Received a PCN any advice?
- Thread starter jaackla
- Start date
It's not the best of junctions and I can see why people get caught out there, but the signs are in place.
On what grounds are you going to try to appeal this? That the signage was inadequate? That'll get thrown right back at you as you can see all the signs for yourself even on street view.
Is your £55 fine a reduced amount if you pay within x amount of days? It may be worth bearing in mind that if you appeal and lose the appeal (which is almost a certainty in this case) that you'll probably have to pay the full amount rather than any reduced charge for paying early.
Just pay up and move on. While it feels harsh, you won't win if you try to contest it as you have no grounds to do so.
On what grounds are you going to try to appeal this? That the signage was inadequate? That'll get thrown right back at you as you can see all the signs for yourself even on street view.
Is your £55 fine a reduced amount if you pay within x amount of days? It may be worth bearing in mind that if you appeal and lose the appeal (which is almost a certainty in this case) that you'll probably have to pay the full amount rather than any reduced charge for paying early.
Just pay up and move on. While it feels harsh, you won't win if you try to contest it as you have no grounds to do so.
Agreed, this is exactly what I mean, it should be CLEAR we must be stupid hey not being perfect drivers like others rofl. I give upI think the signs in the traffic light would be confusing. Those small "no right turn" turns on the traffic lights should be "No Entry" signs plain and simple, because those traffic lights are the final threshold leading to one place if you get what I mean.
This is what should be on the traffic lights to avoid any confusion because those lights lead only to one place.
However, just pay you're in the wrong, simple as that but I stiill stand by it, it should be CLEARER!
I'm not so sure that the signage is as adequate at night as it is in daylight on street view - though without seeing the ambient levels, etc. at night for myself can't be sure.
ROFL, yep... take it like a man
TBH, it's oen of them, you're in the wrong, whether it's clear or not, wrong is wrong. Pay the fine, then if feel strongly about it, put an official complaint in as well. if it was me, I would, always worth a moan
Obviously you think that people on here are not representative of the majority of drivers then?
http://www.harrowtimes.co.uk/news/11517447.Thousands_fined_for_performing_prohibited_turn/?ref=mr
400 people/month getting fined for turning right there?
That seems a hell of a lot for something which is apparently clearly signed.
OP: there are a LOT of google hits for PCNs at this junction - might worth having a look through to see if you can find any which have been appealed successfully and see if the circumstances apply to you.
Last edited:
Interesting that there were some successful appeals against the fines there. I'm guessing they got it canceled because the sign posting is not clear enough. Problem is most people just pay up blindly without questioning it. They will have left it like that on purpose knowing it's a good money maker, you get 1 or 2 dodgy junctions+camera in most towns to watch out for.
Last edited:
Also
Though I must say, from the static googleview pictures that we can study in our leisure, it does seem bloody obvious you shouldn't turn right there
But I guess with that amount of fines, under driving conditions it looks like it's not so obvious*Just painting the instructions on the road should clear up most of the confusion imo.
* Especially when there's a bus in front of you obscuring your view
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;28649760 said:
As anyone who's done any interface design work knows, it doesn't matter if /you/ know what it means.
If a significant number of people either don't know what it means, or think it means something other than it does, then it isn't clear.
I think this thread shows a number of people are confused by that sign. I'd add myself to that group as well. The whole junction is horrid.
I'm going to bullet point a few things here as I've been through this matter at a different location.
1. It doesn't necessarily matter whether driver did or didn't manoeuvre car as alleged by PCN / council. The PCN is citing legislation and that the driver has contravened this but that also means the PCN has to abide by certain legislation governing what is required on it and that signage including road markings also complies with the necessary legislation for the contravention to be valid / enforceable, otherwise it's basically a bogus claim asserted by the council.
2. What matters is whether the PCN is legally enforceable and that means it must be worded correctly, the signage must be in accordance to correct legislation, traffic order doc etc.
3. Is there proof that a contravention occurred regardless of whether it did or not. Sometimes if there is no video footage of the vehicle and sign together then where is the proof the sign was there at the time? If the signage is incorrect then technically the contravention can't have occurred as all the requirements have to be in place otherwise it doesn't represent the legislation governing the use of said signage, traffic orders etc.
4. Unfortunately we have a system with these that pressurises the motorist to pay up or prove their innocence and the council's use this to their advantage by issuing charge notices on mass even when they know they're not enforceable due to previous appeals being upheld. The system in the first place ought to be criminal imho.
5. The burden of proving your case is going to cost you more than the ticket so only those who can afford the time are likely to pursue justice against this practice. There are no guarantees your appeal will be upheld even if you find deficiencies in the PCN or signage as the appeals process has been shown to be inconstant even with the same circumstances and adjudicator. I didn't already say the whole thing is a big pile of steaming poo but it really is.
The best place to start if you feel genuinely aggrieved or feel a sense of duty that others also shouldn't be fleeced in this way is to follow the post on this other forum regarding posting up images of your PCN, recent pics of the location. There's some great knowledgeable people over there that dedicate a lot of their time to pointing people to the right bits of legislation so you can cite these in appeal documentation that you will need to draft.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=2
I won my case against Coventry City Council with the help of these folk but it took a lot of time pulling all the info together. I only wish it had meant all the other thousands of PCN's unlawfully issued had required them all to be refunded.
1. It doesn't necessarily matter whether driver did or didn't manoeuvre car as alleged by PCN / council. The PCN is citing legislation and that the driver has contravened this but that also means the PCN has to abide by certain legislation governing what is required on it and that signage including road markings also complies with the necessary legislation for the contravention to be valid / enforceable, otherwise it's basically a bogus claim asserted by the council.
2. What matters is whether the PCN is legally enforceable and that means it must be worded correctly, the signage must be in accordance to correct legislation, traffic order doc etc.
3. Is there proof that a contravention occurred regardless of whether it did or not. Sometimes if there is no video footage of the vehicle and sign together then where is the proof the sign was there at the time? If the signage is incorrect then technically the contravention can't have occurred as all the requirements have to be in place otherwise it doesn't represent the legislation governing the use of said signage, traffic orders etc.
4. Unfortunately we have a system with these that pressurises the motorist to pay up or prove their innocence and the council's use this to their advantage by issuing charge notices on mass even when they know they're not enforceable due to previous appeals being upheld. The system in the first place ought to be criminal imho.
5. The burden of proving your case is going to cost you more than the ticket so only those who can afford the time are likely to pursue justice against this practice. There are no guarantees your appeal will be upheld even if you find deficiencies in the PCN or signage as the appeals process has been shown to be inconstant even with the same circumstances and adjudicator. I didn't already say the whole thing is a big pile of steaming poo but it really is.
The best place to start if you feel genuinely aggrieved or feel a sense of duty that others also shouldn't be fleeced in this way is to follow the post on this other forum regarding posting up images of your PCN, recent pics of the location. There's some great knowledgeable people over there that dedicate a lot of their time to pointing people to the right bits of legislation so you can cite these in appeal documentation that you will need to draft.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=2
I won my case against Coventry City Council with the help of these folk but it took a lot of time pulling all the info together. I only wish it had meant all the other thousands of PCN's unlawfully issued had required them all to be refunded.
Last edited:
Yea loads of people get let off on this one. Even if the sign is there, if it's not in the evidence photo then there is no evidence. That's why you should always ask for a photo.
Last edited:
Possibly one of the best replies I've seen in Motors for some time. Thanks for that!
Something people can do in this case is to check their dashcam footage. The sign has to be visible, and if you can demonstrate that it was not visible, then you can't be prosecuted for not obeying it.
"Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your letter of X. I have checked my dashcam (DVD enclosed) and it clearly shows that the sign was not visible at the time of the alleged offence. Therefore..."
"Dear Sir or Madam,
Thank you for your letter of X. I have checked my dashcam (DVD enclosed) and it clearly shows that the sign was not visible at the time of the alleged offence. Therefore..."
Thanks, no worries, even though I drive I don't often think of browsing the motors category but am trying to cope with 1GB of mobile internet whilst switching home broadband provider so can't stream anything and the forum is relatively low data use.
Pay the fine, by the time you faffed around with letters and appeals the amount of time wasted you would have probably earnt the money anyway.
The amount of signage leading up to that junction gave you fair warning, yes the actual lights have slightly limited information but still plenty enough to inform you about what you can and can't do.
man up and settle up
The amount of signage leading up to that junction gave you fair warning, yes the actual lights have slightly limited information but still plenty enough to inform you about what you can and can't do.
man up and settle up
Exactly. The lights say a car may enter the threshold of the lights but must not turn right.
The actual contravention is entering into the lights full stop because there are no other turnings and no other routes after the sign itself. Turning right after the lights is NOT an actual turn, you are simply following the route since there is only one route after the sign. Yet the sign suggests there are multiple routes after it. The sign also suggests there is at least one available route after the sign which is legal for car drivers to take, when there is none.
The signs in the traffic lights give an expectation that there is a legal route available for a car after the sign+lights when there is none whatsoever. It should be "no entry except buses".
Last edited:
I agree - you need to pay the fine first then appeal if your going to.
I got a PCN for going down a bus lane - signage was average at best but by the time I drove 30 miles back to where it happened, took pictures, wrote a letter etc etc - I just decided to pay the fine and move on with my life.