PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Yellow Box Junction Shepherds Bush Road
Pacman01
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 21:51
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
From: London
Member No.: 80,863



I received a yellow box junction PCN today and was wondering what you guys think?

It seems a bit harsh to me, as I had no other vehicles behind me, the lane to my left was clear as you can see when the white vehicle pulls in at the end and the lane to turn right onto Brooke Green is also clear. The traffic behind is on a red light and I am only partially in the yellow box and am not blocking the junction, in my opinion.

The footage can be viewed at https://viewmypcn.co.uk/view.aspx

What do you think my chances are if this went to PATAS? Is the wording on the PCN correct, do you think I could argue de minimis or what grounds do you think I should appeal on?

Any help is greatly appreciated, thanks.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  PCN_Page_1.pdf ( 1.03MB ) Number of downloads: 147
Attached File  PCN_Page_2.pdf ( 652.3K ) Number of downloads: 316
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 21:51
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 22:20
Post #2


Member


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



Here's video - click on pic to view in Flickr. It's a harsh one in my view - I would appeal on de minimis. You had some room in front too. Also because of the truck you maybe couldn't see the right hand lane too well.



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 22:24
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 22:30
Post #3


Member


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



One was won on de minimis as to the extent of the contravention only a couple of weeks ago

this one

2170482941

e contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited.
On the enforcement authority's online footage of this incident this vehicle turned left into the box only the rear of the vehicle being within the box when it came to a halt is stopping for a few seconds. The road was relatively clear. No obstruction was caused.
The appellant, who appeared before me today, made submissions in accordance with those set out in writing.
I was not persuaded as to the merit of any of the points he made save those in respect of the incident itself he arguing that this was no more than a de minimus breach of box junction rules. I concluded having heard from the appellant on that issue and on the footage that this was so and I found for that reason that the contravention did not occur.

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 - 22:56


--------------------
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
Pacman01
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 17:26
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
From: London
Member No.: 80,863



I have drafted a letter of appeal to LBHF, let me know what you think and if you would add anything or take anything out? Do you think it is a good idea to reference the PATAS case in the appeal?

LBHF,

I am appealing the alleged PCN on the grounds that I did not block the box junction and “de minimis”, as the time my back tyre was in the ybj was extremely short.

I got the angle of my turn slightly wrong, while negotiating the lorry, but as the footage shows I still had space between myself and the vehicle in front and could have edged forward.

The lane to my right, where vehicles can turn onto Brooke Green, was not blocked, in fact a vehicle came around me and did so during the footage. The vehicles behind were stopped on a red light and no other vehicles were behind me, so no blockage was caused at the ybj.

This is further demonstrated when the vehicle in front of me allows the lorry to filter in front where Shepherds Bush Road goes into one lane (as a bus lane begins) and the white vehicle moves in behind the lorry. Therefore the ybj was not blocked and traffic was still flowing.

Finally, a PATAS adjudicator recently upheld a motorists appeal for the same reason. Please refer to case 2170482941. This is very similar to my situation in that only the back of my vehicle was in the ybj and the flow of traffic was not halted. I therefore ask that you cancel the PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:07
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,916
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



If it were me, I'd not use "de minimis". It seems to get adjudicator's backs up, (why I don't know, they are all lawyers, after all !!!!), so better to put

"on the grounds that I did not block the box junction and the trivial nature of the alleged contravention, as most of my car is outwith the YBJ, and the time the rear of my vehicle was in the ybj was extremely short".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 21:32
Post #6


Member


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



+ 1 except this is a a council appeal initially. Best to keep it in natural language though and not sound like you've been consulting here. I would not use 'outwith' either...

I sometimes cite this old yellow box doc from H&F - note this:

"On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25%”grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction."

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...Na1u1_wax3_9yiM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pacman01
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 22:24
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
From: London
Member No.: 80,863



Thanks for the pointers, I've amended as follows, please let me know what you think or would change?

LBHF,

I am appealing the alleged PCN on the grounds that I did not block the box junction and the trivial nature of the alleged contravention, as most of my car is not inside the YBJ, and the time the rear of my vehicle was in the ybj was extremely short.

I got the angle of my turn slightly wrong, while negotiating the lorry, but as the footage shows I still had space between myself and the vehicle in front and could have edged forward.

The lane to my right, where vehicles can turn onto Brooke Green, was not blocked, in fact a vehicle came around me and did so during the footage. The vehicles behind were stopped on a red light and no other vehicles were behind me, so no blockage was caused at the ybj.

This is further demonstrated when the vehicle in front of me allows the lorry to filter in front where Shepherds Bush Road goes into one lane (as a bus lane begins) and the white vehicle moves in behind the lorry. Therefore, the ybj was not blocked and traffic was still flowing.
I would also like to refer you to the LBHF Box Junction Enforcement Guidance ver. 3 2007, written by yourselves where you state “On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25%”grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction.” The footage clearly shows that I caused no obstruction and I would say that at no point was anymore than 25% of my vehicle inside the ybj, so please apply the discretion cited by yourselves.

Finally, a PATAS adjudicator recently upheld a motorist’s appeal for the same reason. Please refer to case 2170482941. This is very similar to my situation in that only the back of my vehicle was in the ybj and the flow of traffic was not halted. I therefore ask that you cancel the PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 9 Dec 2017 - 23:04
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



You are currently appealing to a council’s better judgement, but it seems to me that many don’t have one nowadays (your PCN for example). Councils are legally obliged however, to consider representations fully, exercise discretion as necessary and give proper reasons. My view is that it is useful if they infer you are aware of this, and that you are up for a fight (whatever the reality). With respect, I think that the remainder of your appeal would go in one ear and out of the other (as might the following):

I am writing to challenge Penalty Charge Notice number xxxx.

The council must fully examine the context of this alleged contravention ‘entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited’ and have regard to the mischief at which the regulation was directed. If however the council attempt to enforce this PCN without openly addressing my challenge on the basis that it believes a technical contravention had occurred, I aver that the council would err in law.

The mischief of ‘entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited’, must not be interpreted as entering and stopping in the box when the presence of stationary vehicles in the intended exit lane cannot be predicted due to a visual obstruction, especially where traffic is evidently moving over the observable section of exit lane and it remains vacant throughout, as in this case. It cannot be reasonable to expect a motorist to assume that an intended exit lane, which cannot be fully observed, to be always full of stationary vehicles. Although the regulation is drafted to avoid undue prolixity, it nevertheless needs to be interpreted and applied to the wide-ranging real-world scenarios met by motorists today, so that fair-minded regulation is seen to be in play. For those reasons, and due to the trivial extent of the alleged contravention, I genuinely believe that it would be unfair to penalise me.

I would also like to refer you to the LBHF Box Junction Enforcement Guidance ver. 3 2007, written by yourselves where you state “On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25% ”grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction.” The footage clearly shows that I caused no obstruction and I would say that at no point was anymore than 25% of my vehicle inside the YBJ, so please apply the discretion cited by yourselves.

Finally, an ETA adjudicator recently upheld a motorist’s appeal for the same reason. Please refer to case 2170482941. This is very similar to my situation in that only the back of my vehicle was in the YBJ and the flow of traffic was not halted. I therefore ask that you cancel the PCN.

This post has been edited by Mr Meldrew: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 01:51


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pacman01
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 12:05
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
From: London
Member No.: 80,863



Thank you Mr Meldrew, I've added some parts of your response to mine. I agree with what you say, but I believe that LBHF will not cancel the PCN regardless of what I appeal on. My concern is that the PATAS adjudicator may become annoyed at too harsh an appeal, as someone previously said they may if I included the term de minimis.

The appeal already contains reference to a previous PATAS ruling on a similar case, de minimis and LBHF's own literature on how it should use discretion in pretty much this exact situation. If that isn't enough to cancel the ticket, I'm not sure stronger wording will and I fear I'll have to rely on a rational/reasonable adjudicator.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 12:15
Post #10


Member


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



QUOTE (Pacman01 @ Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 12:05) *
Thank you Mr Meldrew, I've added some parts of your response to mine. I agree with what you say, but I believe that LBHF will not cancel the PCN regardless of what I appeal on. My concern is that the PATAS adjudicator may become annoyed at too harsh an appeal, as someone previously said they may if I included the term de minimis.

The appeal already contains reference to a previous PATAS ruling on a similar case, de minimis and LBHF's own literature on how it should use discretion in pretty much this exact situation. If that isn't enough to cancel the ticket, I'm not sure stronger wording will and I fear I'll have to rely on a rational/reasonable adjudicator.


I would have no fear in using Mr Meldrews text verbatim at an appeal hearing. So IMO it is not only fine as a representation to the council, it is good. It is polite and covers all pertinent points without resorting to legal speak


--------------------
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
Pacman01
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 16:51
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
From: London
Member No.: 80,863



I'll go with that then. Once again, thank you for all your help. I'll let you know how I get on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sun, 10 Dec 2017 - 17:23
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



OP, your hesitation is understandable and you should be comfortable with whatever you send. The reason for the stronger tone is that all too often authorities will respond with, “Having carefully considered your representations, the authority is satisfied the contravention occurred’ or similar weasel words without addressing your salient points. You need, and are entitled to better than that in order to be at ease with any decision you may have to make whether to settle at the discount stage or to fight on.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bribri
post Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 14:18
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 173
Joined: 12 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,419



It looks a very confusing situation.

1) the contravention is that you shouldn't enter the box if your exit is not clear - does the video show enough information to determine that? - there appear to be two lanes to turn into - the lorry is in one and the video shows a gap that does appear big enough.

2) after the car in question turns left, there does appear perhaps to be enough room to move forward and clear the box, the driver just didn't choose to do so

3). even so the car does appear to have cleared the junction

4) is the box drawn correctly?

4) there is also a vehicle which pulls out behind the car in question, signals left in a lane marked turn right and then goes somewhere - maybe that contributed to the driver confusion
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 23:06
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (bribri @ Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 14:18) *
1) the contravention is that you shouldn't enter the box if your exit is not clear....

Not exactly, although sound advice. If, with my intended exit blocked due to standing vehicles, I set off across the box muttering ‘Ho to Hell with it’ and before I have to stop a sudden fireball clears a space, not only was Lucifer listening, but there was no contravention.

QUOTE (bribri @ Tue, 12 Dec 2017 - 14:18) *
4) is the box drawn correctly?

Since TSRGD 2016 I’m not sure the authorities care.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pacman01
post Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 14:33
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
From: London
Member No.: 80,863



I received a response from LBHF over the weekend rejecting my appeal (really Mr Meldrew's to be precise). I have it saved as a pdf, but its too big to upload here, does anyone have any suggestions as to how I can do this?

I want to appeal to PATAS, do you think my initial response to LBHF would be suitable or would you add anything?

One point from the response was LBHF said "On this occasion only, we will allow you another opportunity to pay this PCN at the reduced amount of £65.00. I must however advise you that we are not required to do this by law. This offer will not be re-offered for this PCN."

As I understood it, being that I appealed within the given time frame, the charge is paused whilst they consider the appeal and I have another chance to pay at the reduced rate if they reject the appeal? If this is the case, could it be grounds that they are misleading me with the above paragraph?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pacman01
post Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 14:54
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
From: London
Member No.: 80,863



Hopefully these links should work

https://postimg.org/image/teia58vz1/

https://postimg.org/image/sc83n1kz1/

https://postimg.org/image/gacpt197h/

https://postimg.org/image/igbm0phb1/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 15:56
Post #17


Member


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



So they believe they cann publish guidance, but ignore it because its only guidance not law. What about the common law duty to act fairly.


--------------------
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
Pacman01
post Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 19:26
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
From: London
Member No.: 80,863



I guess they're trying to say if the guidelines mean cancelling a PCN and stopping revenue, they will ignore them.

I'm thinking of an appeal along these lines to PATAS:


I am appealing the alleged PCN on the grounds that I did not block the box junction and the trivial nature of the alleged contravention, as most of my car is not inside the YBJ, and the time the rear of my vehicle was in the ybj was extremely short.

I got the angle of my turn slightly wrong, while negotiating the lorry, but as the footage shows I still had space between myself and the vehicle in front and could have edged forward.

The lane to my right, where vehicles can turn onto Brooke Green, was not blocked, in fact a vehicle came around me and did so during the footage. The vehicles behind were stopped on a red light and no other vehicles were behind me, so no blockage was caused at the ybj.

This is further demonstrated when the vehicle in front of me allows the lorry to filter in front where Shepherds Bush Road goes into one lane (as a bus lane begins) and the white vehicle moves in behind the lorry. Therefore, the ybj was not blocked and traffic was still flowing.

I would also like to refer you to the LBHF Box Junction Enforcement Guidance ver. 3 2007, written by themselves where they state “On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25%”grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction.” The footage clearly shows that I caused no obstruction and I would say that at no point was anymore than 25% of my vehicle inside the ybj, so please apply the discretion cited by LBHF. I find it hard to comprehend why LBHF refuse to follow these guidelines in the rejection letter, which they wrote themselves? I appreciate it isn't law, but as I had filled no more than 25% of they ybj, I feel they should act fairly and follow guidance written by themselves.

Finally, a PATAS adjudicator recently upheld a motorist’s appeal for the same reason. Please refer to case 2170482941. This is very similar to my situation in that only the back of my vehicle was in the ybj and the flow of traffic was not halted. I therefore ask that you cancel the PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 23:09
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (Pacman01 @ Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 14:33) *
I received a response from LBHF over the weekend rejecting my appeal (really Mr Meldrew's to be precise).

With a click of a mouse, as usual, the words “carefully considered” have been pasted into the rejection notice presumably as evidence of careful consideration (yeah, right), but I don’t see any consideration of any of these relevant points:

QUOTE
The mischief of ‘entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited’ must not be interpreted as entering and stopping in the box when the presence of stationary vehicles in the intended exit lane cannot be predicted due to a visual obstruction, especially where traffic is evidently moving over the observable section of exit lane and it remains vacant throughout, as in this case. It cannot be reasonable to expect a motorist to assume that an intended exit lane, which cannot be fully observed, to be always full of stationary vehicles. Although the regulation is drafted to avoid undue prolixity, it nevertheless needs to be interpreted and applied to the wide-ranging real-world scenarios met by motorists today, so that fair-minded regulation is seen to be in play. For those reasons, and due to the trivial extent of the alleged contravention, I genuinely believe that it would be unfair to penalise me.

What I do see is yet another all too common slapdash copy and paste job, which, when councils have bothered to copy and past anything much at all, contains, as in this case, pitifully little in the way of ‘reasons’ to help the claimant understand why any particular argument or mitigation was rejected, but is instead bloated with repetition after repetition about what they believe is a contravention:

QUOTE
“camera enforcement operators … recorded you … moving onto, and stopping on a, 'Box Junction' without the exit lane being clear” “your vehicle followed the vehicle in front into the box junction when it would not be able to clear the box junction.” “the contravention occurs as soon as a vehicle stops on the yellow box junction when their exit lane is not clear” “At the point at which your vehicle was entering the box, there wasn't enough space for you to exit; therefore your exit was not clear….” “The correct procedure is for the driver to wait at the entrance of the box junction until the junction is clear before entering….”.

The video recording though, did not show what is alleged. The facts of the matter are the video does not show you moving onto, and stopping on a box junction without the exit lane being clear. At the moment you entered the box the status of the small section of exit lane that was visible to you and to the enforcement operator, was plainly clear and moving. Likewise, the video shows that when your vehicle followed the vehicle in front into the box junction it was wrong to say you would not be able to clear the box junction, that only became apparent to all concerned when the situation changed quickly.

My opinion, for what its worth, is that the decision maker has wrongly allowed his or her decision to be influenced by errors of fact in what was a trivial contravention at worst.

I hope there’s something here for you, but by all means use your other points, so that whatever happens it’ll be off your chest.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pacman01
post Tue, 16 Jan 2018 - 11:06
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 25 Nov 2015
From: London
Member No.: 80,863



I'm a little unsure how to approach PATAS, will the adjudicator be in possession of my appeal to LBHF and the response, or will he just have the initial PCN?

If he has all the information, then I'd just send reasons why I don't agree with LBHF's response.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 21:55
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