DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 99572--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 24, 2025, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not the PCN issue?
#Post#: 99594--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: November 24, 2025, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Not the PCN issue?
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry? confused? you want me to reattach the PCN, this is for
the U Turn after a No right turn, caught on their CCTV by an
operator
#Post#: 99644--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 24, 2025, 3:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Did you use then PCN issue in my first link in my profile?
#Post#: 99658--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: November 24, 2025, 6:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I assume you're referring to the link for
'moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information', which
refers to 28 days argument? If so, nope I did not use this as
there was no mention of this as a point for this u turn PCN.
** UPDATED *** Having just looked back at your intial reply
here, you had a link reference as point 3 to ' 53j Perrymans
Farm Road', which at the end did mention the 28 days, but at
that point I had not registered/processed it fully as it was
close to the deadline to submit, hence left it out at that
point.
So are you saying the argument to win this case is around this
28 day wording and not to do with the actual u turn/signage etc?
#Post#: 99706--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 25, 2025, 5:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN issue is stronger.
#Post#: 99781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: November 25, 2025, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> PCN issue is stronger.
>
--- End Quote ---
This PCN/28 day argument was used for another case you advised
on, at the same road/junction and contravention, which the
council rejected, along with many other arguments the OP used
around the location and road markings etc :( - I assume your PCN
isue is a point to be used and won at adjudication? If yes then
i'll see this one through till teh end, as todays the last day
for discounted rate :O
Im reviewing your explanation around the PCN 28 days technical
argument, to get my head around it, as I do remember you
mentioning this point once before on a different case I had but
I struggled to full understand the argument, due to the wording
and it being above my head :). I'll try and draft up a formal
response, including your point and others from the similar case
(even though they've been rejected, it'll be more ammunition).
--- Quote from: IHateUnfairPCNs link ---
>
> This is the case for this No U-turn zone, with the first sign
being at Paddypower and for the opposite way being near
Wellesley Road traffic lights. Any repeater signs are to be
taken as first-time signs if the main sign was unable to be
seen, as in this case. Our case is that drivers are unable to
clearly see those repeater signs on both sides due to the angle,
>
--- End Quote ---
There are two signs one across the road, and then one more
further down after the traffic light which is concealed and
difficult to see from the turning. Councils argument is the sign
across teh road is the first sign in our case and visible, but
yes we're arguing the difficulty in seeing this for a number of
reason - All if not the majority of which have been used in
another case, and each rejected :(
HTML https://ibb.co/93CPXHQf
HTML https://ibb.co/5gwKxSFy
HTML https://ibb.co/dwZSxvRG
--- Quote from: IHateUnfairPCNs link ---
>
> Near where I live, there is a road known as Browning Road, E12
and there is a bridge
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm very familiar with this road and the restirction, as I was
one of the few groups/roads that were fighting to have this
expanded to a few additional roads, which actually meritted
being part of the zone, took it to the whole 9 yard but the
council leaders had made their mind even when we had countered
all their points :(
#Post#: 99793--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: IHateUnfairPCNs
Date: November 25, 2025, 2:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Could you link the tribunal case which was rejected and any
others pertaining to this location please.
#Post#: 99813--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: November 25, 2025, 4:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: IHateUnfairPCNs link ---
>
> Could you link the tribunal case which was rejected and any
others pertaining to this location please.
>
--- End Quote ---
Its not gone to tribunal yet it seems, rather its been at the
informal/formal appeal -
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/penalty-charge-notice-for-u-turn/
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] - My formal appeal below,
although point 1 and 2 are not actually mandatory requirements
it seems from what I have read, nonetheless have added them as
additonal points. Point 3 (your case) so far I've seen has been
rejected it seems by Redbridge LA on two occasions on other
cases here, although both at informal appeal, so I expect the
same here.
1. Signage Positioning
Firstly as you approach Cranbrook road from York Road, there is
no sign on York Road, giving advance warning to the driver that
they are about to enter onto a road where there is a
prohibition, leaving little no chance of doubt or avoidance.
Secondly the 'no U-turn' sign that you refer which was not
noticeable for a number of reason (visibility, positioning,
distance and location), is on the opposite side of the road,
signage must be clearly visible to the direction of traffic it
applies to, a sign on the opposite side of the road is generally
ineffective and can be confusing as can be seen in this
instance.
2. Visibility and Puffin Controlled Area
The ‘no U-turn’ sign you have referred to is placed within a
‘puffin controlled area’ (zig-zag lines), where many road signs
are prohibited from being placed, to ensure clear visibility for
drivers in ensuring full concentration is on pedestrians using
the crossing, which is exactly why after ensuring that any
traffic coming from the right had cleared on Cranbrook road, as
the driver then turns into Cranbrook road, the focus would
instantly if not in parallel turn to the left, to ensure
pedestrians and potential dangers from that side of Cranbrook
road are covered, making it very difficult to perform all 3
tasks and then to also be expected to look at a road sign on the
opposite side of the road.
Also the TSRGD ( TSRGD 2016, reg. 2 and Sch 1) prohibits the use
of all road signs (with a few exceptions, eg no-right-turn) from
being placed within zig-zag lines of
3. Validity of the PCN
Lastly I make this collateral challenge against the validity of
the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at
Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of
the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: If you fail to pay the
Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a
period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this
notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable. adds to the
lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the
required information was included or not, it is also arguable
that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many
would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the
statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still
no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that
it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.
#Post#: 100432--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: LondonTraveller84
Date: November 30, 2025, 3:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A slight bump :) to see if the above is ok to send as part of
the formal appeal.
#Post#: 100475--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge - 50u Prohibited Turn
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 1, 2025, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page