Sneaky council penalty fine
Discussion
UPDATE: Won the case- see later post for info.
Got a penalty charge through the post for making a right turn where not allowed.
Happened at South Wimbledon Station, not somewhere I am overly familiar with so took a look at maps ( click to street view), and appears (for me) an unusual one. There is no 'no right turn' indicated at the junction itself:
Nor ahead at the turn:
However going back down the road, there is indeed a time restricted turning limitation- the sign is located 159 metres back (522.23 ft):
Was one of those following the satnav type journeys hence didn't read the sign too carefully due to its distance I suppose, just surprised it is not at the junction itself.
Is there a reason for this? or a money spinner. The 'evidence' shows a car in front of me doing the same at the time, and no doubt more behind.
Got a penalty charge through the post for making a right turn where not allowed.
Happened at South Wimbledon Station, not somewhere I am overly familiar with so took a look at maps ( click to street view), and appears (for me) an unusual one. There is no 'no right turn' indicated at the junction itself:
Nor ahead at the turn:
However going back down the road, there is indeed a time restricted turning limitation- the sign is located 159 metres back (522.23 ft):
Was one of those following the satnav type journeys hence didn't read the sign too carefully due to its distance I suppose, just surprised it is not at the junction itself.
Is there a reason for this? or a money spinner. The 'evidence' shows a car in front of me doing the same at the time, and no doubt more behind.
Edited by hyphen on Wednesday 7th June 13:31
I'm no expert but I would have thought it needed a sign at the junction itself, whay happens if you walk to Quikfit and pick your car up then do a right turn, how are you supposed to know you cant.
In my opinion it just affirms more that council leaders are corrupt cheating b
ds who need voting out of office.
In my opinion it just affirms more that council leaders are corrupt cheating b
ds who need voting out of office.What blue sign and what arrows? cant see any. Other traffic lights on different approaches to the junction have managed to have "no right turn" arrows on them. If the council cant use a no right turn symbol because its only operational part time then that's the councils problem not the motorist, its up to the council to find an alternative sign that complies.
mickmcpaddy said:
What blue sign and what arrows? cant see any. Other traffic lights on different approaches to the junction have managed to have "no right turn" arrows on them. If the council cant use a no right turn symbol because its only operational part time then that's the councils problem not the motorist, its up to the council to find an alternative sign that complies.
Ignore me, looking at it from the other side of the junction!
Also if you look back on streetview history where there is a green light instead of red its even a round green light that gives no indication that you cant go right, there is also a 4th light of some description under the green that is not lit up, what is this, maybe its a no right turn arrow that only lights up at certain times and the bulb has blown in it (or deliberately taken out. But I'm no expert on the signs and am just going off what common sense would tell you.
Is there even legislation for part time "no right turn signs".
Is there even legislation for part time "no right turn signs".
herewego said:
Gavia said:
What do the lights look like when not on red? There are four lights, so that suggests there's possibly some sort of advisory light system in place
They are no right turn symbols. OP will need to find out if they were operating or not.https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4156373,-0.19283...
This is the only instance I can see that its lit up, maybe they do light up at different times of the day, I would think the onus is on the council to show that it was lit at the time of the contravention though.
dacouch said:
A PCN for the same offence at the same junction was debated on Pepipoo recently.
Thanks found it.Have put in an appeal based on the fact that the evidence only shows me turning, not that the lights/signs were operating. If they want that £65 they can blimmin work for it.
Sneaky gits don't actually have an appeals button on the website. Two choices are Pay and Email, and in the email it is misleading as it is a standard contact form - so I put in my details and then entered the appeal into the notes part. All designed to put you off. No email confirmation either so it better have gone through!
Edited by hyphen on Thursday 26th January 18:24
The council lost an appeal from someone in your situation at the London Tribunial Appeals
"The Appellant appeals against two PCNs. The first was in relation to an allegation of performing a prohibited turn at the junction of Kingston Road and Morden Road on 5 September 2016. The second concerns an allegation of making a prohibited turn at the same location 13 September 2016.
The Appellant's case was that there was no sign indicating the prohibition of the right turn.
The Authority's case was that there was a no right turn sign mounted below the traffic signals. The Appellant produced a photograph showing that the fourth (lowest) lamp was not lit so that it was not even visible. Google showed the same view. The Authority suggests that this was because the images were taken when the right turn prohibition was not in operation.
I then turn to the CCTV recordings. They do not add anything to the issue.
If the Authority wishes to refer to traffic signs which may be switched on and off, it must prove that the sign was switched on and visible at the material time. There is no evidence that this was the case on either occasion. I allow the appeals."
Ruling
"The Appellant appeals against two PCNs. The first was in relation to an allegation of performing a prohibited turn at the junction of Kingston Road and Morden Road on 5 September 2016. The second concerns an allegation of making a prohibited turn at the same location 13 September 2016.
The Appellant's case was that there was no sign indicating the prohibition of the right turn.
The Authority's case was that there was a no right turn sign mounted below the traffic signals. The Appellant produced a photograph showing that the fourth (lowest) lamp was not lit so that it was not even visible. Google showed the same view. The Authority suggests that this was because the images were taken when the right turn prohibition was not in operation.
I then turn to the CCTV recordings. They do not add anything to the issue.
If the Authority wishes to refer to traffic signs which may be switched on and off, it must prove that the sign was switched on and visible at the material time. There is no evidence that this was the case on either occasion. I allow the appeal."
You can find it here http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-... the case ref is "2160412065"
Or refer to case "2160412065" in your appeal
"The Appellant appeals against two PCNs. The first was in relation to an allegation of performing a prohibited turn at the junction of Kingston Road and Morden Road on 5 September 2016. The second concerns an allegation of making a prohibited turn at the same location 13 September 2016.
The Appellant's case was that there was no sign indicating the prohibition of the right turn.
The Authority's case was that there was a no right turn sign mounted below the traffic signals. The Appellant produced a photograph showing that the fourth (lowest) lamp was not lit so that it was not even visible. Google showed the same view. The Authority suggests that this was because the images were taken when the right turn prohibition was not in operation.
I then turn to the CCTV recordings. They do not add anything to the issue.
If the Authority wishes to refer to traffic signs which may be switched on and off, it must prove that the sign was switched on and visible at the material time. There is no evidence that this was the case on either occasion. I allow the appeals."
Ruling
"The Appellant appeals against two PCNs. The first was in relation to an allegation of performing a prohibited turn at the junction of Kingston Road and Morden Road on 5 September 2016. The second concerns an allegation of making a prohibited turn at the same location 13 September 2016.
The Appellant's case was that there was no sign indicating the prohibition of the right turn.
The Authority's case was that there was a no right turn sign mounted below the traffic signals. The Appellant produced a photograph showing that the fourth (lowest) lamp was not lit so that it was not even visible. Google showed the same view. The Authority suggests that this was because the images were taken when the right turn prohibition was not in operation.
I then turn to the CCTV recordings. They do not add anything to the issue.
If the Authority wishes to refer to traffic signs which may be switched on and off, it must prove that the sign was switched on and visible at the material time. There is no evidence that this was the case on either occasion. I allow the appeal."
You can find it here http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-... the case ref is "2160412065"
Or refer to case "2160412065" in your appeal
hyphen said:
Sneaky gits don't actually have an appeals button on the website. Two choices are Pay and Email, and in the email it is misleading as it is a standard contact form - so I put in my details and then entered the appeal into the notes part. All designed to put you off. No email confirmation either so it better have gone through!
LB Merton do have an online appeals system but it would appear only to cover parking and bus lane contraventions - http://www.merton.gov.uk/transport-streets/parking...A big fat nothing for other moving traffic contraventions!
However the Norbert Gal appeals can be cited. Unless the LA has got cute and has installed a camera pointed at the lights since 13th September last year it should be a guaranteed win.
Update time: they took months to say no we still want your money aka Notice of Rejection. Also now say that due to the time elapsed ( because they sat on it so long) I am no longer able to pay the discounted rate.
The letter is signed with a illegible squiggle but no actual name despite the use of 'I have made the decision' , must be too ashamed of the underhand manner in which they make their living I reckon.
Off to the London Tribunal we go for a final decision!
Red Devil said:
However the Norbert Gal appeals can be cited. Unless the LA has got cute and has installed a camera pointed at the lights since 13th September last year it should be a guaranteed win.
They have stated in the letter that there is no evidence of the sign being lit during my alleged contravention, however are pointing to 2 additional fixed signs as alternatives. With regards to the previous case going against them they say: "I must advise that each case is dealt with on its own merits. the decisions made by adjudicators are not statutory instruments nor do they set a legally binding precedent. As such Merton would be under no legal obligation to apply or adhere to it".The letter is signed with a illegible squiggle but no actual name despite the use of 'I have made the decision' , must be too ashamed of the underhand manner in which they make their living I reckon.
Off to the London Tribunal we go for a final decision!
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff