PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Entering & Stopping in a Box Junction - Tribunal
earthquake2103
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:15
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,690



Hi All, Newbie here looking for a bit of advice.
I received a penalty through for the above violation.
I've appealed it on the grounds of -
Traffic was moving freely on approach to the box junction & there was more than sufficient space ahead for me to clear the junction.
The car in front then decides to stop with over a cars length gap in front of them causing me to have to stop with half my car in the junction.

This was then rejected so I filled in the paperwork to take it to a tribunal. It's this Saturday but I just want to get a feel of what people think! i.e is it worth me going or is it just going to be rejected?

I can upload the video because it's too big but you can see it here https://www.dropbox.com/s/2oityza89dfyf1i/G...284%29.avi?dl=0 or please let me know if there's a better/easier way of linking the vid?

My argument is if traffic was stop/start & I was stopped at the start of the junction & just chanced it by edging forward then I can understand the council's argument of "the motorist must ensure the exit has sufficient space so the vehicle can cross the box junction".

But in this instance we were moving, there was more than enough space to clear it then the car in front of me stopped.

So say for example there were NO OTHER cars on the road at all except for me & the car in front, would I still be expected to stop at the beginning of the junction wait for them to clear it then go??

Sorry for the ranting!! Let me know if I've missed any info for post guidelines etc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:25
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I hope you were leaning in the horn to get the car in front to move forward... and next time always drive out of the box (you had plenty of room on your left).

I believe that technically the contravention has occurred but the adjudicator may take pity on you given the behaviour of the driver in front.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
earthquake2103
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:27
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,690



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:25) *
I hope you were leaning in the horn to get the car in front to move forward... and next time always drive out of the box (you had plenty of room on your left).

I believe that technically the contravention has occurred but the adjudicator may take pity on you given the behaviour of the driver in front.


Problem with the left hand lane is it's for straight on only.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:29
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Best post the PCN and all correspondence, especially your challenge, council rejection and the evidence pack summary.

Based on the video, not a hope in hell.
You entered the junction and stopped due to stationary traffic. That the guy in front stopped short is irrelevant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:30
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (earthquake2103 @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:27) *
Problem with the left hand lane is it's for straight on only.


Who cares - it's better than a PCN. I think all of us who've been stung by a yellow box PCN now take any action we can to get out of the damn things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:46
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,308
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



On what you have posted here so far those more learned than me do not rate you chances.

However, for best advice (there may be something in the small print) post here the PCN (both sides) and all correspondence and notices to and from the Council, inclusding your representations, their response, your appeal and the council's case summary from the evidence pack.


Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method:
Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems.
STAGE 1 takes care of resizing. If you use Tinypic for Stage 2, on the left each image in Tinypic is a list of links. Highlight and copy the entire link 'for forums' from the list for each image - beginning with IMG and ending /IMG (include all the square brackets [] }, and paste each link into your post. Each copied and pasted link will embed a thumbnail link in your post.

Using the attachment method is not advised as it means quickly running out of attachment space.
Redact/obscure personal details, PCN no. Reg No.

Also post up a GSV (Google Street View) link to the location.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 16:29
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



You refer to 'going' to your hearing which presumably is a personal hearing.

On the basis of what we know, you have no chance of succeeding on the basis of no contravention - contrary to what you posted, the traffic wasn't free flowing because the lights were red and at least 2 cars were changing lanes. I know there's nothing worse than people poring over videos from the comfort of their armchairs after the event, but this is what would happen at your hearing.

I don't know what direct and indirect costs you would incur by taking time off from work, if applicable, and travelling to the hearing, but IMO this would not be well spent.

Apart from anything else, you should consider changing to a postal hearing. But be careful about just dropping out because you could be liable to a costs claim from the authority:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/schedule/made

13(1)(a) applies.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 17:42
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 16:29) *
You refer to 'going' to your hearing which presumably is a personal hearing.

On the basis of what we know, you have no chance of succeeding on the basis of no contravention - contrary to what you posted, the traffic wasn't free flowing because the lights were red and at least 2 cars were changing lanes. I know there's nothing worse than people poring over videos from the comfort of their armchairs after the event, but this is what would happen at your hearing.

I don't know what direct and indirect costs you would incur by taking time off from work, if applicable, and travelling to the hearing, but IMO this would not be well spent.

Apart from anything else, you should consider changing to a postal hearing. But be careful about just dropping out because you could be liable to a costs claim from the authority:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/schedule/made

13(1)(a) applies.


Agree with HCA about the hearing, change to postal unless there is no cost in attending,

Send further submissions re de minimis as per this case

2160332024

The allegation in these proceedings is that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. Upon a point being raised by the appellant as to the degree to which this vehicle was stationery within the box on it turning left into it on the council's poor quality video footage of the incident an supporting images taken therefrom although the vehicle stops with its back wheels positioned at the very edge of the box this infringement of box junction rules in that regard amounts to my mind no more than a de minimus breach of the prohibition and I am not accordingly satisfied that the contravention occurred


--------------------
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
StuartBu
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 18:45
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,178
Joined: 1 Jan 2013
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 59,097



QUOTE (earthquake2103 @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:27) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:25) *
I hope you were leaning in the horn to get the car in front to move forward... and next time always drive out of the box (you had plenty of room on your left).

I believe that technically the contravention has occurred but the adjudicator may take pity on you given the behaviour of the driver in front.


Problem with the left hand lane is it's for straight on only.


Surely if the OP in this case can see that there is plenty space on the "out" side of the YB to accept both him and the car in front then it is reasonable to continue through ...is it being suggested that ( in this case) OP should have sat outside the box until the car in front had exited the box and left enough room for OP to move in to.

This post has been edited by StuartBu: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 18:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 18:54
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 18:45) *
QUOTE (earthquake2103 @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:27) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:25) *
I hope you were leaning in the horn to get the car in front to move forward... and next time always drive out of the box (you had plenty of room on your left).

I believe that technically the contravention has occurred but the adjudicator may take pity on you given the behaviour of the driver in front.


Problem with the left hand lane is it's for straight on only.


Surely if the OP in this case can see that there is plenty space on the "out" side of the YB to accept both him and the car in front then it is reasonable to continue through ...is it being suggested that ( in this case) OP should have sat outside the box until the car in front had exited the box and left enough room for OP to move in to.


QUOTE
Box junctions
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6
conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles




--------------------
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
Hippocrates
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 21:47
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Councils can and do not contest, and are not awarded costs against them. Costs are only awarded if either party acts vexatiously after the NOR stage. Opting out is not per se a reason for an adjudicator to award costs against you or them.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 22:16
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



No one said it was. But by doing so the appellant would leave themselves open to costs - which is not the same as costs being awarded- because they would have satisfied the trigger condition.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
earthquake2103
post Wed, 18 Jan 2017 - 08:54
Post #13


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 16 Jan 2017
Member No.: 89,690



QUOTE (StuartBu @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 18:45) *
QUOTE (earthquake2103 @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:27) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 17 Jan 2017 - 15:25) *
I hope you were leaning in the horn to get the car in front to move forward... and next time always drive out of the box (you had plenty of room on your left).

I believe that technically the contravention has occurred but the adjudicator may take pity on you given the behaviour of the driver in front.


Problem with the left hand lane is it's for straight on only.


Surely if the OP in this case can see that there is plenty space on the "out" side of the YB to accept both him and the car in front then it is reasonable to continue through ...is it being suggested that ( in this case) OP should have sat outside the box until the car in front had exited the box and left enough room for OP to move in to.


This is my main point! When I wrote traffic was moving freely it was more to with on the approach to the junction!

So the speed i was going on approach & seeing enough space ahead to clear the junction it would be madness to expect me to stop & wait for the car in front to clear the junction.

Thanks for the comments, I've got all the other paperwork at home so I'll upload to here ASAP. As a couple of you say I might try & change to postal appeal. I've never been to one of these things before so don't know the process but I just thought being there face to face might be a better way to get my point across!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 18 Jan 2017 - 09:02
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,064
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



It is, and if you are happy to travel to the hearing then this is recommended.

Remember, the camera sees issues from 30+ feet in the air and obliquly whereas the motorist is at ground level head-on. What you saw would be different and in person you are more likely be able to articulate this perspective.

Your reps and their NOR are critical at the moment,.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 10:11
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here