PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN-TFL didnt send digital copy
meowy
post Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 18:16
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 8 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,786



Hi everyone, as a newbie if I have done anything wrong please kindly direct me to the right direction smile.gif

------------

Contravention description:
Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited

Current PCN status:
Representation Rejected

Contravention date and time:
08 June, 2018

-------------

Sorry I lost my first PCN letter but I will try to be as accurate as possible.

I appealed online based on :
I had an unimpeded access to the space on the other side of the yellow box when I entered it and then another car cut in front of me.

At the same time I requested a CCTV footage from TFL. They sent me a letter with cover letter by registered mail, however, without a digital copy!



This is my first time request a CCTV footage from TFL. I thought they were going to send me a copy in another post. Until I received a letter from TFL telling me that they rejected my appeal. I finally realised they didn't send me a copy.



Long story short, due to travels (I have been away from UK since 17Aug and I am not back yet) I didn't have time to contact TFL until now (to re-request a CCTV footage). I admit that I wasn't sensitive enough to all the deadlines e.g. requesting CCTV and appeal to adjudicator. Although I have passed the 28 days deadline to appeal to adjudicator. I believe the amount of days that I am not in this country can possibly be a valid for submitting my appeal late.

The problem is, should I still continue to adjudicator?

I guess TFL will not be able to send me a copy as I checked on their website stated CCTV normally stored for 14 days. They have mentioned in the reject letter that I stopped in the yellow junction box for 6 seconds. Without a CCTV to support my original appeal reason - "I had an unimpeded access but another car cut in front of me." Should I still continue to appeal?

Suggests and comments would be highly appreciated! Thanks!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 16)
Advertisement
post Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 18:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 18:22
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



Press "report" and ask a mod to move your post to the correct forum.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 8 Sep 2018 - 18:38
Post #3


Member


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



Submit an appeal to London Adjudicators now, tonight.
Use Contravention did not Occur, another car cut me up unexpectedly which prevented a clean crossing even though my exit was clear when I entered.
Full details to follow.

Start with May I request that LT accept this late submission. I was abroad which prevented me from submitting earlier. Flower it up and add some details (visiting my sick mum... only if true... for instance) but remember, you are asking a favour that they do not need to grant.

And chase TFL on the video.
TBH, should have in July when opened a cover letter with no DVD and should have sorted an appeal before going away... but too late to worry on that now.
TFL will have the video on record, they keep them for a long time.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
meowy
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 00:26
Post #4


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 8 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,786



Hi everyone,

Thanks for the help my late submission has approved.

Also I have received the footage from TFL. Link as below.

Footage

This is not as straight forward as I was expecting.

It was a two lanes right turn to two lanes situation.

When I was driving I expected the car at my left (black car) would turn into the left lane or go straight, obviously, it cut me up.

My thoughts



Reality





In my point of view, the my driver's vision before making a turn was slightly restricted. (valid point?)

I did try to move while "stopping" therefor TFL said I stopped for 6 seconds (19:27:26 to 19:27:32).




What do you guys think? If you can share views it will be very much appreciated. Thanks.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 07:50
Post #5


Member


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



I don't think you'll win this I'm afraid. Turning into these boxes is hard to judge and this one is harsh as we often see.

The other car did nip ahead of you but that often happens but the problem as I see it is you weren't in the box when it happened. Still, adjudicator may take your side.

And what's this 'turning right' - it's left!



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 08:03
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 08:37
Post #6


Member


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



You'll have to argue very much on I being to late for you to stop when the other car took your anticipated space. TBH I think you will need a personal appearance to get this across


--------------------
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
meowy
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 16:07
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 8 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,786



Yes you are right It was turning left tongue.gif


Hi guys I've drafted an appeal letter for personal appearance on London tribunals.
What do you guys think about the points below? Thanks in advance!

---------------------------------

It was a two lanes left turn/straight to two lanes situation.

I was on the Midland Road Right lane heading East, just before the Yellow Box Junction (YBJ) Euston Road/Midland Road/Judd Street. I had an unimpeded access to the space on the other side of the yellow box when I entered it (at 19:27:03.1) and then another car (black car from left lane) cut in front of me.

1) Euston Road left lane has a short queue with car stopped in YBJ, therefore black car should've gone straight to Judd Street.

2) The black car should've stopped at the limited space on Euston Road left lane

3) Due to the building on left hand side, my vision was restricted while I was queuing at Midland road. My view was even blocked by the car on YBJ.(bigger car than mine) Obviously it is clearer from the point of CCTV. It was difficult for me to evaluate the road condition on Euston Road when I was third position in the queue at Midland Road. Even worsen when the black car on the left lane chose to cut in front of me. It was too late for me to stop when the other car took my anticipated space.

4) As TFL stated that my car stopped in the YBJ between 19:27:26 to 19:27:32 for 6 seconds. TFL's CCTV has deliberately zoomed in during the time to make the movement of my car unnoticeable. Also, the video is not capturing at the same angle after the video zoomed out to make it very hard to compare the moving distance. However, the video has shown that my brake light was off at 19:27:29, 19:27:30, 19:27:31 respectively. Once the video zoomed out at around 19:27:31 can see my car was moving. Therefore the video has proven that my car wasn't stopping during that 6 seconds.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 16:43
Post #8


Member


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



QUOTE
TFL's CCTV has deliberately zoomed in during the time [i]to make the movement of my car unnoticeable.[/i]

Omit deliberately - it doesn't help your case.
Replace to make with thus making.

This post has been edited by John U.K.: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 16:44
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
meowy
post Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 17:09
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 8 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,786



QUOTE (John U.K. @ Fri, 19 Oct 2018 - 17:43) *
QUOTE
TFL's CCTV has deliberately zoomed in during the time [i]to make the movement of my car unnoticeable.[/i]

Omit deliberately - it doesn't help your case.
Replace to make with thus making.


Thanks. Understood!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
meowy
post Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 10:42
Post #10


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 8 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,786



Rejected ew

Worths to mention the adjudicator didn’t accept my de minimis point even I pointed out I didn’t stay at YBJ for 6 seconds. He said the law doesn’t allow stopping at all so as long as I stopped even 1 second will count. Doesn't seem like the case to other people on this forum. Anthony Chan was my adjudicator seems to have reputation on google that is hard to deal with.

This post has been edited by meowy: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 07:05
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sat, 20 Oct 2018 - 19:32
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,914
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Sometimes I think certain adjudicators breakfast on lemons before they start, and Mr Chan seems to be one of them. However, 6 seconds is outside what has generally been accepted as de minimis in the past, where less than 5 seconds has seen some wins.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
meowy
post Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 07:18
Post #12


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 8 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,786



ETA decision - refused, as below for references. Just want to warn people who might have similar case.
PLEASE look for any old success cases, print it and take them with you for appeal.
For example in this case my adjudicator doesn't even consider 2,3 seconds stopping to be accepted as de minimis which often accepted in this forum.
How interesting that when I told him my car brake light was off in the zoomed in video he said it doesn't mean you car had moved.
I was speechless anyway good luck with everyone.


-----------------------

case reference 2180359781

Adjudicator's Reasons
The Appellant attended in person.
The contravention is set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).
The yellow box junction conveys the prohibition that:
"... no person shall 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."
The prohibition has the following elements:
i. Causing a vehicle to enter the box junction,
ii. Stopping within the box junction, and
iii. That stopping being due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
There is always a risk that the traffic ahead will stop for one reason or another. The Highway Code
accordingly advises motorists as follows: "you must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is
clear".
It is not unlawful for a motorist to enter a box junction in a line of traffic or before there is a receiving
space for his vehicle beyond the junction. The Highway Code advice is simply that - advice, a motorist
who follows it cannot commit this contravention. On the other hand, the motorist who enters a box
junction before his or her exit road or lane is clear, does so at his or her peril and takes the risk of a
contravention should he be forced to stop because of traffic ahead stopping, or not moving as
anticipated.
The Appellant said that her exit lane was clear until a vehicle overtook her on her near side. I can
accept that such a manoeuvre did take place but it is clear from the CCTV recording that it had
occurred before either vehicle went into the junction. The Appellant said that even if that was the
case, she could not have been aware that the other vehicle was going into lane 3. I do not accept this
argument. Lane 2 had two stationary vehicles in it. The other vehicle could not have turned into lane
3. The position and direction of the vehicle also made it clear that the vehicle was going into lane 3.
The Appellant then said that she did not have sufficient time to stop before the junction. I do not
agree.
The Appellant said that the stoppage was de minimus. I do not agree with that ether.
The contravention has occurred. I am refusing the appeal.
Anthony Chan

This post has been edited by meowy: Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 07:20
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 11:36
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I agree with the adjudicator.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
meowy
post Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 15:33
Post #14


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 8 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,786



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 12:36) *
I agree with the adjudicator.


I wouldn’t be surprised. However, would you mind to share your views on de minimis on YBJ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 16:06
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,049
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, I don't understand your defence.

Is it that you were not stopped or that you were and if you were then for no longer than ** seconds?

The adj has not said that you challenged TfL's written evidence and that at most you were stopped for no more than ** which in the circumstances (and it is always 'in the circumstances', there are few absolutes in life and even fewer at adjudications) you respectfully submit was de minimis. I cannot see that between you and the adj any length of time was agreed, just that you made a bald statement with which they disagreed.

Sometimes the best form of defence can be attack, but if there's a lesson here it is that appellants should read the adj, guage their mood and couch their defence accordingly. Do not go in all guns blazing.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 19:12
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (meowy @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 16:33) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 12:36) *
I agree with the adjudicator.


I wouldn’t be surprised. However, would you mind to share your views on de minimis on YBJ?

My view is that unless I'm looking at the wrong car, you were stationary for what feels like ages. I think in a criminal court setting de-minimis might work up to 2-4 seconds and the adjudicators would be wise to follow that.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
meowy
post Mon, 22 Oct 2018 - 01:25
Post #17


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8
Joined: 8 Sep 2018
Member No.: 99,786



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 17:06) *
OP, I don't understand your defence.

Is it that you were not stopped or that you were and if you were then for no longer than ** seconds?

The adj has not said that you challenged TfL's written evidence and that at most you were stopped for no more than ** which in the circumstances (and it is always 'in the circumstances', there are few absolutes in life and even fewer at adjudications) you respectfully submit was de minimis. I cannot see that between you and the adj any length of time was agreed, just that you made a bald statement with which they disagreed.

Sometimes the best form of defence can be attack, but if there's a lesson here it is that appellants should read the adj, guage their mood and couch their defence accordingly. Do not go in all guns blazing.


I didn't go in all guns blazing as that was my first to adj and he refused every single points of mine. I was kinda speechless. Now I rethink I probably too weak to stand up for myself.

The adj did say even I properly moved one or two sec out of the 6 seconds that TFL referred . But the total stopping time will be 4 secs. I didn't know they can accumulate stopping time between movement. A lesson learnt.

e.g. stop at 19:27:26-19:27:28, moved between 9:27:29-19:27:30, stopped 19:27:31-19:27:32 stop

There was a case in this forum the Adj didn't accept de minimis on YBJ then eventually agreed that £130 PCN for 4 second contravention is disproportionate. I did mention this (however I didn't print it out and proof it)to my adj he said the charge is lawful without a problem.

QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 20:12) *
QUOTE (meowy @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 16:33) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 21 Oct 2018 - 12:36) *
I agree with the adjudicator.


I wouldn’t be surprised. However, would you mind to share your views on de minimis on YBJ?

My view is that unless I'm looking at the wrong car, you were stationary for what feels like ages. I think in a criminal court setting de-minimis might work up to 2-4 seconds and the adjudicators would be wise to follow that.


I do agree with you but TFL only concerns about certain period. So I wasn't expect the adj would brought up anything outside that. Anyway he insisted 1 second stopping is not even allowed. mellow.gif


Thank you guys smile.gif
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 09:45
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