Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ Help needed - YBJ Barnet
Posted by: rjutd Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 22:14
Post #1464626
Today I received YBJ PCN from Barnet council.
Date of contravention 06/02/2019 16:07
Street High Street (EN5), junction with Wood Street
Location 055CUV1 Contravention Code 31J
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Video
https://streamable.com/q57ue - Grey Car entering YBJ at 16:07:44
Images
Posted by: peterguk Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 23:11
Post #1464640
Any questions?
Posted by: stamfordman Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 00:02
Post #1464654
I can't see much of a contravention there - only a marginal rear of car in box owing to lorry pulling out. As Peter says, any questions?
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 00:07
Post #1464656
Thanks. I am thinking of putting a challenge.
This was caused by the lorry pulling out and that too was for <5 seconds and did not cause any traffic issues.
My question is what's the best way I can make my case. I have never challenged a PCN before.
Posted by: stamfordman Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 00:09
Post #1464658
it's a footling contarvention - we'll help you draft something. But later.
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 00:58
Post #1464661
Many thanks, stamfordman. Really appreciate your help.
Reading some of the other posts I've summarised the information below (if it is of any use)
I believe that the PCN should be cancelled with immediate effect for the following reasons:
1) No contravention occurred and no PCN payment is due.
2) The amount of time the vehicle was in stationary in the box is 4 seconds and this falls under the de minimis rule in law so no contravention occurred. When I entered the YBJ it was possible to exit without stopping.
The first of the two cars in front of me stopped to give way to a lorry pulling out and moving into the right lane, thus leaving my car stranded partly in the box. Only the rear end of the vehicle was partially on the exit portion of the YBJ. My vehicle was stationary in this manner purely due to the in-anticipatable actions of the lorry moving out into the right lane and one of the vehicles in front of me deciding to give way causing the 2 following vehicles including mine to break and stop momentarily.
Given that only part of the vehicle was on the YBJ, for a very short period of time and there was no interference or disruption to other road users, any contravention was very, very minimal and falls under the de minimis rule and no penalty is payable.
3) The sole function of the YBJ is to help prevent obstruction to traffic and given that there was no obstruction or interference to the traffic flow no contravention occurred.
As the video clearly shows, my vehicle did not obstruct or block any other vehicle or user. It was only the rear end of my vehicle that was partially in at the exit portion of the YBJ.
4) As a public body, the London Borough of Barnet is under a legal duty to act fairly and proportionately. Given that only part of the vehicle was in the exit portion of the YBJ, the length of time stationary in the box of 4 seconds and that there was no obstruction or interference with traffic flow, a PCN of £130 is both unfair and disproportionate.
Posted by: Mr Mustard Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 10:10
Post #1464690
That demonstrates how difficult it is to predict traffic flow in a yellow box and why you should stop at the box entry and wait for it to clear or use the empty space at the left hand side to exit.
The problem is that the car was stopped due to a stationary car, which was stopped due to the moving lorry. I would still fight it though as the ground falls away and makes the extent of the junction hard to discern. A photo taken from car level of the area on approach would help.
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 10:29
Post #1464696
Thanks. Actually, I remember this incident very well. At the time, the white car behind me honked and I judged it to be coming at pace, to be able for me safely exit from left without avoiding a collision. Also, I had just received the car back from a bodywork repair caused due to a lorry swerving into the left lane about a week before in a separate non-fault incident (and at a completely different location). I understand this explanation is not relevant to fight the case, but just to explain the context that influenced the split-second decision of not moving into the left lane to exit.
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 11:23
Post #1464712
In your reps you need to focus concisely on the free flowing state of the traffic heading along the length of your intended exit lane and the obviously more than ample space available to receive your car at the time you drove it into the box junction. Regarding the source of the sudden and unnecessary stop further along the exit lane (for the delivery lorry to leave), you also need to focus on the absence of any predictability from your vantage point low to the road, not that of the CCTV high up, and how these facts show that your judgement was not at fault upon entry into the box. You should say that you had to stop your car because of the intervening act of the other driver which was not predictable at the point of entry, and that you cannot fairly be held liable for a contravention when it was outside your judgment to prevent it.
You should not begin with a de minimis thrust because there is argument above that is more forceful, but slotting in somewhere that the stop lasted a trifling four seconds might help. IMO, avoid negatives such as “leaving my car stranded”; also, the “no interference/disruption” argument and not moving into the left lane has no force.
As stamf said, the forum will help you get it right.
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 24 Feb 2019 - 22:32
Post #1464918
Thanks Mr Meldrew.
Posted by: rjutd Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 17:59
Post #1465157
Thanks Mr Mustard. This is a photo taken from the car on approach
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 17:11
Post #1465557
rjutd, consider this if you are struggling, and note that if you challenge within 14 days of the date of the PCN and Barnet reject your representations, you will be given the chance to pay the reduced amount of £65.00 for another 14 days from when they write back to you.
Dear Sirs,
PCN No. ********
Keeper/owner ******* ********
31J Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Entering
When I was about to enter the box junction, there was free movement of traffic ahead and in my chosen exit lane and a strong likelihood that this unobstructed lane would easily accommodate my vehicle and more. Your CCTV confirms this evidence.
Stopping
When I was about to exit the box junction, a driver ahead performed the unnecessary act of coming to a halt partway along my chosen exit lane in order to accord precedence to vehicle at the kerbside. Your CCTV also confirms this evidence.
Prohibition
I deny the allegation made. I was able to see the conditions as stated but, as I am unable to perceive future events, I was unable to see the intervening act. My judgment was not therefore at fault at the point of entry and as I did not breach the entry prohibition, no contravention had occurred. I draw your attention to the fact that you CCTV operator benefited from a high vantage point denied me near ground level.
The Regulation
Describing as it does a consequence that a vehicle has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles, the Regulation does not thereby impose a necessity upon a driver that he must wait outside the box to see if traffic ahead will become stationary before he decides to enter. The traffic may still be moving when the driver enters and yet a contravention can still occur if the traffic stops thereafter. This is the driver’s risk in the judgment exercised unless, as in my case, the driver could not have predicted the reason for the stopping of the vehicles ahead.
The Highway Code
I have had regard to the relevant paragraph that advises motorists, “ You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear.” However, I am of the view that this steps rather beyond what is required by the Regulation. In real-world London traffic, drivers have to exercise a degree of prediction in their judgment as to whether the exit space will be clear, or the flow of traffic would be adversely affected. A driver is not to blame if the exit is thereafter blocked by an unexpected event, such as the intervening and unnecessary action of another driver.
Conclusion
As no contravention had occurred, this challenge must be allowed.
Posted by: rjutd Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 20:47
Post #1465613
Thank you very much Mr Meldrew. Really appreciate your help. I assume you are recommending that I should not draw attention to the aspect of de minimis.
I'll submit this as my challenge and post council's response on the forum.
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 21:54
Post #1465638
Sorry, I overlooked de minimis; now added with some minor corrections. Wait in case others want to comment, but don’t risk missing the discount period.
Dear Sirs,
PCN No. ********
Keeper/owner ******* ********
31J Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Entering
When I was about to enter the box junction, there was free movement of traffic ahead and in my chosen exit lane and a strong likelihood that this unobstructed lane would easily accommodate my vehicle and more. Your CCTV confirms this evidence.
Stopping
When I was about to exit the box junction, a driver ahead performed the unnecessary act of coming to a halt partway along my chosen exit lane in order to accord precedence to a vehicle at the kerbside causing my vehicle to pause for a de minimis four seconds. Your CCTV also confirms this evidence.
Prohibition
I deny the allegation made. I was able to see the conditions as stated but, as I am unable to perceive future events, I was unable to see the intervening act. My judgment was not therefore at fault at the point of entry and as I did not breach the entry prohibition, no contravention had occurred. I draw your attention to the fact that your CCTV operator benefited from a high vantage point denied me near ground level.
The Regulation
Describing as it does a consequence that a vehicle has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles, the Regulation does not thereby impose a necessity upon a driver that he must wait outside the box to see if traffic ahead will become stationary before he decides to enter. The traffic may still be moving when the driver enters and yet a contravention can still occur if the traffic stops thereafter. This is the driver’s risk in the judgment exercised unless, as in my case, the driver could not have predicted the reason for the stopping of the vehicles ahead.
The Highway Code
I have had regard to the relevant paragraph that advises motorists, “ You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear.” However, I am of the view that this steps rather beyond what is required by the Regulation. In real-world London traffic, drivers have to exercise a degree of prediction in their judgment as to whether the exit space will be clear, or the flow of traffic would be adversely affected. A driver is not to blame if the exit is thereafter blocked by an unexpected event, such as the intervening and unnecessary action of another driver.
Conclusion
As no contravention had occurred, this challenge must be allowed.
Posted by: rjutd Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 07:44
Post #1465694
Thanks again Mr Meldrew. As you suggest I'll wait for others' to comment. I plan to post by Saturday to ensure I post the challenge by the end of the discount period..
Posted by: rjutd Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 06:07
Post #1466403
I plan to post this tomorrow online at https://barnetocm.itsvc.co.uk/
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 3 Mar 2019 - 19:47
Post #1467106
Submitted online and got an instant automated email acknowledgement.
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 00:04
Post #1469574
No further acknowledgement/update yet. Hope their online system really works.
Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 12:43
Post #1469628
Didn't you take a screenshot?
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 10 Mar 2019 - 22:19
Post #1469770
no but I've got an automated email from BarnetParking@nsl.co.uk stating that
Submission Date/Time: 04/03/2019 10:49:41
PCN Reference: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Submission Reference: XXXXXXXXX
And below this my name, address and the entire representation text has been included. Is that enough?
Posted by: rjutd Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 21:28
Post #1471010
Still no news.... on the online portal it shows the status to be 'NTO sent' with the outstanding as £65.00 (discounted fine).
Posted by: cp8759 Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 13:16
Post #1471156
Is your name and address on the V5C 100% correct? Don't assume, physically check.
Posted by: rjutd Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 23:44
Post #1471317
I've received the formal notice of rejection by email today. It is attached herewith.
Posted by: cp8759 Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 12:48
Post #1471416
I would normally say this is a bit of a hopeless case, however, the photo you put in post 11 makes me thing it's worthwhile to challenge this at the tribunal. You cannot be expected to comply with a yellow box marking if, at the point of entry, the extent of the box cannot be seen due to faded markings.
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 13:35
Post #1471437
Here’s my view for what it’s worth.
The choice of the following statement, repeated with minor variation throughout the evidently formulaic rejection letter, demonstrates that the authority are firmly basing their rejection upon an underlying misunderstanding regarding the relevant prohibition under Part 7, Schedule 9 to TSRGD 2016.
“I must advise you that the CCTV footage proves a contravention occurred as upon your entry of the box junction, your exit lane was not clear.”
That is not at all confirmed by the CCTV evidence, and is clearly wrong in law. Upon entry the strong likelihood of joining the free-flowing movement of traffic along the unobstructed exit lane, did not contravene the entry prohibition.
Stating that the exit lane was not clear implies insufficient space to accommodate your vehicle upon entry when that was plainly not true. That plus the flawed understanding of the law and failing to even mention the unpredictable intervening act of the other driver, raised in your representations, concerns me sufficiently to believe there was procedural impropriety in this instance.
See who will agree with me. The above with minor alteration could form ground two (‘Procedural impropriety) of any appeal; your original reps forming ground one (the alleged contravention did not occur), if of course you choose to continue.
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 16:06
Post #1471466
I have since realised that despite your unaddressed challenge to the contrary, their decision is plainly based on the relevant paragraph in the Highway Code that advises motorists, “You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear” (in spite of the plain fact that upon entry it was not obstructed in any way) which steps rather beyond what is required by the Regulation as the adjudicators confirmed in LT key case Essoo (Gillingham v LB Newham; Essoo v LB Enfield; Khan v TfL).
Posted by: Incandescent Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 17:39
Post #1471488
All well and good but there is no statutory ground of 'procedural impropriety' in the applicable appeal legislation.
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 18:54
Post #1471506
Yes of course, the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Wrong label, correct sentiment, and I’m in good company with adjudicator Belinda Pearce, 2180033183, 21 February 2018, who concluded in the following moving traffic contravention, Entering and stopping in a box junction, that:
“Notwithstanding that it had been reminded of its duty, the Enforcement Authority failed to accord requisite consideration to the Appellant's representations, as it is obliged so to do. … I conclude therefore that the Enforcement Authority had not discharged its duty under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 which I find to be a ‘procedural impropriety’ on the part of the Enforcement Authority.”
And why should there be no such ground for a moving traffic contravention when such failures are commonly seen among some authorities?
https://londontribunals.org.uk/naslivepws/pwslive/f?p=nasstatreg:30
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117460&st=40
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 19:54
Post #1471511
Yes of course, the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Wrong label, correct sentiment, and I’m in good company with adjudicator Belinda Pearce, 2180033183, 21 February 2018, who concluded in the following moving traffic contravention, Entering and stopping in a box junction, that:
“Notwithstanding that it had been reminded of its duty, the Enforcement Authority failed to accord requisite consideration to the Appellant's representations, as it is obliged so to do. … I conclude therefore that the Enforcement Authority had not discharged its duty under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 which I find to be a ‘procedural impropriety’ on the part of the Enforcement Authority.”
And why should there be no such ground for a moving traffic contravention when such failures are commonly seen among some authorities?
https://londontribunals.org.uk/naslivepws/pwslive/f?p=nasstatreg:30
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117460&st=40
Far more than one ground, but I 'm watching football more later
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 21:02
Post #1471522
The PCN gives an inaccurate time by when the may serve a charge certificate
The traffic was free flowing and it was an unpredictable event that caused the stop.
De minimis re both time and amount of incursion
The markings are not clear and are thus inadequate
The notice of rejection fails to mention the adjudicators power to extend the appeal period
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 22:20
Post #1471530
Failure to consider (generic template rejection)
Posted by: Incandescent Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 00:05
Post #1471550
Yes of course, the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Wrong label, correct sentiment, and I’m in good company with adjudicator Belinda Pearce, 2180033183, 21 February 2018, who concluded in the following moving traffic contravention, Entering and stopping in a box junction, that:
“Notwithstanding that it had been reminded of its duty, the Enforcement Authority failed to accord requisite consideration to the Appellant's representations, as it is obliged so to do. … I conclude therefore that the Enforcement Authority had not discharged its duty under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 which I find to be a ‘procedural impropriety’ on the part of the Enforcement Authority.”
And why should there be no such ground for a moving traffic contravention when such failures are commonly seen among some authorities?
https://londontribunals.org.uk/naslivepws/pwslive/f?p=nasstatreg:30
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117460&st=40
Far more than one ground, but I 'm watching football more later
Interesting to see an adjudicator using the words 'procedural impropriety' for a case where it is not a statutory ground. When even adjudicators get it wrong like this, it really shows the complete mess the legislation is in. In fact one of the London 'pot mess' Acts, even "the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case" is not available !!
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 10:46
Post #1471598
Yes of course, the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. Wrong label, correct sentiment, and I’m in good company with adjudicator Belinda Pearce, 2180033183, 21 February 2018, who concluded in the following moving traffic contravention, Entering and stopping in a box junction, that:
“Notwithstanding that it had been reminded of its duty, the Enforcement Authority failed to accord requisite consideration to the Appellant's representations, as it is obliged so to do. … I conclude therefore that the Enforcement Authority had not discharged its duty under Regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations & Appeals Regulations 2007 which I find to be a ‘procedural impropriety’ on the part of the Enforcement Authority.”
And why should there be no such ground for a moving traffic contravention when such failures are commonly seen among some authorities?
https://londontribunals.org.uk/naslivepws/pwslive/f?p=nasstatreg:30
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=117460&st=40
Far more than one ground, but I 'm watching football more later
Interesting to see an adjudicator using the words 'procedural impropriety' for a case where it is not a statutory ground. When even adjudicators get it wrong like this, it really shows the complete mess the legislation is in. In fact one of the London 'pot mess' Acts, even "the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case" is not available !!
Should have used the words " akin to procedural impropriety" but they were substantially compliant
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 12:14
Post #1471618
Mr Mustard, in post #7 described it as, "the ground falls away and makes the extent of the junction hard to discern", and I could see his point.
The elevated views do not I think, support unacceptably worn or faded hatchings but I did consider adding the above in the argument, although ultimately I considered it did not fit well with the CCTV evidence of the traffic flowing freely across the box and down the exit lane and rjutd's strong confidence upon entering the box in the likelihood that his unobstructed lane would easily accommodate his vehicle and more. I did however, attempt to draw the authority's attention to the fact that the CCTV benefits from a high vantage point that is denied near ground level in case I had a change of mind later.
I have not, but have no other objection to potential inclusion of the point.
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 14:50
Post #1471646
Thanks all. What are the chances for the successful appeal in this case? If the consensus is that the chances of success are good, then how should I proceed?
Thanks in advance for your help.
Posted by: cp8759 Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 21:20
Post #1471754
Register your appeal with the tribunal and write "detailed grounds to follow" in the reasons box, the tribunal will then email you a deadline for you to submit your appeal wording. One (or more) of us will knock-up the appeal wording for you. If you get lucky, the council won't contest and we won't need to bother.
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 22:01
Post #1471764
Thanks. I think I can appeal online at https://londontribunals.org.uk
What should be my answer to these questions:
Do you have a legal representative who will conduct the appeal on your behalf?
I guess NO
What is your ground of appeal?
Should I select the following two?
The contravention alleged by the authority on the penalty charge notice did not occur
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case
Further evidence to follow?
Yes / No
Do you want to attend your appeal hearing?
Yes / No
If I select 'Yes' it is also asking me to select a slot (first available is April 15)
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 22:27
Post #1471769
After selecting above options this is how the final (declaration) page looks like. Is this ok? Can I avoid selecting personal hearing?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 22:37
Post #1471772
select personal you can always contact the tribunal and change it to on the papers.
as soon as the council upload their evidence post the summary page here and we will draft your appeal for you
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 23:24
Post #1471788
Thanks. Submitted and got the Online Appeal Confirmation
-------------------------------------------
Dear ABC
Your case reference number is XXXXXXXXX. This can be used to view the progress of your appeal online. It should also be included in any correspondence sent relating to the appeal. If you need to contact the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators please use the contact details below.
Email: queries@londontribunals.org.uk
Phone: 020 7520 7200
You have indicated that there is further evidence to follow. This evidence should be uploaded by returning to the Track my appeal link available on the website. This evidence should be uploaded at least 5 days before your scheduled hearing.
-------------------------------------------
Posted by: rjutd Tue, 19 Mar 2019 - 07:39
Post #1472157
Received the Schedule Notification today.
It states 'You should receive from the Enforcement Authority a copy of their evidence at least three days before the date set for the hearing.' i.e. 12th April
But the deadline for me is '5 days before the scheduled hearing.' i.e. 10th April.
Posted by: rjutd Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 18:56
Post #1474634
Hi - What happens next. Should I wait up to 5th April to see if the council send evidence?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 29 Mar 2019 - 21:12
Post #1474671
No you have to get a submission ready, bump on Monday and I will have a look
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Sat, 30 Mar 2019 - 16:37
Post #1474805
Suggestion, subject of course to evaluation:
Dear Sir or Madam
Re: Penalty Charge Notice ***********
The contravention did not occur
The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case
I refer to the evidence and in particular Barnet Parking Services’ (‘the EA’) Formal Notice of Rejection of Representations dated 15/03/2019 (‘the decision’).
The EA made it clear that the critical and decisive part of the decision was, “In regards to the points raised in your representation, I can confirm that they do not provide you an exemption as upon your entry of the box junction, your exit lane was not clear and as such the council remain satisfied that a contravention has occurred and that this PCN is valid.” In addition, “I must advise you that the CCTV footage proves a contravention occurred as upon your entry of the box junction, your exit lane was not clear.”
No part of the decision turned on any consideration of the de minimis nature of the four-seconds stop or the predictability of another driver ahead who performed the unnecessary act of coming to a halt partway along my chosen exit lane in order to accord precedence to a vehicle at the kerbside, although these points were conspicuously included as they were crucial to my representations.
Indeed, with regard to the points raised in my representations, the EA confirmed that they did not provide any exemption because upon entry of the box junction, they believed that my exit lane was not clear.
Critically, there was no challenge made to the significant point raised in my representations that the CCTV footage itself confirms my version of events that when I entered the box junction, “…. there was free movement of traffic ahead in my chosen exit lane and a strong likelihood that this unobstructed lane would easily accommodate my vehicle and more”.
Thus, what the EA are now seeking to argue is that upon entering the box junction the other side was insufficiently clear to exit without stopping, which they believe would make valid their claim regarding the lack of an exemption, as stated. However, they are wrong because that did not nullify their duty to consider the de minimis nature of the stop or the mitigating circumstances of the unpredictability of the intervening act of another driver, as submitted. This constitutes the ground that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
It will be obvious to Madam or Mister Adjudicator that the CCTV footage in fact confirms my version of events. Alternatively, the EA have erred in law in this instance by believing that upon entry of the box junction my exit lane was required to be clear of even the freely moving vehicles seen in the CCTV footage.
Either way, I aver that the critical and decisive part of the decision was flawed and cannot be a basis for a lawful decision, and contrary to the EA’s claim, does not prove a contravention occurred. This constitutes the ground that the contravention did not occur.
--------
As it stands, I believe you have a good case and with the exception of the weak hatchings point would mention along with your main argument other points, in which case PMB or others have greater experience to help you where necessary.
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 31 Mar 2019 - 21:07
Post #1474985
Many thanks, Mr Meldrew. Really appreciate your help.
Should I submit this now or wait until 5th April.
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 11:39
Post #1475091
No, don't be anxious (but don't be late), you've forgotten that PASTMYBEST asked you to bump him on Monday and I think you may benefit from his points, but if you need to submit before receiving a copy of the Council's evidence and they attempt to argue new or move the goal posts you still have an opportunity to complain (and rebuff if warranted) in a note to the adjudicator.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 1 Apr 2019 - 13:16
Post #1475113
I've had a busy weekend so am a bit behind, I have two other appeals I have undertaken to write so should be able to get to this on Wednesday bump the thread Wednesday morning to remind me and I will cover all the other points
Posted by: rjutd Wed, 3 Apr 2019 - 10:09
Post #1475596
I've had a busy weekend so am a bit behind, I have two other appeals I have undertaken to write so should be able to get to this on Wednesday bump the thread Wednesday morning to remind me and I will cover all the other points
Thanks PASTMYBEST
Posted by: rjutd Thu, 4 Apr 2019 - 10:23
Post #1475853
bump
Posted by: rjutd Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 11:03
Post #1476127
Hi - I aim to submit this latest by Monday 8th. So would appreciate any further feedback / suggestions in the next 2 days.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 11:18
Post #1476131
OK check back later
Posted by: rjutd Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 12:59
Post #1476159
Thanks. Just received huge amount of documentation from the council through the post. Not sure why they have posted when I have applied for everything online so far. It is massive. So will try to scan and post the new material later when I get a chance.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 13:06
Post #1476162
start with the council case summary If you check the tribunal portal it should be there also, save you copying to post it here if you can download from the portal
Posted by: rjutd Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 13:52
Post #1476177
<a href="https://ibb.co/LPrRnZM"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/4f2tPVc/061-Sect-B.png" alt="061-Sect-B" border="0"></a><br /><a target='_blank' href='https://imgbb.com/'>imageupload</a><br />
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 15:00
Post #1476195
that link will not work. also I need to see exactly what you sent be way of representations. I do not want to deflect from your credibility by contradicting something you said earlier without explanation
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 17:09
Post #1476228
With regard to the appeal, it has been noted that a full appeal has not been provided, as state [sic]. If any new evidence is provided, the Council would request the case be adjourned until the new evidence can be reviewed. The Council have based the appeal on that of the appellant's formal representation.
The CCTV footage confirms that the vehicle had followed the flow of traffic into the box junction, without the exit lane being clear, or with sufficient room on the opposite side to receive the vehicle. It bears no relevance if the traffic flow was moving on entering, or whether the motorist perceived they would clear the box before entering. It is the motorist’s responsibility to wait prior to entering the box, to ensure they can clear the box, as advised in the Highway Code. If they enter the box, and the traffic flow stops for any reason, with the vehicle coming to a halt due to the pretence of a stationary vehicle, then the contravention is made. The contravention is instant; meaning, as soon as a vehicle stops, the vehicle has contravened the restriction. However, the vehicle was recorded stationary for 4 seconds.
The Highway Code Rule 174 states: "Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see ‘Road markings’). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.
The Council can confirm the box junction drawing under Evidence Type H is fully compliant with the TSRGD 2002 as per Regulations 10(1) & 29(2), as well as diagram 1043 or 1044 that convey the conditions and the legality of the markings which are fully compliant; and the Department for Transport (DfT), within the amended TSRGD2016, Schedule 9, Part 6, 7 and 11 items 12.7, 12.8, 12.9 and 12.10 also DfT circular 01/2016.
In response to the appellant’s comments, the London Borough of Barnet (LLB) would advise that a CCTV Enforcement Camera observed the appellant’s vehicle
[redacted] at the junction of High Street (EN5) with Wood Street at 16.07 on 6/02/2019.
[redacted]
The appellant made a formal representation in response to the PCN via email on 3/03/20l9 on the grounds that the appellant believed that they had not been in contravention after entering the box junction, as they believed that their exit was clear just before their vehicle entered the box. They state that it was the actions of vehicles ahead that caused them lo stop for four seconds, which they have described as de minimis. The appellant stated that, at ground level, they could not have perceived future actions, nor did the have the vantage point of the CCTV operator. For those reasons, they state it was not their fault that they had stopped in the box.
I hope rjutd will want to rely upon his main ground unchanged.
PASTMYBEST: https://imgur.com/a/CpvqBNl
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 20:37
Post #1476285
With regard to the appeal, it has been noted that a full appeal has not been provided, as state [sic]. If any new evidence is provided, the Council would request the case be adjourned until the new evidence can be reviewed. The Council have based the appeal on that of the appellant's formal representation.
The CCTV footage confirms that the vehicle had followed the flow of traffic into the box junction, without the exit lane being clear, or with sufficient room on the opposite side to receive the vehicle. It bears no relevance if the traffic flow was moving on entering, or whether the motorist perceived they would clear the box before entering. It is the motorist’s responsibility to wait prior to entering the box, to ensure they can clear the box, as advised in the Highway Code. If they enter the box, and the traffic flow stops for any reason, with the vehicle coming to a halt due to the pretence of a stationary vehicle, then the contravention is made. The contravention is instant; meaning, as soon as a vehicle stops, the vehicle has contravened the restriction. However, the vehicle was recorded stationary for 4 seconds.
The Highway Code Rule 174 states: "Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see ‘Road markings’). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.
The Council can confirm the box junction drawing under Evidence Type H is fully compliant with the TSRGD 2002 as per Regulations 10(1) & 29(2), as well as diagram 1043 or 1044 that convey the conditions and the legality of the markings which are fully compliant; and the Department for Transport (DfT), within the amended TSRGD2016, Schedule 9, Part 6, 7 and 11 items 12.7, 12.8, 12.9 and 12.10 also DfT circular 01/2016.
In response to the appellant’s comments, the London Borough of Barnet (LLB) would advise that a CCTV Enforcement Camera observed the appellant’s vehicle
[redacted] at the junction of High Street (EN5) with Wood Street at 16.07 on 6/02/2019.
[redacted]
The appellant made a formal representation in response to the PCN via email on 3/03/20l9 on the grounds that the appellant believed that they had not been in contravention after entering the box junction, as they believed that their exit was clear just before their vehicle entered the box. They state that it was the actions of vehicles ahead that caused them lo stop for four seconds, which they have described as de minimis. The appellant stated that, at ground level, they could not have perceived future actions, nor did the have the vantage point of the CCTV operator. For those reasons, they state it was not their fault that they had stopped in the box.
I hope rjutd will want to rely upon his main ground unchanged.
PASTMYBEST: https://imgur.com/a/CpvqBNl
Mr M that's your salters hill draft
Arguments will be that traffic was free flowing that the stop could not be anticipated. That the end of the box could not be seen De minimis as to both time and amount of incursion fail to consider but I need the reps so as not to contradict
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 21:54
Post #1476302
You may have seen http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=126238&view=findpost&p=1465638, that and the council’s case summary above is all we have for now.
Posted by: rjutd Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 22:41
Post #1476308
Category B - Case Summary and TMO
Category E - Representations to Council
Category H - Map/Site report
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 5 Apr 2019 - 23:21
Post #1476317
Good a hour or so tomorrow will have a full appeal drafted check back tomorrow night
Posted by: rjutd Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 04:34
Post #1476329
Thanks
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 21:48
Post #1476514
Here you go add the details required convert to PDF and send
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppVrwFJN1MabcVcnEr4
Posted by: rjutd Sat, 6 Apr 2019 - 22:52
Post #1476531
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppVrwFJN1MabcVcnEr4
Thanks a lot, PASTMYBEST. I've submitted with no further evidence to follow option.
I may not be able to attend the hearing in person. Hope it is fine. Do I need to inform the tribunal in advance if I am unable to make it in person?
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 08:30
Post #1476561
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppVrwFJN1MabcVcnEr4
Thanks a lot, PASTMYBEST. I've submitted with no further evidence to follow option.
I may not be able to attend the hearing in person. Hope it is fine. Do I need to inform the tribunal in advance if I am unable to make it in person?
yes inform them its better to be courteous
Posted by: rjutd Sun, 7 Apr 2019 - 13:44
Post #1476629
https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppVrwFJN1MabcVcnEr4
Thanks a lot, PASTMYBEST. I've submitted with no further evidence to follow option.
I may not be able to attend the hearing in person. Hope it is fine. Do I need to inform the tribunal in advance if I am unable to make it in person?
yes inform them its better to be courteous
Thanks PASTMYBEST. Will do.
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 20:43
Post #1479891
2190116061 adjudicator Jane Anderson
The footage shows that the exit of the box junction was not clear when the appellant's vehicle entered it. Further, it shows that the vehicle had to stop in the box because of stationary traffic.
The appellant states there was free movement of traffic. He claims that a driver ahead came to a halt to give precedence to a kerbside vehicle and this caused his vehicle to pause for a de minimis 4 seconds.
The Regulations provide “…no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.” Paragraph 174 of the Highway Code provides that a vehicle must not enter the box until its exit road or lane is clear.
I find as fact that the vehicle was forced to stop in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Further, I find as fact that the exit of the box was not clear when the vehicle entered it. The appellant's account does not provide an exemption.
My opinion is that this decision was defective concerning “not clear”.
The contravention occurs if at the time the motorist first enters the box junction there is a vehicle(s) in front moving or stationary within the box or immediately outside so that there is insufficient space at the other side for their vehicle to stop in and their vehicle (or any part of it) comes to a stop in the box because of another stationary vehicle.
Whilst the photographic and CCTV evidence supports the finding that the exit of the box junction was not clear when the appellant's vehicle entered because there were vehicles in front moving within the box and immediately outside, and that it was forced to stop in the box because of another stationary vehicle, it lacks any consideration of the critical factor also supported by the evidence that at the time the appellant first entered the box there was in fact sufficient space for the appellant’s vehicle to stop in at the other side, and therefore the contravention just cited cannot have occurred.
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 21:00
Post #1479893
The footage shows that the exit of the box junction was not clear when the appellant's vehicle entered it. Further, it shows that the vehicle had to stop in the box because of stationary traffic.
The appellant states there was free movement of traffic. He claims that a driver ahead came to a halt to give precedence to a kerbside vehicle and this caused his vehicle to pause for a de minimis 4 seconds.
The Regulations provide “…no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.” Paragraph 174 of the Highway Code provides that a vehicle must not enter the box until its exit road or lane is clear.
I find as fact that the vehicle was forced to stop in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Further, I find as fact that the exit of the box was not clear when the vehicle entered it. The appellant's account does not provide an exemption.
My opinion is that this decision was defective concerning “not clear”.
The contravention occurs if at the time the motorist first enters the box junction there is a vehicle(s) in front moving or stationary within the box or immediately outside so that there is insufficient space at the other side for their vehicle to stop in and their vehicle (or any part of it) comes to a stop in the box because of another stationary vehicle.
Whilst the photographic and CCTV evidence supports the finding that the exit of the box junction was not clear when the appellant's vehicle entered because there were vehicles in front moving within the box and immediately outside, and that it was forced to stop in the box because of another stationary vehicle, it lacks any consideration of the critical factor also supported by the evidence that at the time the appellant first entered the box there was in fact sufficient space for the appellant’s vehicle to stop in at the other side, and therefore the contravention just cited cannot have occurred.
If that is the correct decision, then there are ample grounds for review, only one of the points having been covered.
Posted by: Mr Meldrew Mon, 22 Apr 2019 - 21:32
Post #1479896
The footage shows that the exit of the box junction was not clear when the appellant's vehicle entered it. Further, it shows that the vehicle had to stop in the box because of stationary traffic.
The appellant states there was free movement of traffic. He claims that a driver ahead came to a halt to give precedence to a kerbside vehicle and this caused his vehicle to pause for a de minimis 4 seconds.
The Regulations provide “…no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.” Paragraph 174 of the Highway Code provides that a vehicle must not enter the box until its exit road or lane is clear.
I find as fact that the vehicle was forced to stop in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Further, I find as fact that the exit of the box was not clear when the vehicle entered it. The appellant's account does not provide an exemption.
My opinion is that this decision was defective concerning “not clear”.
The contravention occurs if at the time the motorist first enters the box junction there is a vehicle(s) in front moving or stationary within the box or immediately outside so that there is insufficient space at the other side for their vehicle to stop in and their vehicle (or any part of it) comes to a stop in the box because of another stationary vehicle.
Whilst the photographic and CCTV evidence supports the finding that the exit of the box junction was not clear when the appellant's vehicle entered because there were vehicles in front moving within the box and immediately outside, and that it was forced to stop in the box because of another stationary vehicle, it lacks any consideration of the critical factor also supported by the evidence that at the time the appellant first entered the box there was in fact sufficient space for the appellant’s vehicle to stop in at the other side, and therefore the contravention just cited cannot have occurred.
If that is the correct decision, then there are ample grounds for review, only one of the points having been covered.
Yes, yes and yes.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)