PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

General questions about Yellow Box Junctions
IoT
post Sun, 23 Jul 2017 - 10:35
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,135



Hi,

my wife has just got a PCN that has cited her for contravention "31J Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited". I can't upload the PCN, photos and video until tomorrow. We have been doing some research and have two general questions:

1. Is it legal to enter a box junction where there is another vehicle already ahead of you that is moving and not stationary? If this vehicle subsequently stops and causes you to stop within the YBJ have you then committed a traffic offence? TSRGD Guidance 2016 seems to indicate that the law should be interpreted that you can enter a LBJ Box as long as there isn't a stationary vehicle already in the box.

I ask as it seems to me the only 100% safe way to navigate would be to not enter the YBJ until it was completely free of vehicles with space beyond to exit. I would think that in many cases this would make flow worse.

2. Do the TSRGD: Traffic Signs Manual still regulate the proper layout of legal YBJs? I ask as the the YBJ in question is fairly new and I don't think it conforms to the relevant regulations (We are going out this afternoon to take photos and measurements as they do not appear on google maps).

What p***** us off is that the junction in question is fully traffic light controlled and I have never personally seen this junction blocked by traffic (I fully intend to place a FOI request to the council to get a copy of the traffic assessment report that should have been undertaken).

Any answers would be appreciated and I intend to make a complete post tomorrow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 34)
Advertisement
post Sun, 23 Jul 2017 - 10:35
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 13:02
Post #21


Member


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



Can we see your representations?


--------------------
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
IoT
post Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 13:20
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,135



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 14:02) *
Can we see your representations?



Representations were:

QUOTE (IoT @ Sat, 29 Jul 2017 - 12:57) *
1. I submit that the Box Junction where I was alleged to have committed the contravention far exceeds the extent of the junction. The video evidence available on the London Borough of Richmond web-site clearly shows that I had cleared the Box Junction when the alleged contravention was claimed to occur. I have personally measured that the Box Junction extends at least 15 feet beyond the junction. This is more than at least one car length.

This general view has been upheld by recent adjudication 2170285940 and I quote the relevant judgement from this case:

“The Appellant did point out further the length of the junction and I note that the exit of the box junction exceeded the junction by at least one car length.
The prohibition applies to a box junction. A “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads. Markings which extends beyond the junction of two or more roads do not therefore mark out a box junction covered by the prohibition. I am in no way suggesting that the Authority has to be inch perfect but, in my view, extending the box junction by a car length or more beyond the actual junction is neither compliant nor substantially compliant with requirements.
I allow the appeal”

2. The PCN states that a charge certificate may be issued if the PCN is not paid or representations are made before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of the PCN. This is incorrect. The law allows that a charge certificate may be served 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, this is two days later in the normal course of events. Because of this the PCN is not valid so no charge applies.

3. The road markings that indicate that there is a Box Junction do not go all of the way to the kerb as is required unless there valid exemption issued by the DfT. If no valid exemption has been issued then the Box Junction in question is not validly marked and therefore no contravention occurred.

4. The video evidence available on the London Borough of Richmond web-site clearly shows that my vehicle was still in motion at 12.30.24 where upon a pedestrian walked directly in front of my vehicle necessitating me to stop. Said pedestrian was not crossing at the marked pedestrian crossing near to where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 08:27
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 761
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



They haven't shown that they've considered your reps at all as far as I can see.


--------------------
PePiPoo will likely close in October due to issues beyond the control of any contributor to this forum.

You are encouraged to seek advice at https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/ where the vast majority of the experts here have moved over to already.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 09:01
Post #24


Member


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



QUOTE (Irksome @ Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 09:27) *
They haven't shown that they've considered your reps at all as far as I can see.


No they haven't have they. With all the errors on the PCN and the rejection, this one seems very strong. Don't rush lets get all the ducks in a row


--------------------
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
IoT
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 18:07
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,135



Hi,

thank you all for your responses. My wife is getting twitchy, about the timing. Any thoughts on what I / she should do next and when?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 20:39
Post #26


Member


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



Has the appeal been registered yet? Even their deadline of 3rd October is wrong.


--------------------
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
IoT
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 21:08
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,135



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 21:39) *
Has the appeal been registered yet? Even their deadline of 3rd October is wrong.


Hi,

I've just made an electronic application for a hearing. I've not added any evidence yet as the application for a hearing indicates that evidence can be submitted up until 5 days before the hearing.

My wife says she's not able to attend in person - which I've indicated.

This post has been edited by IoT: Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 21:11
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 23:48
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,269
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (IoT @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 22:08) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 21:39) *
Has the appeal been registered yet? Even their deadline of 3rd October is wrong.


Hi,

I've just made an electronic application for a hearing. I've not added any evidence yet as the application for a hearing indicates that evidence can be submitted up until 5 days before the hearing.

My wife says she's not able to attend in person - which I've indicated.

Did you notice there you haven't mentioned a hearing date so 5 days means nothing?

What have you sent so far?


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IoT
post Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 08:06
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,135



QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 00:48) *
QUOTE (IoT @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 22:08) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 21:39) *
Has the appeal been registered yet? Even their deadline of 3rd October is wrong.


Hi,

I've just made an electronic application for a hearing. I've not added any evidence yet as the application for a hearing indicates that evidence can be submitted up until 5 days before the hearing.

My wife says she's not able to attend in person - which I've indicated.

Did you notice there you haven't mentioned a hearing date so 5 days means nothing?

What have you sent so far?


So far the tribunal has not allocated a hearing date - but I presume it's likely to be at least a week or two away if not longer. I haven't entered any evidence so far as the advice so far in this thread was to wait. From what I can gather so far, I should resubmit the original 4 grounds, made in my submission to Richmond Borough Council. I should also add that the PCN was defective due to the appeal date being incorrect and that failure to respond individually to each of the points made on my representation indicates a failure to properly consider my appeal submissions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 08:51
Post #30


Member


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



Draft your intended appeal and post it here, We will help you fine tune it


--------------------
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
Neil B
post Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 10:28
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,269
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (IoT @ Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 09:06) *
So far the tribunal has not allocated a hearing date -

My mistake; I see now you've opted for postal.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IoT
post Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 11:27
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,135



Just a quick update.

Our appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. ETA Case

Richmond Council failed to provide any evidence to the Tribunal! We can't complain, but I think we would have liked the decision to have been made on the merits of the appeal but I guess then there is always the chance that the appeal would have been refused.

Due to family circumstances I didn't have time to post a draft here of our submission to the Tribunal but I have posted a copy of it below for anyone interested in the arguments we supplied. In particular Richmond Council decided to issue us a Charge Certificate Notice while the appeal was still live. Which came as a huge shock and for a very brief amount of time we considered paying it to make sure everything went away.

I'd like to thank everyone who contributed advice and provided moral support. Having now gone through the procedure fully we would be much more prepared in the future if a similar circumstance was to arise.


Appeal Submission (All of the 'see below' - refers to documents scanned and submitted to the tribunal in support of the submission but not reproduced here):

It is my contention that the grounds for appeal made in the original representations to the London Borough of Richmond still stand (see below):

Namely that:

1. The box junction far exceeds the extent of the junction.
2. The PCN was defective because it stated that an appeal should lodged within 28 days of the date of the notice when by statute it is within 28 days of the date of service which is normally 2 days later in the normal course of events.
3. The Box Junction markings do not conform to the requirements for a Box Junction to be valid.
4. The video evidence provided by The London Borough of Richmond shows that at 12.30.24, whilst still in motion and prior to a contravention occurring, a pedestrian stepped into the road necessitating me to stop the vehicle. Said pedestrian was not crossing at the marked pedestrian crossing near to where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.

Further it is my belief that in failing to specifically address each of the grounds for appeal (see below) that the London Borough of Richmond has failed to properly consider the representations made. This view has been upheld in previous Tribunal Adjucations (ETA Case Ref 2140086060)

I further submit that the Notice of Rejection (see below) sent by the London Borough of Richmond was unlawful in that the law allows 28 days from the date of service to lodge an appeal with PATAS (Schedule 1(3) of London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003). The Notice of Rejection clearly states in two places that the appeal should be lodged by 3rd October 2017. However this is clearly erroneous as 28 days from the date of service is the 4th October 2017. Therefore the Notice of Rejection failed to include all of the information required by law.

Finally I believe that the Charge Certificate Notice issued by the London Borough of Richmond dated 11/10/2017 (see below) constitutes procedural impropriety on behalf of said council. The original Notice of Rejection was dated 05/09/17 and an appeal to PATAS was properly lodged within time on 25/09/17. Previous ETA adjudications (214008540A and 2050339777) have concluded that the issuance of Charging Certificates whilst there was a live appeal pending constitutes an unlawful demand that fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty. Further the erroneously issued Charge Certificate Notice is prejudicial to my appeal as the intimidatory tone of the charge notice might have led me to feeling compelled to pay at which point my appeal would have automatically failed as any payment to the council in respect to this PCN would have been considered an admission of guilt.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 12:05
Post #33


Member


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



Well done!

QUOTE
Our appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. ETA Case


Links to the decision on 'Search the Register' will not work as register must be searched first.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to post the case number?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
IoT
post Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 15:11
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 21 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,135



QUOTE (John U.K. @ Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 13:05) *
Well done!

QUOTE
Our appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. ETA Case


Links to the decision on 'Search the Register' will not work as register must be searched first.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to post the case number?


2170462092

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 17:34
Post #35


Member


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



Many thanks: for others, here is the relevant passage

QUOTE
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons

The Enforcement Authority have failed to provide any evidence in this case. It follows I cannot be satisfied that a valid PCN was properly issued and served and accordingly I allow the appeal


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: Friday, 29th 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