PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

31J - Entering and stopping in a box (Incorrect time on PCN?), Yellow box placed before traffic lights. Money box!!
AshBob
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 22:39
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 29 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,613



Screenshot of PCN Page 1 - Drobox Link PCN Page 1 of 2
Screenshot of PCN Page 2 - Drobox Link PCN Page 2 of 2
Video Recording - Drobox Link PCN Video Evidence
Image 1 - Car stopping at Green Light - Drobox Link: PCN Image Photo 1 of 3
Image 2 - Pedestrians crossing while light turns orange - Drobox Link: PCN Image Photo 2 of 3
Image 3 - Vehicle Reg - Drobox Link: PCN Image Photo 3 of 3



Hello Everyone,

This is my second post on this site. I had a great response from my first post and with everyone’s help I managed to win on appeal. I just would like some input from the good people on here if I should just pay this PCN or appeal?

I am not so confident of being successful this time around due to the pictures and video evidence (especially in isolation and without context)

Here is a little bit more context and my reason for entering this yellow box:

    - The traffic light was GREEN and traffic was flowing and I thought the cars would continue on moving however one car decided to stop at the traffic light while it was still GREEN.(16hr:43min) to let pedestrians cross, a minute later after the pedestrians have crossed, the lights turned RED which meant all the cars stayed in their position…. including me in the yellow box.
    - From my point of view the traffic light was green and I was expecting the cars to carry on moving..I was not aware of how bad the traffic was up ahead (I know its clear from the video but that is from a camera positioned high up).
    - When it occurred to me that the car in front had stopped and there wasn't enough space to clear the yellow box, I also had to stop my car. I did think about reversing but couldn't since another car was behind me. I knew I was in the yellow box but there was nothing I could do at that time.

OTHER POSSIBLE REASONS TO APPEAL (probably clutching at straws here)
    - The yellow box is just two car lengths away from a traffic light (Is this even allowed?),
    - I wasn't blocking the side road, cars could still enter it.
    - The yellow line in the middle of the box are a bit faded.
    - The Number plate is not super clear, a dark shadow covers half of it.

I would appreciate some feedback, going to upload images and PCN now...

This post has been edited by AshBob: Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 21:47
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 33)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Mar 2019 - 22:39
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
nextdoor
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 15:32
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 20 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,788



QUOTE
The contravention did not occur - Time on PCN does not correlate to time of alleged contravention.


PCN timed at 1644. Whilst your still shows 16.43:58 your vehicle does not move out of the box until 16.44:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 15:41
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,533
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (nextdoor @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 15:32) *
QUOTE
The contravention did not occur - Time on PCN does not correlate to time of alleged contravention.


PCN timed at 1644. Whilst your still shows 16.43:58 your vehicle does not move out of the box until 16.44:20

And on that basis I think the tribunal will find the PCN to be valid.


--------------------
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
AshBob
post Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 21:41
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 29 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,613



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 15:41) *
QUOTE (nextdoor @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 15:32) *
QUOTE
The contravention did not occur - Time on PCN does not correlate to time of alleged contravention.


PCN timed at 1644. Whilst your still shows 16.43:58 your vehicle does not move out of the box until 16.44:20

And on that basis I think the tribunal will find the PCN to be valid.



From reading other posts on this site, I came to think the contravention occurs when the vehicle enters the box and stops and not when it moves out the box. My vehicle stopped before 16:44 (by only a few seconds I admit) therefore can I argue that a contravention did not occur at the time stated in the PCN? Will the adjudicators take the view that its OK for councils to round up the time to the closest minute? How accurate does the time need to be?

There is also case no 2140201293 mentioned by various members around timing.

"Mr Solomon attended today to represent Mr Khan.

The Penalty Charge Notice alleges a contravention at 10:13. One of the issues raised in representations was that any contravention occurred at 10:12 and not 10:13. The local authority did not refer to this issue at all in the Notice of Rejection. In the case summary the local authority states that the car stopped at 10:13.

I have seen the CCTV. I find that it shows that Mr Khan's car enters the box at 10:12:48. It stops at 10:12:56. It moves off at 10:13:36 and then exits the box.

The contravention occurs if a vehicle enters and then stops in a box junction and the stopping is due to the presence of stationary vehicles. I find that the car stopped before 10:13. Therefore I am not satisfied that any contravention occurred at the time alleged.

I allow this appeal. I make no finding on the other issues raised. "
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 12:34
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,533
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (AshBob @ Fri, 15 Mar 2019 - 21:41) *
From reading other posts on this site, I came to think the contravention occurs when the vehicle enters the box and stops and not when it moves out the box. My vehicle stopped before 16:44 (by only a few seconds I admit) therefore can I argue that a contravention did not occur at the time stated in the PCN? Will the adjudicators take the view that its OK for councils to round up the time to the closest minute? How accurate does the time need to be?

Who knows? Different adjudicators might take a different view. You can challenge the PCN on this basis, but there is no guarantee of success. If you get Teresa Brennan as your adjudicator you should be fine, but if not it's hard to predict the outcome. A different adjudicator might find that the discrepancy is de-minimis and the PCN is valid.


--------------------
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
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 16 Mar 2019 - 13:13
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,434
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



OP--- I've read the thread, watched the video and considered the points raised for a putative appeal. I would settle at the discount amount asap.

If I had been caught like that I would have turned into the side street on the right which might provide an exemption (entering the box to turn right).

IMO you are bang to rights--cut your loses with the discount.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AshBob
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 20:53
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 29 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,613



Im not sure if this changes anything but I happen to drive past this yellow box junction today and noticed that the council have recently painted it. They only painted this one and not the one before or the two after (which are in an even worse state)

I am wondering if they have lost a few cases due to the bad road marking? The picture on the left is a screenshot from the video and the one on the right was taken on my phone today.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 23:00
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,533
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (AshBob @ Sun, 17 Mar 2019 - 20:53) *
I am wondering if they have lost a few cases due to the bad road marking?

Well I suggest you check on the tribunal register for this location and see if you can find anything useful.


--------------------
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
AshBob
post Tue, 7 May 2019 - 22:14
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 29 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,613



As expected, I just received a Notice of Rejection from Merton council. A copy of this can be viewed here: Notice Of Rejection

I used responses from everyone here and on other threads on YBJ to come up with my grounds of appeal. My appeal letter can be found here: Appeal Letter,

I do not know if Merton's council's responses are correct. Specifically the last sentence on the fourth paragrapgh:

QUOTE
The law does not require that the lines be in good condition providing that they are clearly present and indicate there is a restriction in force.



I also question this part:

QUOTE
The contravention is not for stopping due to the presence of stationary vehicles, but for entering and stopping in a box junction where prohibited.


I thought the contravention was because of "stopping due to the presence of stationary vehicles "

Do I have anything worthy on appealing to the adjudicators?

Thanks in advance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 8 May 2019 - 20:20
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,533
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The Notice of Rejection doesn't tell you that the adjudicator can allow an out of time appeal, see Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham (case reference 218033612A) http://bit.ly/2IcQBnd

I can't really fault their rationale for rejecting your representations to be honest.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Wed, 8 May 2019 - 20:20


--------------------
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
AshBob
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 11:13
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 29 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,613



Thank you cp8759 for your help again and providing that case detail.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 19 May 2019 - 19:24
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,533
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



If you're gong to take this further, post a draft on here first.


--------------------
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
AshBob
post Thu, 23 May 2019 - 11:51
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20
Joined: 29 Aug 2018
Member No.: 99,613



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 19 May 2019 - 19:24) *
If you're gong to take this further, post a draft on here first.


My draft ended up very long, I don't know if I should include all the grounds especially ground 5 which maybe weak. It's a word doc uploaded to dropbox any edits to it would be most welcomed I plan to submit it next week. - draft response
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 23 May 2019 - 17:02
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 10,533
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Use italics only for quoted text, otherwise you can't work out what's what (well you can but it's more effort that it should be), and drop "yours faithfully", it's not a letter.

I think grounds 2, 3, 4 and 5 are all weak but if you're risking the full penalty anyway there's not much to lose I suppose.


--------------------
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
Longtime Lurker
post Yesterday, 15:09
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 96
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,615



I'd re-write Ground 3. At the moment you're admitting to being stationary in the box from 44:00 to 44:21, which doesn't help your case, and might well harm it. I'd stick with just saying a photo taken at 43 mins past is irrelevant to a contravention claimed to take place at 44 mins past.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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: Saturday, 25th May 2019 - 06:18
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.