PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Newham Box Junction Ticket
tfayaz
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 19:04
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Member No.: 67,344



Hi,

I recently received a PCN and would appreciate some help on the matter (pictures and a video in the form of a gif attached).

The PCN was relating to being in a yellow box (only the rear) but the issue was the driver in front of me stopped well short of the road marking and essentially left me with little room (my car is the second one on the left).

The traffic light was red and left me a bit stuck, however about 8 seconds (around 20:45:40 on the video count) into the gif you do see me flash my lights and I believe I did horn at him/her on at least one occasion as I knew I could have been in the box. As you can see the driver did eventually move forward and I don’t believe it was because the light had turned green.

Do I have grounds to appeal on?

Thanks in advance!






Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 19:04
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:32
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,472
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Well, looking at the video I would class this as de minimis, (very trivial offence), but am not surprised they issued a PCN as this is a money game and the venality of councils has apparently no limits it seems. Certainly Newham are one of the most venal based on this forum's experience. The video shows that a there was space appearing on the opposite side for your car as you drove into the box.

So now you have to make a decision - stand your ground and take them all the way to London Tribunals where IMHO you'd win, or just roll over and cough-up the discounted amount.

The video shows that there was space for your car on the exit when you entered. In fact if you had budged-up a bit more you'd have exited the box. Is it a new car and you're a bit unfamiliar with it ?

If it were me, I would definitely be going double-or-quits on this one at London Tribunals. The only thing I would say is this - the video shows you charging into the box like a cavalryman in the Charge of the Light Brigade. You do need to slow down a bit on approaching a YBJ when in fairly heavy traffic to make sure you don't get caught short.

This post has been edited by Incandescent: Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfayaz
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 16:06
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Member No.: 67,344



Thank you for the response.

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:32) *
Well, looking at the video I would class this as de minimis, (very trivial offence), but am not surprised they issued a PCN as this is a money game and the venality of councils has apparently no limits it seems. Certainly Newham are one of the most venal based on this forum's experience. The video shows that a there was space appearing on the opposite side for your car as you drove into the box.

So now you have to make a decision - stand your ground and take them all the way to London Tribunals where IMHO you'd win, or just roll over and cough-up the discounted amount.


I'm definitely thinking about standing my ground. The space is there for two cars and the car in front stopped well short of the line, and for my part I not only flashed (as shown in the video) but also would have horned on at least one occasion.

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:32) *
The video shows that there was space for your car on the exit when you entered. In fact if you had budged-up a bit more you'd have exited the box. Is it a new car and you're a bit unfamiliar with it ?


It is a relatively new car for me (bought it around August time), and you're right in that I could have moved but not sure why I didn't.

QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 14 Nov 2017 - 21:32) *
If it were me, I would definitely be going double-or-quits on this one at London Tribunals. The only thing I would say is this - the video shows you charging into the box like a cavalryman in the Charge of the Light Brigade. You do need to slow down a bit on approaching a YBJ when in fairly heavy traffic to make sure you don't get caught short.


Thanks for the advice, although I don't think I could have been going that quickly. Nevertheless appreciate you pointing that out.

Is there some kind of template letter that I can use to send in and challenge this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 16:15
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,521
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I agree - take this further. Simply say there was only minimal, unimportant encroachment for a short time, and that you in any had some room to clear the box in front.

By the way, how did you do the animated GIF from the video?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfayaz
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 17:44
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Member No.: 67,344



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 16:15) *
I agree - take this further. Simply say there was only minimal, unimportant encroachment for a short time, and that you in any had some room to clear the box in front.


Do you think the text below is adequate and clear?

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to make representations with regards to the PCN that was issued.

Below are some points I would like to address:

1. When entering the box junction there was only one vehicle in the lane and it is big enough to take two cars.

2. The car in front stopped a fair bit short of the marking, thus forcing me into a situation where I had to stop further back to where I intended.

3. Around the 8 second mark of the video (20:45:50 on the video clock) it is clear to see that I flashed the car in front to get the driver to move forward as I was aware of where I was, and I am sure on least one occasion I used my horn to get the driver's attention.

There was only minimal, unimportant encroachment for a short time.

I would hope you could consider the above points and write off the PCN.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 16:15) *
By the way, how did you do the animated GIF from the video?


I believe I did it through this website.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 18:00
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,521
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



No, I would try this - but wait for others to comment. In any case, you may have to take this to adjudication at the full rate should you wish to but it's well worth trying to bet Newhan to cancel.

Dear Newham parking,

I wish to appeal PCN number xxxxxxx on the grounds of 'de minimis', as my car was only partially in the top exit of the box and only for a short time before the traffic moved again.

In addition, I did have room to move forward to just about clear the box and the driver in front also had plenty of room to move forward (which I encouraged him/her to do by flashing my lights).

I believe the contravention has not been made out in a way intended by the regulation and I look forward to your cancellation.

Yours

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 21:19
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,472
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



+1
You had a very clear expectation of a space at the exit to the YBJ. It was not blocked off when you entered the box.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 21:37
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,375
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 21:19) *
+1
You had a very clear expectation of a space at the exit to the YBJ. It was not blocked off when you entered the box.



2160332024

The allegation in these proceedings is that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. Upon a point being raised by the appellant as to the degree to which this vehicle was stationery within the box on it turning left into it on the council's poor quality video footage of the incident an supporting images taken therefrom although the vehicle stops with its back wheels positioned at the very edge of the box this infringement of box junction rules in that regard amounts to my mind no more than a de minimus breach of the prohibition and I am not accordingly satisfied that the contravention occurred.


216036762A

The Enforcement Authority say that the vehicle came to a stop for 8 seconds and that is sufficient time to prove that the vehicle stopped in the box junction.

The DVD shows the Appellant 's vehicle moving through the box junction following other vehicles and it comes to a complete stop. The issue is how long was the vehicle stopped (stationary) and whether that constituted this contravention. The dvd shows the vehicle stopped at 10 seconds, then move again 3 seconds later and stop and then move again to go out of the box 5 seconds after that. There is no minimum time for a vehicle to become stationary for the contravention to occur, but it has to be more than a few seconds, otherwise it is nominal or de minimis and does not constitute coming to a stop. 7 or 8 seconds can just about be said to be nominal or de minimis, especially as there was a double movement and the total time stopped was less than 10 seconds.

Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred and must allow this appeal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfayaz
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 14:41
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Member No.: 67,344



Thank you all for the feedback, much appreciated.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 18:00) *
No, I would try this - but wait for others to comment. In any case, you may have to take this to adjudication at the full rate should you wish to but it's well worth trying to bet Newhan to cancel.

Dear Newham parking,

I wish to appeal PCN number xxxxxxx on the grounds of 'de minimis', as my car was only partially in the top exit of the box and only for a short time before the traffic moved again.

In addition, I did have room to move forward to just about clear the box and the driver in front also had plenty of room to move forward (which I encouraged him/her to do by flashing my lights).

I believe the contravention has not been made out in a way intended by the regulation and I look forward to your cancellation.

Yours


Does anyone want to add to the above text? If not, I'll write something up and send the appeal through.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 15:31
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,375
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (tfayaz @ Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 14:41) *
Thank you all for the feedback, much appreciated.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 18:00) *
No, I would try this - but wait for others to comment. In any case, you may have to take this to adjudication at the full rate should you wish to but it's well worth trying to bet Newhan to cancel.

Dear Newham parking,

I wish to appeal PCN number xxxxxxx on the grounds of 'de minimis', as my car was only partially in the top exit of the box and only for a short time before the traffic moved again.

In addition, I did have room to move forward to just about clear the box and the driver in front also had plenty of room to move forward (which I encouraged him/her to do by flashing my lights).

I believe the contravention has not been made out in a way intended by the regulation and I look forward to your cancellation.

Yours


Does anyone want to add to the above text? If not, I'll write something up and send the appeal through.


I would swap the two elements of the representation around. Firstly your claim is there is no contravention as there was room to move out of the box, or that any stop was due to the unforeseen action of the other driver in stopping short in the alternative the principal of de minimis should appy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfayaz
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 15:53
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Member No.: 67,344



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 15:31) *
QUOTE (tfayaz @ Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 14:41) *
Thank you all for the feedback, much appreciated.

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 15 Nov 2017 - 18:00) *
No, I would try this - but wait for others to comment. In any case, you may have to take this to adjudication at the full rate should you wish to but it's well worth trying to bet Newhan to cancel.

Dear Newham parking,

I wish to appeal PCN number xxxxxxx on the grounds of 'de minimis', as my car was only partially in the top exit of the box and only for a short time before the traffic moved again.

In addition, I did have room to move forward to just about clear the box and the driver in front also had plenty of room to move forward (which I encouraged him/her to do by flashing my lights).

I believe the contravention has not been made out in a way intended by the regulation and I look forward to your cancellation.

Yours


Does anyone want to add to the above text? If not, I'll write something up and send the appeal through.


I would swap the two elements of the representation around. Firstly your claim is there is no contravention as there was room to move out of the box, or that any stop was due to the unforeseen action of the other driver in stopping short in the alternative the principal of de minimis should appy


How's this?

Dear Newham,

I am writing to to appeal PCN xxxxxxx.

1. I did have room to move forward to just about clear the box and the driver in front also had plenty of room to move forward (which I encouraged him/her to do by flashing my lights - shown around the 8 second mark of the video, and I believe horning on at least one occasion).

2. I also want to appeal on the grounds of 'de minimis', as my car was only partially in the top exit of the box and only for a short time before the traffic moved again.

I believe the contravention has not been made out in a way intended by the regulation and I look forward to your cancellation.

Yours
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 16:21
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,521
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Agree with PMB in changing order - have edited it a bit. Don't draw attention to stopping for 8 secs.

Dear Newham,

I am writing to to appeal PCN xxxxxxx.

1. I had room to just clear the box and the driver in front also had plenty of room to move forward (which I encouraged him/her to do by flashing my lights and sounding my horn at least once).

2. In any case, I appeal on the grounds of 'de minimis', as my car was only partially in the top exit of the box and only for a short time before the traffic moved again, but I was not prevented from being almost totally out of the box by stationary traffic.

I believe the contravention has not been made out in a way intended by the regulation and I look forward to your cancellation.

Yours
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfayaz
post Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 14:38
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Member No.: 67,344



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 16:21) *
Agree with PMB in changing order - have edited it a bit. Don't draw attention to stopping for 8 secs.


Just to clarify, I wasn't stopped for 8 seconds but the flashing of my lights was around the 8 second mark in the video (which is what I wanted to point out).

QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 16 Nov 2017 - 16:21) *
Dear Newham,

I am writing to to appeal PCN xxxxxxx.

1. I had room to just clear the box and the driver in front also had plenty of room to move forward (which I encouraged him/her to do by flashing my lights and sounding my horn at least once).

2. In any case, I appeal on the grounds of 'de minimis', as my car was only partially in the top exit of the box and only for a short time before the traffic moved again, but I was not prevented from being almost totally out of the box by stationary traffic.

I believe the contravention has not been made out in a way intended by the regulation and I look forward to your cancellation.

Yours


Thank you, I'll just go with something along those lines.

Do you know if there is a donate function on this website?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 14:42
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,521
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (tfayaz @ Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 14:38) *
Do you know if there is a donate function on this website?



http://www.pepipoo.com/Site_info.htm#Members

but you might want to wait until you win - which is by no means sure with this one.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 14:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 17 Nov 2017 - 15:13
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 22,819
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



On past experience, no chance that the authority would cancel.

So, when you receive their rejection we can look at an appeal to include an argument that you were not stationary in a box junction - there's no time to add this now, so wait for later.

The 'box' is IMO unlawfully long. It is supposed to exist at a road junction, just as the white dotted lines are there to mark a junction. And the furthest extent of a junction is not where the radius ends, even less is it beyond this point as here. On your side we're looking at a foot or more. A modest amount. But it's that modest amount which caught you.

The other, nearer, side is even worse.

See the Traffic Signs Manual, page 79, diagram 12-2:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...-chapter-05.pdf

As the box has not been cut away, then its edges should be placed at the mid-point of the radius and not, as with you, beyond where the tangent meets the curve.

But we'll save this for later if needed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfayaz
post Mon, 5 Mar 2018 - 11:31
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Member No.: 67,344



I have received the following rejection letter from Newham Council.

How do you suggest I move forward with this?













This post has been edited by tfayaz: Mon, 5 Mar 2018 - 15:48
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Mon, 5 Mar 2018 - 11:42
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 8,521
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



You'll need to post on a pic host site that works... Try Imgur or Flickr.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 5 Mar 2018 - 11:44
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 14,375
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (tfayaz @ Mon, 5 Mar 2018 - 11:31) *
I have received the following rejection letter from Newham Council.

How do you suggest I move forward with this?













Start by posting the docs again so we can see them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfayaz
post Mon, 5 Mar 2018 - 15:52
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Member No.: 67,344



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 5 Mar 2018 - 11:42) *
You'll need to post on a pic host site that works... Try Imgur or Flickr.


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 5 Mar 2018 - 11:44) *
Start by posting the docs again so we can see them.


Sorry about that, it seemed to be showing up on my side but I have now used another service.

Link to the post

Any pointers?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tfayaz
post Wed, 7 Mar 2018 - 18:31
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17
Joined: 12 Dec 2013
Member No.: 67,344



Bump.
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: Saturday, 15th December 2018 - 19:34
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.