Yellow box junction offence - Hammersmith |
Yellow box junction offence - Hammersmith |
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 12:37
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 25 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,616 |
Hi,
Newbie here - hoping you can advise or help. I've just received a PCN though the post from Hammersmith & Fulham council for a yellow box contravention on 9/2/19. It was at the box junction of Talgarth Rd and Butterwick. I have until 1st March to pay the discounted price of £65 but not sure how to approach this so would be grateful for some help. From reading of similar on here there seems to be mixed advice. I live in the North West and wasn't/aren't familiar with the junction in question as it's in London - I know that's no defense. Is there any way of challenging this or is it pointless? Strewth London driving is such a bind! I've posted a copy of the PCN below. https://ibb.co/59BNwb4 https://ibb.co/bXg6fsr Thanks |
|
|
Advertisement |
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 12:37
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 12:41
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
We need to see the video. If you have trouble posting it PM me the details.
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 13:52
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 25 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,616 |
Thanks stamfordman. I am having trouble posting the video up here so have you sent you a PM. Many thanks
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 14:18
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Have put it on youtube. We see a lot at this junction but not usually so many in the box. Which are you?
Council should sort this one out - it's very unfair to those turning right into this. https://youtu.be/8W-18vSDOKw |
|
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 14:26
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 25 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,616 |
Many thanks stamfordman - I am in the black Mokka appearing at 8 seconds on that youtube vid.
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 15:38
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
This case mirrors yours and is ground for appeal
Case reference 2180108271 Appellant Andrew De Havilland Authority London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham VRM EX65DYC PCN Details PCN HZ23380169 Contravention date 06 Feb 2018 Contravention time 15:54:00 Contravention location Box Junction - Talgarth Rd J/W Butterwick Penalty amount GBP 130.00 Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction Referral date Decision Date 19 Apr 2018 Adjudicator Jack Walsh Appeal decision Appeal allowed Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner. Reasons 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
|
|
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 23:11
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 25 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,616 |
Thanks PASTMYBEST - very interesting reading.
I would argue my situation mirror's this previous case you have detailed and where the appeal was allowed. Since I only have 3 more days before the discount period runs out - would the consensus be to challenge this? Thanks |
|
|
Tue, 26 Feb 2019 - 23:41
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,270 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
I disagree.
The adjudicator erred in that case: This is not a right turn in the way that the law intends. And, after discounting that, the most obvious contravention I've seen in a long while. Pay the discount amount. But wait to see what others have to say. -------------------- |
|
|
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 08:59
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Neil and I will have to agree to agree but disagree on this. I too think the adjudicator, if not erring was generous with the interpretation. though for different reasons.
I think this is part of a gyratory system and as such the right turn exemption would not apply. This adjudicator found otherwise, that it is a junction between two roads so the exemption does apply. if it does then you are waiting to complete a right turn behind a vehicle that has not completed its turn and so are entitled to the exemption There are other cases 2180148403 2170442131 look them up here https://londontribunals.org.uk/ There are times when adjudicators take a view which our collective wisdom is sure is wrong and we have to live with it. In a case like this it could go either way so you have to decide coz its your money -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 11:07
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
I agree with Neil - we see a lot of these junctions (eg that one in Kingston too) and my take is that they should be appealed on unfairness and field of view but the right turn exemption is not valid.
|
|
|
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 12:13
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
We often make arguments at adjudication that have not been tested, many times they are successful sometimes they are not. Here we have an argument that was put to adjudication and accepted, though not a binding finding. I feel it wrong not to give an OP the facts and let them decide rather than just saying pay up
-------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 12:39
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
We often make arguments at adjudication that have not been tested, many times they are successful sometimes they are not. Here we have an argument that was put to adjudication and accepted, though not a binding finding. I feel it wrong not to give an OP the facts and let them decide rather than just saying pay up Of course I agree that in making reps it can certainly be introduced with a case ref. I would also make other points. |
|
|
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 21:01
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
I agree with Neil, the adjudicator in the case quoted was wrong. Of course you can always chance it at adjudication, but relying on the adjudicator to effectively fall into an error of law is a risky gamble, I'd but the chances of success at 10% at best.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 27 Feb 2019 - 22:40
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Two adjudicators find the same.
I would suggest that if a council applied for review in that the adjudicator erred in law it would be refused. If the adjudicator finds that this is a junction between two roads then they are entitled to find that the exemption is valid. Another adjudicator might find differently. So unfortunately it is always a gamble And IMO there is a better than 10% chance the council do not contest -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 28 Feb 2019 - 09:50
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Two adjudicators find the same. I would suggest that if a council applied for review in that the adjudicator erred in law it would be refused. I don't disagree. If they went to JR though, it might be a different story. I agree the council may well not contest. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 20:42
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 25 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,616 |
Thanks for all your opinions. I have read with interest the numerous similar cases for this junction.
I agree that blocking yellow box junctions is annoying but this seems like it's a flawed junction that is a nice little earner for the LA. I was under the apprehension that I had until midnight tonight to pay the discounted price but having just worked the dates out I think that I'm a day out and that actually expired last night. I was still undecided what to do based on the mixed opinion on here but I've nothing to lose now so may as well appeal it and keep my fingers crossed. Since I'm a newbie this is all new to me but I'm amazed that precedents aren't set from previous similar cases, especially at the same junction. How is it right that the same junctions keep cropping up with the same issues when adjudicators have previously ruled against the LA? I appreciate the particular situations and circumstances can be different each time but it seems like a farce of a system that is putting the onus completely on the motorist - doesn't seem vey fair. I now need to formulate a coherent appeal. |
|
|
Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 20:52
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Check online what is being asked to pay - personally I would pay the discount. Or put in an appeal now if still showing at £65.
This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 20:54 |
|
|
Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 21:00
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 25 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,616 |
Right, I've just checked online and the option to pay the discounted price of £65 is still there so the deadline must be tonight.
If I appeal now, whilst it's still at the discounted price, does that stop the clock and allow me to pay the discounted price if my appeal fails? Is there a benefit of me appealing whilst still at the discounted price? |
|
|
Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 21:07
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Right, I've just checked online and the option to pay the discounted price of £65 is still there so the deadline must be tonight. If I appeal now, whilst it's still at the discounted price, does that stop the clock and allow me to pay the discounted price if my appeal fails? Is there a benefit of me appealing whilst still at the discounted price? yes, they will reoffer the discount and will probably do so even if it's a bit late. |
|
|
Fri, 1 Mar 2019 - 21:16
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 16 Joined: 25 Feb 2019 Member No.: 102,616 |
OK, I didn't know that. I assumed if I appealed I automatically lost the offer of a discount.
Can I appeal it putting "detailed grounds to follow" because it's just I'm off abroad for a few days from tomorrow so don't really have the time to type up a full on appeal until my return on Friday? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 15:50 |