Homerton High St/Fire Station YBJ PCN, Yellow Box Junction |
Homerton High St/Fire Station YBJ PCN, Yellow Box Junction |
Mon, 25 Nov 2013 - 19:22
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
Hi,
Apologies if I haven't done anything quite right but this is my first post. I have always had the piss taken out of me for being so careful of these road devils, so you can imagine my annoyance upon receiving a PCN from Transport for London for "Entering and stopping inside a box junction when prohibited". I don't really remember doing this so my only guess is that I was forced into it by vehicles ahead of me or perhaps I stopped only for a few seconds. I have heard that cases have been won on the grounds that the yellow box is invalid because the box does not touch the kerb, the box is invalid because it is not DFT approved, ambiguous wording in the road traffic act etc. I was wondering If anyone could help me draft a letter on appealing this on any of the above points (providing they are relevant to my case). I have attached the photographic evidence they have provided me with. I have seen in other posts that its worth getting the Video evidence as the amount of time you stop inside the box can also help in an appeal. Would anyone agree with this? I have also read that it is £10 for the video evidence and I don't really want to pay for this if it is not needed to win the appeal. Thanks |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 25 Nov 2013 - 19:22
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 25 Nov 2013 - 19:23
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 9,876 Joined: 20 Mar 2012 Member No.: 53,821 |
Post up the scrubbed PCN - all of it. See any of my TfL threads. Is this a first time?
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry891478 http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry792263 http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry812942 The letter has been updated. If you followed a vehicle which was not stationary, PM me your e-mail address so I can send further details. This post has been edited by Hippocrates: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 - 21:20 -------------------- 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" |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 11:57
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
Yes I have read the letter in your last link which I found really helpful. I did struggle to understand some of it as I do not have any expertise in interpreting legislation. I think my main issue is knowing what points I can use specifically in my case and what legislations/cases to use to support my points.
I have attached the PCN for your reference. I am not sure if I followed a vehicle which was not stationary as I do not recall the incident. I think it is evident that it was a misjudgement on my part that I could not fit my entire car into the space. This post has been edited by Jade: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 12:09 |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 12:57
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,032 Joined: 5 Mar 2011 Member No.: 44,816 |
QUOTE I have attached the PCN for your reference. Please post all the pages of the PCN. The attachment showing just the front page has used 1.09MB of the 2MB limit so consider taking photographs, uploading them to a photo hosting site and adding links to your thread. How to prepare and post photographs/images http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858 This post has been edited by qafqa: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 13:53 |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 14:04
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
Sorry guys; I have converted the pdfs into jpg format so i think you should be able to see them now.
Thanks for the help Gafga |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 15:27
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
PATAS case 2120055279
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 15:56
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,032 Joined: 5 Mar 2011 Member No.: 44,816 |
QUOTE PATAS case 2120055279 Exactly right mashkiach, I reckoned this post would be needed eventually. The correct marking for firestaions is the 'KEEP CLEAR' they have no business putting a yellow box there. The Regulations disagree with you (a)box junction means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching (i)at a junction between two or more roads; (ii)at a gyratory system or roundabout; (iii)where that area of carriageway is not greater than 4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point; or (iv)on the length of road adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the premises of a fire, police or ambulance station, on which there has been placed the road marking shown in diagram 1043, 1044, 1044.1 or 1044.2 what is the point of having a yellow box in front of the fire station if you can legally go in it and block it whilst waiting to turn right? And the marking does IMO constitute a yellow box. Case Reference: 2120055279 Appellant: Mr XXXXXXX Authority: Transport for London VRM: XXXXX PCN: GTXXXX Contravention Date: 19 Dec 2011 Contravention Time: 16:43 Contravention Location: Homerton High Street / Wardle Street Penalty Amount: £130.00 Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited Decision Date: 02 Mar 2012 Adjudicator: Anthony Chan Appeal Decision: Allowed Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons: The Appellant said that the box junction was not visible in heavy rain. The Authority produced a photograph of the junction taken a month after the date of the alleged contravention. It was in bright sunlight and visible. However, the markings were unusual to say the least. First, two borders of the junction were thick yellow lines and the other two borders were much thinner. Secondly (and unlike the sketch plan provided by the Authority), the edge of the junction was far short of the centre of the carriageway, presumably to accommodate the chevrons and the right turn filter lane. Thirdly, the lattice patterns within the junction were not squares but elongated diamonds. The last two anomalies were non-compliant with the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions and made the junction much less discernable. I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am allowing the appeal. QUOTE I have converted the pdfs into jpg format so i think you should be able to see them now. Thanks, all pages of the PCN are needed so Hippocrates can give them the all important DNA test. Incidentally, the method of concealing personal information on the pdf does not work, it simply puts a blank mask layer over it that is easily bypassed and is best not used for sensitive documents. This post has been edited by qafqa: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 16:44 |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 16:11
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
QUOTE PATAS case 2120055279 Exactly right mashkiach, I reckoned this post would be needed eventually. The correct marking for firestaions is the 'KEEP CLEAR' they have no business putting a yellow box there. The Regulations disagree with you (a)box junction means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching (i)at a junction between two or more roads; (ii)at a gyratory system or roundabout; (iii)where that area of carriageway is not greater than 4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point; or (iv)on the length of road adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the premises of a fire, police or ambulance station, on which there has been placed the road marking shown in diagram 1043, 1044, 1044.1 or 1044.2 what is the point of having a yellow box in front of the fire station if you can legally go in it and block it whilst waiting to turn right? And the marking does IMO constitute a yellow box. Case Reference: 2120055279 Appellant: Mr XXXXXXX Authority: Transport for London VRM: XXXXX PCN: GTXXXX Contravention Date: 19 Dec 2011 Contravention Time: 16:43 Contravention Location: Homerton High Street / Wardle Street Penalty Amount: £130.00 Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited Decision Date: 02 Mar 2012 Adjudicator: Anthony Chan Appeal Decision: Allowed Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. Reasons: The Appellant said that the box junction was not visible in heavy rain. The Authority produced a photograph of the junction taken a month after the date of the alleged contravention. It was in bright sunlight and visible. However, the markings were unusual to say the least. First, two borders of the junction were thick yellow lines and the other two borders were much thinner. Secondly (and unlike the sketch plan provided by the Authority), the edge of the junction was far short of the centre of the carriageway, presumably to accommodate the chevrons and the right turn filter lane. Thirdly, the lattice patterns within the junction were not squares but elongated diamonds. The last two anomalies were non-compliant with the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions and made the junction much less discernable. I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I am allowing the appeal. QUOTE I have converted the pdfs into jpg format so i think you should be able to see them now. Thanks, they are needed so Hippocrates can give them the all important DNA test, they usually fail but with TFL paperwork it is best to check whether it is an illegitimate document. So this means the yellow box in front of a fire station is illegal and therefore unenforceable? I have checked on the DFT website and this box is not DFT approved so I presume this would be one of my points to which I would appeal. Does it matter that it was not raining? Would I use the same reasoning as this case for the yellow box not being in accordance with the regulations shown on diagram 1044? Or could I simply point out the box does not touch the kerb? |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 16:17
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,032 Joined: 5 Mar 2011 Member No.: 44,816 |
QUOTE so I presume this would be one of my points to which I would appeal. This is the core of what the adjudicator decided: However, the markings were unusual to say the least. First, two borders of the junction were thick yellow lines and the other two borders were much thinner. Secondly (and unlike the sketch plan provided by the Authority), the edge of the junction was far short of the centre of the carriageway, presumably to accommodate the chevrons and the right turn filter lane. Thirdly, the lattice patterns within the junction were not squares but elongated diamonds. The last two anomalies were non-compliant with the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions and made the junction much less discernable. I doubt the weather was a major factor, it was more the use of unconventional road markings that was spotted by the adjudicator. However this is still at an early stage, best wait to see what Hippocrates has to say then work on a draft. QUOTE could I simply point out the box does not touch the kerb? Yes, but also note the adjudicator said the edge of the junction was far short of the centre of the carriageway, which I guess is even more serious. Also, "the lattice patterns within the junction were not squares but elongated diamonds." They should look like this: This post has been edited by qafqa: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 17:00 |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 17:05
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
I am not too sure this analysis of the box junction relates to my case as this is not the same box as the one I was caught in.
If you look closely at the picture you will see that beyond the white lorry in front of my car there is another box junction which is the Homerton high street/Wardle St one which is stated in that case. |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 18:53
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,032 Joined: 5 Mar 2011 Member No.: 44,816 |
QUOTE I am not too sure this analysis of the box junction relates to my case as this is not the same box as the one I was caught in. Are you able to revisit the scene and see if there are any similarities between the two boxes, here are some things you could look for: two borders of the junction were thick yellow lines and the other two borders were much thinner. the edge of the junction was far short of the centre of the carriageway, presumably to accommodate the chevrons and the right turn filter lane. the lattice patterns within the junction were not squares but elongated diamonds. This post has been edited by qafqa: Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 19:10 |
|
|
Tue, 26 Nov 2013 - 20:41
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,031 Joined: 27 May 2008 Member No.: 19,872 |
http://goo.gl/maps/dLHx5
As there are no management orders for box junctions the box has to be fully compliant. This is unlike when a TMO was made and the signages only have to indicate the existence of the TMO, since Herron. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 - 09:39
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
Yes I will be able to visit the box this weekend, so I will have a look then.
I read up on another case and they used the point that their visibility was limited regarding the flow of traffic due to the lorry in front of them. As you can see the same thing has happened in my case; would this be a valid point? |
|
|
Wed, 27 Nov 2013 - 12:43
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,032 Joined: 5 Mar 2011 Member No.: 44,816 |
QUOTE Yes I will be able to visit the box this weekend, so I will have a look then. Of course it is best to check and be sure of your ground but on the photograph in post #1 it really looks like the fire station box has the same problems and when challenging TfL it is always best to use their photographs and videos against them, especially when, as mashkiach has highlighted, they have to be fully compliant. QUOTE I read up on another case and they used the point that their visibility was limited regarding the flow of traffic due to the lorry in front of them. As you can see the same thing has happened in my case; would this be a valid point? What response did the original poster of that thread receive from the council/TfL, in a representation it usually counts for nothing and results in some patronising words of advice pasted into the rejection. When describing what happened it would be ideal to have seen the video first to be certain that what is being described actually took place rather than relying on memory. In your case I reckon the PCN resulted from your sensible and considerate driving as there seems to be a space, you could call it a safety zone, in front of the car. It may have been possible to get the bonnet right up against the back of the lorry to avoid the PCN. That would be considered poor driving but the rigid and profitable enforcement of YBJ's encourages such dangerous behaviour. This post has been edited by qafqa: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 - 16:29 |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 09:18
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
I have just had a closer look the photo and seen on the right of the white lorry you can just about see a black car pulling out of a junction causing the lorry and myself to brake. Would I not be able to use the whole "no vehicle should cause another vehicle to stop in the box" rule as it is evident I entered the box whilst the lorry was moving but could not fully clear the box due to the car pulling out?
I would also like to know if it is worth me just paying the fine whilst I have the early payment discount and then continuing to appeal it? It's just because I really don't have the money to pay for the full £130 if the appeal isn't granted. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 10:57
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
I have drafted up a letter of appeal; is there anything which I have missed which could possibly affect my appeal?
Dear Sir/Madam PCN Ref: GT56476636 Location: HOMERTON HIGH ST / HOMERTON FIRE STN EMERGENCY EXIT Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited I wish to appeal against the PCN on the following grounds: 1) The wording in the PCN is unlawful and not compliant with the statutory legislation. The PCN states: “A penalty charge of £130.00 is payable before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50%” This is in accordance with section 4(8)(iii) and (iv) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003. However the PCN also states: “If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice...” The above statement is not in accordance with section 4(8)(iii) of the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003, it contradicts the previous statement and wrongly suggests that the owner has to pay within 28 days from the "date of service" whereas it should be the "date of this notice". The PCN is therefore defective and should be cancelled. The following cases that have been brought before PATAS have supported this argument. Case Ref: 2100628598, Mr Bryan Henry Siequien V Transport of London Case Ref: 2100549287, Mark Sutton V Transport of London Case Ref: 2100498211, Mr Naser Dabiri v Transport for London Case Ref: 211032734A Benjamin Hochhouser v Transport of London. 2) Having visited the location where the contravention allegedly took place, I have reason to believe that the yellow box junction itself is not in compliance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002 specification set out in diagram 1043 and 1044. As similarly pointed out in Case Ref 2120055279 which relates to the following yellow box junction on the same road. The following statement was made by the Adjudicator: “…the markings were unusual to say the least. First, two borders of the junction were thick yellow lines and the other two borders were much thinner. Secondly (and unlike the sketch plan provided by the Authority), the edge of the junction was far short of the centre of the carriageway, presumably to accommodate the chevrons and the right turn filter lane. Thirdly, the lattice patterns within the junction were not squares but elongated diamonds. The last two anomalies were non-compliant with the Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions” I have found that the yellow box junction at the fire station exit to have the same discrepancies as stated in this case; the box does not reach up to the kerb, the lattice patterns are in fact elongated diamonds and two lines of the border are much thicker than the other two lines. I am fully aware that a box which deviates from the standards requires approval from the Department for Transport (DfT). I would therefore like to request documentation of this approval. 3) The box is poorly designed on the basis that it has been placed far too close to another box junction which effectively disrupts the flow of traffic on this busy main road. The correct road markings for a fire station is actually a “Keep Clear” sign as vehicles are permitted to enter and stop in the box should they require to make a right turn and are stopped by oncoming traffic. 4) As you can see from your own photographic evidence; a vehicle has pulled out of a junction on the right when the lorry has provided space to clear the second yellow box causing the lorry to brake to avoid collision with the vehicle, and thus preventing my vehicle from proceeding any further. The Regulations state 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”. It is evident purely from the photograph that I had not intended to stop in the yellow box, and that I had only done so due to the car pulling out of the junction. 5) Your photographic evidence does not satisfy that I had entered the box when my exit was not clear therefore there has been no contravention. This point was also supported in the case ‘Place Invaders Ltd. V Transport for London’. I therefore request video evidence of the contravention occurring. 6) I feel that this PCN is unwarranted and unfair as less than 20% of my vehicle has actually been captured inside the box which in no way obstructs the junction. Box junctions are designed to keep junctions clear of traffic not generate revenue for TFL. I would like to request that this PCN is cancelled as it is unfair and unwarranted. Should you decide to reject my appeal I would like to request photographic and video evidence as well as the Dft approval for the box so I can further contest this PCN. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 11:36
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,181 Joined: 14 May 2007 From: Basildump, Essex. Member No.: 12,023 |
Thirdly, the lattice patterns within the junction were not squares but elongated diamonds. Look again, your image shows not one single complete square or even an elongated diamond. Taking Qafqa's example from the TSRGD you can clearly see how this box junction should be represented. |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 12:03
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,032 Joined: 5 Mar 2011 Member No.: 44,816 |
That representation is superb.
QUOTE The letter has been updated. If you followed a vehicle which was not stationary, PM me your e-mail address so I can send further details. Did you contact Hippocrates for the samizdat text? That question is of course rhetorical, no response please as the documents are obviously hush-hush. QUOTE 6)...as less than 20% of my vehicle has actually been captured inside the box That part of item 6 is unnecessary because it can be considered to be a confession and used against you. Another reason is the box junction fails to meet the requirements so no contravention can occur, even if 100% of the car is stopped on those lines the alleged offence is unenforceable by TfL. QUOTE Box junctions are designed to keep junctions clear of traffic not generate revenue for TFL.
This post has been edited by qafqa: Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 15:39 |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 16:01
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
Thirdly, the lattice patterns within the junction were not squares but elongated diamonds. Look again, your image shows not one single complete square or even an elongated diamond. Taking Qafqa's example from the TSRGD you can clearly see how this box junction should be represented. Thank you! Well spotted; I didn't even realise until you mentioned this. I am now feeling pretty confident about appealing this Thank you! I'll take out section 6 then. I have messaged Hippocrates just now so just waiting on a response |
|
|
Fri, 29 Nov 2013 - 16:43
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 25 Nov 2013 Member No.: 66,961 |
That representation is superb. QUOTE The letter has been updated. If you followed a vehicle which was not stationary, PM me your e-mail address so I can send further details. Did you contact Hippocrates for the samizdat text? That question is of course rhetorical, no response please as the documents are obviously hush-hush. QUOTE 6)...as less than 20% of my vehicle has actually been captured inside the box That part of item 6 is unnecessary because it can be considered to be a confession and used against you. Another reason is the box junction fails to meet the requirements so no contravention can occur, even if 100% of the car is stopped on those lines the alleged offence is unenforceable by TfL. QUOTE Box junctions are designed to keep junctions clear of traffic not generate revenue for TFL. Thank you for all your help. I have had correspondence Hippocrates and I will be submitting my appeal tomorrow. Will let you know the outcome |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 23:07 |