FPN - Blood Robbing Council

FPN - Blood Robbing Council

Author
Discussion

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Friday 25th September 2015
quotequote all
I just got a FPN from Newham Council. I remember the day although Mrs BC was driving. There were lots of roadworks so we took a diversion and ended up here:-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5498728,-0.00813...

It seems that once you turn (legally) into Temple Mill Lane you already facing No Entry signs for the roads left and right leaving no way out without making a U turn. The turn on the right is into a private car park which was closed anyway.

There is already a thread on Pepipoo as others have been caught:-

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.ph...

Can't really see a way out but bloody annoying that a road would run into no entry signs leaving no legal way out other than a U turn.

Vipers

32,796 posts

227 months

Friday 25th September 2015
quotequote all
bad company said:
I just got a FPN from Newham Council. I remember the day although Mrs BC was driving. There were lots of roadworks so we took a diversion and ended up here:-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5498728,-0.00813...

It seems that once you turn (legally) into Temple Mill Lane you already facing No Entry signs for the roads left and right leaving no way out without making a U turn. The turn on the right is into a private car park which was closed anyway.

There is already a thread on Pepipoo as others have been caught:-

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.ph...

Can't really see a way out but bloody annoying that a road would run into no entry signs leaving no legal way out other than a U turn.
Out of interest what I dont understand is if you were directed to a no entry signed road, and you say you have no option but do a U turn, if you did the U turn before the no entry sign, why did you get a FPN.




smile

Vipers

32,796 posts

227 months

Friday 25th September 2015
quotequote all
bad company said:
I just got a FPN from Newham Council. I remember the day although Mrs BC was driving. There were lots of roadworks so we took a diversion and ended up here:-

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5498728,-0.00813...

It seems that once you turn (legally) into Temple Mill Lane you already facing No Entry signs for the roads left and right leaving no way out without making a U turn. The turn on the right is into a private car park which was closed anyway.

There is already a thread on Pepipoo as others have been caught:-

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.ph...

Can't really see a way out but bloody annoying that a road would run into no entry signs leaving no legal way out other than a U turn.
Out of interest what I dont understand is if you were directed to a no entry signed road, and you say you have no option but do a U turn, if you did the U turn before the no entry sign, why did you get a FPN.




smile

Bill

52,472 posts

254 months

Friday 25th September 2015
quotequote all
I can see why you're annoyed , but it is clearly signposted and its probably preferable that people have to u-turns in the not very busy lane rather than realising mid junction and causing chaos.

CoolHands

18,496 posts

194 months

Friday 25th September 2015
quotequote all
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you drove over the bridge? Or are you saying you got a ticket for doing a U-turn? confused

Hamish Finn

476 posts

107 months

Friday 25th September 2015
quotequote all
CoolHands said:
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you drove over the bridge? Or are you saying you got a ticket for doing a U-turn? confused
No, it was something to do with blood, I think. Presumably the OP works for the National Blood Service.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Friday 25th September 2015
quotequote all
CoolHands said:
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying you drove over the bridge? Or are you saying you got a ticket for doing a U-turn? confused
No we didn't do a U turn, apparently we went thru the No Entry sign. Seems odd as we although Mrs BC was driving we were both concentrating on the route so very odd that we both failed to see the sign.

The road was busy that day due to another local road being closed for works so very profitable for Newham Coundil.

rich888

2,610 posts

198 months

Friday 25th September 2015
quotequote all
Interesting, but not surprising when you consider that councils across the country are desperate to increase their tax revenue, but this is just plain sneaky.

When you view the signs from the other direction as you approach the traffic lights the signs do state quite clearly that there are three routes available, left right or straight ahead to Leytonstone on the A112, it's only when you have crossed over the lights that it becomes apparent that straight ahead is NO ENTRY for all vehicles except buses and cycles and you will have to perform a U-turn which is clearly misleading - so what happens if you have driven up in a 38 ton articulated lorry with a few Volvo estates towing caravans behind you, along with aunt in her Honda Jazz!

Pics enclosed of said junction courtesy of Google Streetview:











Edited by rich888 on Friday 25th September 23:02

herewego

8,814 posts

212 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
The straight ahead no entry signs appear to be a little smaller than the ones at the side entry so I just wonder if they conform to size regulations?

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
I just went back to the site on foot. The No Entry signs are clear enough but as I said nowhere else to go. There had been signs directing traffic into this road but they had been painted over. This explains why sat navs including mine are still directing traffic down that road.

The only positive was that the council revenue car was there again and I managed to turn 3 cars back before he left at 1pm.

Seriously dozens of cars were going through the No Entry after tho. Very nice earner for the council. frown

All that jazz

7,632 posts

145 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
That's BS.

Going off the pics posted above (I've not looked at streetview) then I would be very tempted to contest that with the argument that you were going to Leytonstone and following the road signs being your mitigating reason. There's no indication on the sign before the junction that it's a restricted access and no mention on said sign of how one gets to Leytonstone in a non-bus vehicle. I would certainly contest it and also say that you've copied it to their Highways/traffic signs department for their input etc. Obviously a no-entry is a no-entry, but if you lay it on thick about there being buses up your arse and traffic everywhere due to the diversion rendering it too dangerous to turn round in the road you might stand a chance.

bad company

Original Poster:

18,483 posts

265 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
All that jazz said:
That's BS.

Going off the pics posted above (I've not looked at streetview) then I would be very tempted to contest that with the argument that you were going to Leytonstone and following the road signs being your mitigating reason. There's no indication on the sign before the junction that it's a restricted access and no mention on said sign of how one gets to Leytonstone in a non-bus vehicle. I would certainly contest it and also say that you've copied it to their Highways/traffic signs department for their input etc. Obviously a no-entry is a no-entry, but if you lay it on thick about there being buses up your arse and traffic everywhere due to the diversion rendering it too dangerous to turn round in the road you might stand a chance.
The road signs to Leytonstone have been painted over. Still visible tho.

All that jazz

7,632 posts

145 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
bad company said:
All that jazz said:
That's BS.

Going off the pics posted above (I've not looked at streetview) then I would be very tempted to contest that with the argument that you were going to Leytonstone and following the road signs being your mitigating reason. There's no indication on the sign before the junction that it's a restricted access and no mention on said sign of how one gets to Leytonstone in a non-bus vehicle. I would certainly contest it and also say that you've copied it to their Highways/traffic signs department for their input etc. Obviously a no-entry is a no-entry, but if you lay it on thick about there being buses up your arse and traffic everywhere due to the diversion rendering it too dangerous to turn round in the road you might stand a chance.
The road signs to Leytonstone have been painted over. Still visible tho.
Ah, that's a problem then. The fact they're still partly visible is neither here nor there. If they've clearly been painted over then that should give you sufficient warning of problems ahead, which you found. Time to dig deep!

sim16v

2,176 posts

200 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
bad company said:
I just went back to the site on foot. The No Entry signs are clear enough but as I said nowhere else to go. There had been signs directing traffic into this road but they had been painted over. This explains why sat navs including mine are still directing traffic down that road.

The only positive was that the council revenue car was there again and I managed to turn 3 cars back before he left at 1pm.

Seriously dozens of cars were going through the No Entry after tho. Very nice earner for the council. frown
Was the camera car parked legally?

And as mentioned earlier, are the no entry signs the correct size?

And how clear/unclear are the signs that are painted out?

Worth trying to clean some of the paint off and getting a photo of the sign showing the route?

Ian Geary

4,462 posts

191 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
bad company said:
...

The only positive was that the council revenue car was there again...
So was your ticket issued by a mobile car?

I had thought there was some sort of "freeze" on councils using mobile camera units (aka "spy cars") from issuing fines.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-bans...

Pickles issued this directive - before he was reshuffled off the front bench.

Fixed cameras still apply I believe, and of course actual wardens / CEOs / whatever name you may wish to attribute to them (feel free to insert joke of choice).

I hope this helps.

Personally speaking: if you don't think its fair, then challenge it. Council signage and lines can sometimes be below spec. But, there's three signs, so I'm a bit "meh" about it. You're certainly not alone, as the DCLG propaganda bulliten I liked suggests there will bee 8,999,999 other fines issued this year.


Ian

4rephill

5,040 posts

177 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
sim16v said:
Worth trying to clean some of the paint off and getting a photo of the sign showing the route?

zarjaz1991

3,470 posts

122 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
bad company said:
The only positive was that the council revenue car was there again and I managed to turn 3 cars back before he left at 1pm.
You want to be careful.

I'm not sure how it works with councils, but the treacherous police treat this as "obstructing a police officer in the course of his duties" when done with speed traps, and they actually arrest people and throw them in the cells, followed by court appearances / loss of job etc.

rich888

2,610 posts

198 months

Saturday 26th September 2015
quotequote all
This is very sneaky indeed and you only realise the lengths the council road planners have gone to when you view the road layout from overhead and note that the council have deliberately reduced the width of the road to make it one way. Without Google Maps you wouldn't have known what they have done.

Take a look at the Google maps pics shown below of the road width restrictions which seem to have been introduced for no other reason except to inconvenience (and fine) car drivers from out of the area







Perhaps someone should put in a freedom of information request to the council to find out how much it cost to reduce the width of Temple Mills Lane and the reason/s why this expenditure was justified in the current recession?


RWD cossie wil

4,295 posts

172 months

Sunday 27th September 2015
quotequote all
Deliberate confusion to generate revenue.

They have done the same in Birmingham by new street station, over 400 drivers a day were getting fined for using a road that was historically a normal route, until they changed it to taxis & busses only, but made the signage terrible. As usual, they put drivers in the situation of finding themselves at a busy junction with the route they had planned unavailable, no easy way to get out of the situation apart from a U turn in heavy traffic, so they are forced to use the road ahead & pick up the fine.

Disgusting & cynical.






anonymous-user

53 months

Sunday 27th September 2015
quotequote all
rich888 said:
Perhaps someone should put in a freedom of information request to the council to find out how much it cost to reduce the width of Temple Mills Lane and the reason/s why this expenditure was justified in the current recession
Why don't you just ask idea . Why a foi ? Try that if option 1 shouldn't work for some reason. Why do many people think a 'foi' request is a panacea to everything when it is probably just 'business as usual'.

Also ask why it was done, you may be 'surprised' if there was a genuine traffic management reason rather than revenue raising?