Yellow Box Junction - East Ham High Street, Harsh penalty? Only just failed to clear the box |
Yellow Box Junction - East Ham High Street, Harsh penalty? Only just failed to clear the box |
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 18:35
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
Hi Folks,
I was wondering if you take a look at the pictures and video I have uploaded and see whether I could challenge this PCN. I feel I have some grounds to make representations against this decision: 1. The yellow lines were quite faded. 2. The road ahead was clear when I entered the box junction. 3. The back wheels had only just failed to clear the line when stationery at the pedestrian crossing. It was hard to judge whether or not I had cleared the junction box whilst stationery. The faded lines also impacted my judgement. 4. I pulled short of the pedestrian crossing deliberately to ensure the crossing was clear to pedestrians in case the green man walk signal came on. 5. No car was impeded whilst I was stationery in the box. Please have look, all comments and advice would be gratefully received. Cheers. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 18:35
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 19:11
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Put video on vimeo , youtube etc.
Looks like you have a good case as you deliberately stopped short for the crossing and the box extends unnecessarily where you were. post PCN as well. Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like. This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 19:12 |
|
|
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 19:17
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
Will do, thanks stamfordman!
|
|
|
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 20:25
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
Please see below for images.
https://ibb.co/xMZ8R0s PCN https://ibb.co/qRKFJt0 01 https://ibb.co/BqkY5HF 02 https://ibb.co/9hFDrLh 03 https://ibb.co/FXCbyPc 04 https://ibb.co/FXCbyPc Video: https://vimeo.com/user96599312/review/326203583/36309b68c5 Thanks again! This post has been edited by Helpmeifyoucanplease: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 20:41 |
|
|
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 - 22:56
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
The contravention is one of having to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles, so there has been no contravention in your case. You stopped so that the pedestrian crossing was not obstructed. However such is the greed for money, (that over-rides all other considerations in London councils), you'll probably have to take them to London Tribunals. But lets see what they say when you submit your reps. You will have to emphasise that you did not stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles, but to leave the pedestrian crossing clear.
|
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 00:26
Post
#6
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 24 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,090 |
I wish I'd seen this last year. I got one of these in the East end in congestion because my rear wheels just touched the exiting edge of the box junction. I paid it, only because the junction was outside a fire station, but you could have got 2 fire engines side by side out across it and still have been a metre or two away from the rear of the Yaris I was driving that day!
It clearly is all about the revenue. That junction probably pulls in 500 'large' a year or more. Looking around the area, little if any of it is spent on local amenities. Looking at the pics, that box junction is at least a third longer than it needs to be. I call scam! This post has been edited by Korean_Ferrari: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 00:34 |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 00:38
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
Thanks for your reply.
I'll be sending my representation tomorrow. I hope they will see reason and left me off. |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 00:46
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Always best to post a draft here first.
|
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 01:32
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
Ok, thanks for the tip once again.
|
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 08:39
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
Ok, thanks for the tip once again. Remember, the key point is that you stopped to keep the pedestrian crossing clear, not due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Unfortunately, almost all councils ignore the law to get the money in, and as most people don't know it either, they cough-up. |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 18:09
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
As promised, this is my representation:
Dear Sir/Madam, I write with regard to this PCN and would like to challenge it for the following reasons: I pulled short of the pedestrian crossing deliberately to ensure the crossing was clear to pedestrians in case the green man walk signal came on. I would have cleared the yellow lines had I obstructed the pedestrian crossing and parked closer to the vehicle in front of me. Thus I feel I have been unfairly penalized for doing the right thing. Futhermore. the back wheels of my car had only just failed to clear the line when stationery at the pedestrian crossing. It was hard to judge whether or not I had cleared the junction box whilst stationery. Futhermore, the faded yellow lines impacted my judgement of this. I feel no other vehicle was impeded or would have been impeded whilst I was stationery. And dare I say; the box junction extends unnecessarily beyond where it ought to. I hope you recognize that my actions were of good intent. Albeit that on this occasion it led me to inadvertently breach the road traffic rules. I very much look forwards to a favorable outcome with regards to this PCN and so hope it is dismissed without delay. Yours faithfully |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 18:23
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
You need to state clearly at the start that the contravention did not occur.
I did not stop in the box owing to stationary vehicles ahead, but chose to stop to keep the crossing clear. Therefore the contravention did not occur. Someone will tighten this up for you and supply the legal wording for yellow box contraventions as I have to go out for a bit but there's no rush. also lose this - "led me to inadvertently breach the road traffic rules" - the point is you didn't. |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 18:33
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
Noted.
As Stamfordman advises, if anyone else could chip in with the legal jargon it would be much appreciated. Cheers. |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 18:41
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Noted. As Stamfordman advises, if anyone else could chip in with the legal jargon it would be much appreciated. Cheers. you don't need legal jargon at this stage. but work into your representations that the markings are badly faded to the extent that it made judgement difficult -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 18:44
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
Ok, I'll give it a go.
|
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 18:48
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Ok, I'll give it a go. post your amended draft before you send -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 19:10
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
I hope this is better:
Dear Sir/Madam, I write with regard to this PCN and would like to challenge it for the following reasons: I feel strongly a contravention of the rules did not occur on the day of question. I did not stop in the box owing to stationary vehicles ahead, but deliberately chose to stop to keep the pedestrian crossing clear to ensure the crossing was clear to pedestrians in case the green man walk signal came on. Therefore the contravention did not occur. Furthermore, with the yellow lines of box junction being in a faded state made it difficult to judge whether or not I had cleared the junction box whilst stationery. Moreover, no other vehicle was impeded or would have been impeded whilst I was stationery. And dare I say the box junction extends unnecessarily beyond where it ought to. I very much look forwards to a favorable outcome with regards to this PCN and so hope it is dismissed forthwith. Yours faithfully |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 19:15
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Where did the vid go?
-------------------- |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 19:24
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29 Joined: 23 Mar 2019 Member No.: 103,078 |
Not sure about the vid.
I'll have a look and upload again if need be. |
|
|
Mon, 25 Mar 2019 - 19:58
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I hope this is better: Dear Sir/Madam, I write with regard to this PCN and would like to challenge it for the following reasons: I feel strongly a contravention of the rules did not occur on the day of question. I did not stop in the box owing to stationary vehicles ahead, but deliberately chose to stop to keep the pedestrian crossing clear to ensure the crossing was clear to pedestrians in case the green man walk signal came on. Therefore the contravention did not occur. Furthermore, with the yellow lines of box junction being in a faded state made it difficult to judge whether or not I had cleared the junction box whilst stationery. Moreover, no other vehicle was impeded or would have been impeded whilst I was stationery. And dare I say the box junction extends unnecessarily beyond where it ought to. I very much look forwards to a favorable outcome with regards to this PCN and so hope it is dismissed forthwith. Yours faithfully I don't like the bit in red the box would be ruled OK but other than that good to go -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 00:54 |