of candour and the mutually respectful relationship
with the adjudicator, all whilst battling with his laptop was a
sight to behold.
Along with the other Musketeers on here, a true credit to the
forum and a saviour of those innocent motorists who are seen as
a cash cow by our councils. If only more of us were brave
enough (circumstances permitting of course) to take them to
tribunal and further if necessary, rather than just coughing up
at first demand.
God bless him and the other unsung heroes on here.
Many thanks also to all others who contributed to the
thread...is much appreciated.
Regards - NTIAEP
#Post#: 49095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/50u-Performing a prohibited turn (no U-turn)/Jct
of High Rd (Ilford) & Cricklefield Place
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 9, 2024, 2:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NTIAEP link ---
>
> Great result and rightly so!! :)
>
> As advised by the more learned on this forum, I attended
in-person and accompanied [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] who
kindly offered to represent me, and it was lovely to meet the
legend himself and see one of the forum maestros at work. He
allowed me to contribute whilst ensuring that I didn't put my
foot in it. His knowledge, the diplomacy with a small
side-serving of candour and the mutually respectful relationship
with the adjudicator, all whilst battling with his laptop was a
sight to behold.
>
> Along with the other Musketeers on here, a true credit to the
forum and a saviour of those innocent motorists who are seen as
a cash cow by our councils. If only more of us were brave
enough (circumstances permitting of course) to take them to
tribunal and further if necessary, rather than just coughing up
at first demand.
>
> God bless him and the other unsung heroes on here.
>
> Many thanks also to all others who contributed to the
thread...is much appreciated.
>
> Regards - NTIAEP
>
--- End Quote ---
;D
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page