PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN - Stopping in a Yellow Box, Is this an appealable PCN for stopping in a yellow box?
RobAbb
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 12:25
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,373



Hi all,

Can someone with the knowledge give me an ojbective view on this PCN please; could I reasonably appeal this?

I am the driver of the Volvo that comes through the lights on the left, stops (unknown to me but clear on the video that my front wheels were in the yellow box) and then proceeds straight through the box junction roughly 10 seconds later when it's clear. This is in Hammersmith, under the flyover and I'm proceeding to turn left to go southbound on the fulham palace road.

My argument is that I felt I stopped before entering the box juction and I was not preventing any traffic. I can fully see on the video that the front half of the car was stopped inside the yellow box though. My intent was not to enter the box until I had a clear route through it. It seems pretty harsh to me but I don't konw the law that well, especially as you can see other cars in the video that have clearly stoped fully inside the far end of the box. The operator also seems to try to zoom in on them but can't get a full image of the number plates so goes for my car instead.

Link to the video

thanks,

Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 12:25
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 12:36
Post #2


Member


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



We've seen quite a few at this junction under the flyover. It's not relevant that you weren't blocking anything. It's a harsh one and I would certainly appeal.

Post the PCN. Put pics on https://imgbb.com or such like.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RobAbb
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 12:51
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,373



Thanks stamfordman,

The PCN letter is here:

PCN image


Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 14:06
Post #4


Member


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



adjudicators find the right turn exemption applies her

2180108271

Mr. de Havilland appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued in respect of an alleged contravention of the requirements of a ‘box junction’, as defined in paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Mr. de Havilland attended and we viewed the CCTV footage of the alleged contravention together. Naturally Mr. de Havilland wished to present his argument in relation to the movement of the coach. The position is, however, as we ascertained during the hearing, more straightforward. I did not need to decide the merits of that argument.
Paragraph 11 goes on to say:
“(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who
(a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.”
Based on the description in the PCN, this is a box junction between two roads, namely Talgarth Road and Butterwick. Sub-paragraph 6(a) therefore applies. It is clear on the evidence, and I find, that Mr. de Havilland entered the box junction for the purpose of turning right. It is equally clear that he had to stop within it – before he completed the right turn - due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Indeed, two vehicles ahead of him stopped, the first being a coach and the second being another car. I looked carefully at the respective positions of the coach and the vehicle behind it vis-à-vis the carriageway at the point they were stationary. In so doing I looked at the angle of the front wheels of the car ahead of Mr. de Havilland’s vehicle and its position vis-à-vis the lane its driver was seeking to join. The wheels were still turned substantially to the right; they were not positioned straight ahead. The front nearside wheel was wide of the edge of the lane; it was not yet within the lane. It is clear to me, and I find, that neither the coach nor the car behind it had completed their respective right turns. In short, they had not yet lined up with the carriageway and were still in the process of turning right when they came to a halt. Mr. de Havilland’s vehicle was only stationary behind those vehicles whilst they were stationary in the positions I have described. Accordingly, sub-paragraph (3) applies and the contravention is not proved.


--------------------
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
RobAbb
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 17:19
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,373



@stamfordman - you say you would certainly appeal; what are the grounds to appeal here? I have no idea what wording to use.

@PASTMYBEST - thanks for posting this. Is there a link to the full thread of this appeal? What were the grounds for that appeal and how do I go about quoting this decision?

Rob
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 17:58
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



This is just ruthless money-grubbing, (typical of this council), but unfortunately legal. About 1/3rd of your car was in the YBJ, note the markings are well worn, so hard to judge whether in or not. The appeal would have to be on de minimis being a minimal intrusion into the box. You were stopped for 9 seconds so no mileage there, I'm afraid. Others may also see something.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 18:06
Post #7


Member


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



The now rather old H&F guidelines may be helpful:

5. Steady slow moving traffic over a box junction is probably the most difficult scenario to deal with especially if we are dealing with multiple lanes. Somebody suddenly slowing down or stopping short for no good reason may cause a judgement problem, when drivers in the vehicles behind, looking in advance of the vehicle in front of them thought they had judged it correctly and would make it off the box. An example maybe when there are 3 empty car spaces in one lane on the exit side of the box junction and 3 cars start to travel over the box towards them in one line. The first 2 cars may use up all 3 spaces due to leaving large gaps between them. This would be unfair to the third car driver who thought they would all fit in. The critical factor here is that the drivers have a reasonable line of sight to make their judgements. We should apply discretion. We have to weigh up the good momentum of traffic

9. On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25%”grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction. An attached list shows which boxes the 50% or 25% rule should be applied to. Some very small/special case box junctions should have 0% discretion. Decisions on Lorries and Buses would be left down to how much of problem they would cause.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...T1zNa3xaz4SYNb5
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 20:20
Post #8


Member


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



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 17:58) *
This is just ruthless money-grubbing, (typical of this council), but unfortunately legal. About 1/3rd of your car was in the YBJ, note the markings are well worn, so hard to judge whether in or not. The appeal would have to be on de minimis being a minimal intrusion into the box. You were stopped for 9 seconds so no mileage there, I'm afraid. Others may also see something.



you spotted one thing the faint markings but I would suggest that the case I posted points to the main one. A statutory exemption.

I will draft a representation if the OP bumps to remind me next week


--------------------
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
RobAbb
post Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 08:41
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,373



Thanks everyone. I guess these's little to lose with making an appeal.

@PASTMYBEST I'll do that next week, thanks again!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 11:26
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



I can't disagree strongly enough with that adjudication.

The right turn exemption cannot apply here. It is not the intention of the exemption and, if applied, would
result in chaos.

It would effectively mean that ALL vehicles exiting Butterwick could enter and stop in the box, completely
blocking it.
No vehicles on Talgarth would ever get across.

---
But the good news is I don't think there's a contravention here.

You did not stop 'due to the presence of stationary vehicles', an essential part if to be judged a contravention.

You actually stopped, after committing to proceed, because you saw that your exit had become blocked, further
ahead.
There were no stationary vehicles immediately in front of you.



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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 11:42
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 11:26) *
I can't disagree strongly enough with that adjudication.

The right turn exemption cannot apply here. It is not the intention of the exemption and, if applied, would
result in chaos.

It would effectively mean that ALL vehicles exiting Butterwick could enter and stop in the box, completely
blocking it.
No vehicles on Talgarth would ever get across.

---
But the good news is I don't think there's a contravention here.

You did not stop 'due to the presence of stationary vehicles', an essential part if to be judged a contravention.

You actually stopped, after committing to proceed, because you saw that your exit had become blocked, further
ahead.
There were no stationary vehicles immediately in front of you.

Are you thinking of this one Neil?

Proceeding slowly across: 2180363971, 16 October 2018, adjudicator Edward Houghton, allowed—

The Appellant did not attend the hearing.

On looking at the CCTV in this case I am not persuaded that a contravention is made out. The Council is required to prove that the vehicle had to stop within the junction as a result of the presence of a stationary vehicle. The Appellant’s vehicle enters the junction and pulls up in the mouth of the junction whilst the vehicle ahead is still moving. There was nothing to prevent the Appellant’s vehicle at that moment making further progress across the junction, and it did not have to stop at that point. Certainly if it had proceeded slowly the point might subsequently have been reached when it would have had to stop behind the then stationary vehicle ahead; but it seems equally possible that it might have been able to clear the junction following slowly behind the vehicle ahead which moves a few moments later. In any event the penalty cannot be demanded on the basis of a future contravention even if that were seen to be inevitable.

On the particular facts of this case I am unable to be satisfied the vehicle was in contravention and the Appeal is therefore allowed.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 12:07
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 11:42) *
Are you thinking of this one Neil?

I didn't have one in mind, just the law but that's encouraging.

For me, what the OP did here was exactly what he's supposed to; he stopped so as not to block the junction,
albeit a fraction late.

I also couldn't help noticing the selective enforcement?
A few probably in contravention but particularly the car sitting in the middle of the box at the start of
the clip, seems ignored?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 2 Feb 2019 - 12:15
Post #13


Member


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



neil

I to had reservations against not that ruling as that is not the first there. but IMO it is part of a gyratory system and therefore the exemption would not apply. If adjudicators are going to disagree then fine.

As regards the selective enforcement, I think adjudicators may be agreeing with you, thus looking for reasons to allow


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 3 Feb 2019 - 18:18
Post #14


Member


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



might help going with Neil's tack

2180509465


--------------------
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
RobAbb
post Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 14:01
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,373



Thanks for all the opinions.

I'd like to appeal so any advice on how to word that appeal in the Representations section would be much appreciated.

Also, there have been a number of case references (I assume that's what they are) posted in the thread. Can these be looked up, read etc...?

So far, for the representations, I have the below text.

I am writing to formally challenge the above reference Penalty Charge Notice.

On 28 January 2019 my vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notice for the reason for entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited on 20 January 2019.

My challenge is on the basis that the contravention did not occur, for the following grounds.
• My vehicle approached the junction following moving traffic. The video and photographs show that the markings of the yellow box well worn, making it difficult to judge the edge of the box. The vehicle came to a halt partially inside the box junction for 7 seconds due to an obstructed exit further ahead, not due to the presence of stationary vehicles in front my vehicle. Stationary vehicles in front is a requirement to be judged in contravention. I make reference to case 2180363971:

“Proceeding slowly across: 2180363971, 16 October 2018, adjudicator Edward Houghton, allowed—

On looking at the CCTV in this case I am not persuaded that a contravention is made out. The Council is required to prove that the vehicle had to stop within the junction as a result of the presence of a stationary vehicle. The Appellant’s vehicle enters the junction and pulls up in the mouth of the junction whilst the vehicle ahead is still moving. There was nothing to prevent the Appellant’s vehicle at that moment making further progress across the junction, and it did not have to stop at that point. Certainly if it had proceeded slowly the point might subsequently have been reached when it would have had to stop behind the then stationary vehicle ahead; but it seems equally possible that it might have been able to clear the junction following slowly behind the vehicle ahead which moves a few moments later. In any event the penalty cannot be demanded on the basis of a future contravention even if that were seen to be inevitable.”

• The London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham has issued guidelines specifically in relation to Box Junction Enforcement, I quote point 9:

“On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction.”

The video and photographs show that less than 50% of my vehicle came to a full halt inside the box junction. They also show that the vehicle was not causing an obstruction.


The video recording also shows evidence of selective enforcement by the Civil Enforcement Officer operating the camera. Two vehicles ahead of mine in the flow of traffic, one black and one white, stopped fully inside the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles directly in front of them. Their registrations are not discernible in the video.



This post has been edited by RobAbb: Mon, 4 Feb 2019 - 14:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 12:13
Post #16


Member


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



Got the PM Rob will look at it in the next day or so if you do not have a draft by Friday give me a kick


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 15:23
Post #17


Member


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



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 5 Feb 2019 - 12:13) *
Got the PM Rob will look at it in the next day or so if you do not have a draft by Friday give me a kick


I will do later, but if you are worried about having the full amount at risk then the only sure way to prevent this is pay. The council may re offer the discount but are not obliged to. And you must be realistic the chances of the council accepting are slim to none


--------------------
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
Mr Meldrew
post Fri, 8 Feb 2019 - 16:27
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 546
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



OP, re further chance to pay at discounted rate, look again at the rear of the PCN or post it up.


--------------------
I do tend to have a bee in my bonnet re failing to consider and fairness
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 19:40
Post #19


Member


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



Hi Rob sorry its taken so long As I have said the chances of the council accepting reps are very slim so keeps things short and simple but make all the points


1:- There was no contravention of a prescribed order

Examination of the video shows that at the time of the alleged contravention, in the prevailing conditions the markings are faded and very hard to see. This is the case from the elevated position of the camera, from the drivers view at road level this is further exaggerated. A driver cannot be penalised for contravening a road marking that cannot be seen.


2:- There was no contravention of a prescribed order

As can be seen by stopping the video and zooming in my vehicle comes to a stop on the front edge of the road markings. as soon as it became possible to see the less faded marking and it became obvious I was entering on to yellow box markings, I stopped. This stop was due to my understanding of the rules for box junctions set out in the highway code. I did not stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles as is required for a contravention to be made out. Indeed I could have possible continued to move forwards very slowly and not have come to a stop at all.


3:- There was no contravention of a prescribed order

TSRGD 2016 schedule 9 part 7 chapter 11 sets out the regulation governing a yellow box junction. subsection 3 sets out an exemption. It is

(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who—

(a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and

(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.


the emboldened part of (b) other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn. applies to my vehicle I would refer the authority to the following case s from London tribunals that find this to be the case 2180148403 2180108271 2170442131. The PCn cannot be enforced in light of the exemption and should be cancelled

4:- There was no contravention of a prescribed order

The authority have a policy document The London borough of Hammersmith & Fulham box junction enforcement guidance version 3 (2007) The first sentence of chapter 9 says this

"9. On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction."






It is fair to say that this is a large junction, and also that no obstruction was caused and the policy should be followed and discretion not to enforce applied, to do otherwise would be an abuse of the councils own policy



For any one of these reasons I respectfully ask that the council find this representation acceptable and do cancel the PCN

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sun, 10 Feb 2019 - 19:41


--------------------
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
RobAbb
post Tue, 19 Feb 2019 - 10:54
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 30
Joined: 3 Nov 2015
Member No.: 80,373



Hi all,

thanks again for all your replies, it's very much appreciated.

Update is that, surprise-surprise, the representations were rejected by the council. Page 1 , Page 2 , Page 3 , Page 4

I'm still minded to appeal and have 21 days left now to do so.

Can anyone help walk me through the process of what I need to do for that please?

thanks,

R
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 - 00:17
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