Moneymaking, perish the thought.
The sign on the next pole, why is the approaching motorist being told about humps if he can't turn down there?
Finally the junction itself.
A right mess. Road closed signs but also a single dotted line which you are therefore invited to cross, 20 painted on the left hand carriageway as you enter, a single no entry sign you can barely see & barriers which don't close off the carriageway.
This is the decision of the adjudicator (spelling errors included)
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
Mr Mustard is not absolutely sure where the alleged contravention took place but think it is here. The photos are from September 17 when the supposed contravention occurred.
Sign well before the junction but not one at the junction which would be more useful.
Finally the junction itself.
This is the decision of the adjudicator (spelling errors included)
The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle performed a prohibited turn in when it worth street on 27 September 2017. A penalty charge notice was issued 1403.
The Appellant states that there were a lot of roadworks in the area and the temporary sign had been erected which was "not visible due to the blindspot in my car, obscuring the sign". He states that the road markings has not been changed; that the signage was confusing and that the CCTV was "not unauthorised device" and that it was simply a "moneymaking exercise."
The Council rely upon their CCTV footage. This shows the Appellant's vehicle turning left at the junction immediately adjacent to a no left turn sign, beneath which is a camera enforcement sign. The Council has also submitted a location image of the sign.
I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the signage was adequate to convey the restriction. I am not persuaded that any of the Appellant's arguments amount to a successful defence to the contravention. Certification of the camera device is not required for this contravention.
While the Appellant may have made a genuine error, this is mitigation only and I am unable, as the Adjudicator, to cancel penalties on the basis mitigation. As I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and the penalty charge notice was lawfully issued, I must refuse the appeal.
The Appellant states that there were a lot of roadworks in the area and the temporary sign had been erected which was "not visible due to the blindspot in my car, obscuring the sign". He states that the road markings has not been changed; that the signage was confusing and that the CCTV was "not unauthorised device" and that it was simply a "moneymaking exercise."
The Council rely upon their CCTV footage. This shows the Appellant's vehicle turning left at the junction immediately adjacent to a no left turn sign, beneath which is a camera enforcement sign. The Council has also submitted a location image of the sign.
I am satisfied on the evidence provided that the signage was adequate to convey the restriction. I am not persuaded that any of the Appellant's arguments amount to a successful defence to the contravention. Certification of the camera device is not required for this contravention.
While the Appellant may have made a genuine error, this is mitigation only and I am unable, as the Adjudicator, to cancel penalties on the basis mitigation. As I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and the penalty charge notice was lawfully issued, I must refuse the appeal.
There aren't, of course, any moneymaking cctv traffic cameras in Southwark, oh no, all installed for good traffic management reasons, the £millions earnt from them just being an unhappy side effect that the council wring their hands with dismay about.
Yours frugally
Mr Mustard
No comments:
Post a Comment
I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.