PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Help needed - YBJ Barnet
rjutd
post Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 22:14
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,594



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






This post has been edited by rjutd: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 - 18:21
Attached File(s)
Attached File  Page_1.pdf ( 1.57MB ) Number of downloads: 15
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Sat, 23 Feb 2019 - 22:14
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
rjutd
post Thu, 14 Mar 2019 - 21:28
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,594



Still no news.... on the online portal it shows the status to be 'NTO sent' with the outstanding as £65.00 (discounted fine).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 13:16
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,419
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Is your name and address on the V5C 100% correct? Don't assume, physically check.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rjutd
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 23:44
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,594



I've received the formal notice of rejection by email today. It is attached herewith.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  PCNR.pdf ( 103.14K ) Number of downloads: 30
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 12:48
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,419
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



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.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 13:35
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 16:06
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



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).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 17:39
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,035
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



All well and good but there is no statutory ground of 'procedural impropriety' in the applicable appeal legislation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 18:54
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 17:39) *
All well and good but there is no statutory ground of 'procedural impropriety' in the applicable appeal legislation.

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/p...p=nasstatreg:30

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...17460&st=40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 19:54
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,143
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 18:54) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 17:39) *
All well and good but there is no statutory ground of 'procedural impropriety' in the applicable appeal legislation.

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/p...p=nasstatreg:30

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...17460&st=40


Far more than one ground, but I 'm watching football more later


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 21:02
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,143
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



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



--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 22:20
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



Failure to consider (generic template rejection)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 00:05
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,035
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 19:54) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 18:54) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 17:39) *
All well and good but there is no statutory ground of 'procedural impropriety' in the applicable appeal legislation.

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/p...p=nasstatreg:30

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...17460&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 !!


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 10:46
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,143
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 00:05) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 19:54) *
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 18:54) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 17:39) *
All well and good but there is no statutory ground of 'procedural impropriety' in the applicable appeal legislation.

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/p...p=nasstatreg:30

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...17460&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


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 12:14
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 438
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE
The markings are not clear and are thus inadequate

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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rjutd
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 14:50
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,594



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 21:20
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,419
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



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.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rjutd
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 22:01
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,594



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 21:20) *
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.


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)


This post has been edited by rjutd: Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 22:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rjutd
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 22:27
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,594



After selecting above options this is how the final (declaration) page looks like. Is this ok? Can I avoid selecting personal hearing?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 22:37
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16,143
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



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


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rjutd
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 23:24
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Member No.: 102,594



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.

-------------------------------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Monday, 20th May 2019 - 19:40
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.