Prohibited U Turn?

Only had a quick look at the PCN I will have a proper look when I am at a computer. My initial thoughts are that the Taken without consent ground for appeal is fettered as it restricts the ground to the case of the vehicle being "used" the law says "in control of".

Also the PCN allows an appeal on only one of the statutory grounds, which fetters you right to appeal on more than one ground.

I will give a fuller explanation later.
 
I have read somewhere that a similar PCN was successfuly appealed at PATAS as the driver reversed (like you did) as part of the manouver, thus technically it is no longer a U turn but a 3 point turn.

Contest any and all PCNs vigorously. Send all correspondence recorded (I did this last month, then they sent me a notice to owner the other day demanding payment, I can see that they have recieved the appeal and signed for it! Imbeciles). I have not needed to pay a parking fine since 2005, and have a ring binder full of them! Do not give up!
 
From what I can see you did the majority of the turn on the main road. I'd appeal but I'd also be a little careful as I think that reversing from a minor into a major road from a junction is illegal according to the highway code.
 
So I need to know what I'm doing here.

Is it worth appealing and if so on what grounds? I'm mindful of the 14 days which ends tomorrow
 
I would appreal this on the paperwork issues alone but if you can make an argument that you did not do a u-turn then even better.

Your grounds:

Contravention did not occur:

Explain why you did not do a u-turn and thus did not fail to abide by the s.36 traffic sign.

For the PCN issues I raised you use the ground that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. This we justify by citing PATAS case Lavell v Hammersmith and Fulham.

The fettered TWOC we use PATAS case Geffen v Kensington and Chelsea.
The restriction to one ground we can just cite the general principle of administritive law that the Council must not fetter their discretion.

Sorry I did not get back to this sooner. I will dig out links to the two cases cited above when I get in from work, so you can have a read and see what you think.
 
Lavall v Hammersmith & Fulham (Word doc)

As to the argument that the circumstances do not fall within one of the statutory grounds for contesting liability in paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act, they seem to me to fall within ground (f): that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. If the PCN was not valid, the penalty payable would be nil and therefore would exceed the penalty claimed by the local authority. In any event, in R v Parking Adjudicator Ex p. Bexley [1998] RTR 128, the Court expressly rejected the argument that challenges on collateral matters of law could only be brought by way of judicial review and held that parking adjudicators have the power to consider issues of collateral challenge. The arguments put forward in this case have in truth already been considered by the Court in Bexley and rejected. I would also note Wandsworth LBC v Winder [1985] 1 AC 461 in which the House of Lords held that a defendant in civil proceedings brought by a public authority could raise a public law issue in his defence.
Click to expand...

The above refers to enforcement under RTA 1991, but the principle involved is applicable to all PCNs regardless of the legislation they are issued under. Your argument is that the PCN is invalid as it fetters the TWOC ground and fetters the appellants right to appeal on more than one ground.

Geffen v K & C (pdf)

It is worth reading all of Geffen but the quote below is relevant to your case. If the ground is restricted to "used" which implies "driven" then the ground is greatly restricted. In Geffen the police were neither using nor driving the vehicle, they were in control of it. "Used" does not allow for pushed or towed...

Issue 3: If he Mr Geffen the owner, can he rely upon the ground of appeal that "the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner", because the police (without his consent) took
control of the car from him and put it in the meter bay?

My finding on the second issue are sufficient to dispose of this appeal. However, I deal with the final two issues for completeness, and to do so may be of assistance to the Borough.
By Paragraph 2(4)(c) of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act, it is a ground of appeal:
"that the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner"
On the evidence before me, I have found as a matter of fact that the car was moved to the meter parking bay by the police. In the circumstances of the case, this was no doubt sensible, to avoid the car creating an obstruction. At that time, the car was clearly not "in the control" Mr Geffen, or anyone in the group. Indeed, the evidence of Mr Geffen and Dr Penman, and the video evidence, makes quite clear that the police took control of the vehicle, and did not let anyone in the group - including Mr Geffen - touch or move it. Of course, I have not seen any evidence as to whether the police had the requisite authority to take control of the car without the consent of its owner - there is nothing to suggest that they did not have such authority - but that is not an issue before me. It is however clear that the police did take control of the car, and without the consent of Mr Geffen or anyone in the group. Therefore, even if Mr Geffen were the owner of the vehicle, I would hold that it would be open to him to rely upon the ground in Paragraph 2(4)(c).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the help.

I apologise if I sound a bit thick but 'legal' talk does go through me :p. What are you saying that I should appeal on exactly?

Play on the fact that the sign was extremely unclear?
Argue that I did a 3 point turn and not a u turn?
Argue that the paper work implies that I can only appeal on one ground.
Or go at it with all barrels and get them on all grounds?

Again, thanks all for the help :).
 
Appeal on all possible grounds (makes the point that you can have more than one ground ;) ), the Council will almost certainly reject the appeal anyway and you will end up sending the same appeal to the adjudicator. You only need to get the adjudicator to agree with one of your contentions and you win.

Bear in mind that almost all Council parking and traffic enforcement departments are totally incompetent so there is a very good chance they will commit further errors in the letter they send to reject the appeal. Come back and post the rejection letter up if and when you get it and I'll check for any errors.

You need to expect this to go to adjudication, if you are not prepared for the long haul then take the discount now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom