Yellow Box Barnet |
Yellow Box Barnet |
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 16:32
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 26 May 2017 Member No.: 92,190 |
I have already appealed thsi to no avail, my exit was clear to the right, so i could have moved straight through box, my exit was not obstructed.
They have refused an appeal on these grounds, i have one possible further appeal. Is it worth it? https://filebin.net/tyse61r029iph72e/Penalt....mp4?t=l8n18ago |
|
|
Advertisement |
Fri, 18 Oct 2019 - 16:32
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 13:24
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
The wording has been changed since Atlas, whilst the error is the same, the facts need to be argued on their own merits.
-------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 14:02
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
6th Nov 3:30pm was the upload time of the evidence from Barnet So the evidence was in time. The wording has been changed since Atlas, whilst the error is the same, the facts need to be argued on their own merits. If you look at the draft appeal, I have done exactly that. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 17:14
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 26 May 2017 Member No.: 92,190 |
started uploading the png files and it says i cannot add more than 4 of this type what to do?
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 17:33
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
started uploading the png files and it says i cannot add more than 4 of this type what to do? Call the tribunal helpline. You might have to put them on a CD and post them. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Fri, 15 Nov 2019 - 20:50
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 2,021 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 Member No.: 59,932 |
Add 3 then complete the upload and then do it again
-------------------- All advice given by me on PePiPoo is on a pro bono basis (i.e. free). PePiPoo relies on Donations so do donate if you can. Sometimes I will, in addition, personally offer to represent you at London Tribunals (i.e. within greater London only) & if you wish me to I will ask you to make a voluntary donation, if the Appeal is won, directly to the North London Hospice.
|
|
|
Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 15:50
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 26 May 2017 Member No.: 92,190 |
everything submitted. When will it be decided, some mention of 28th Nov but nothing certain
|
|
|
Wed, 20 Nov 2019 - 21:01
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Once the case is added to the decision list on the 28th, it goes into a big pot and adjudicator pick cases out of the list, first come first served. I would have thought you'd get the outcome within a week or two at most.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 10:39
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 26 May 2017 Member No.: 92,190 |
appeal failed
Adjudicator's Reasons The allegation in this case is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. Mr. xxxx does not dispute this but argues that the vehicle stopped twice for periods which should be regarded as de minimis. He also argues there was no contravention because there was another lane which could have been used and that the PCN was non-compliant. He has provided copies of still photographs taken from the enforcement camera footage together with copies of decisions of other Adjudicators. The decision of one Adjudicator is not binding on another. I have considered the decision in case reference 2170078458 which I am satisfied does not correctly reflect the law. Indeed the Adjudicator referred therein to the Panel decision in case reference 2130193949. I was a member of the Panel and am satisfied that the motorist cannot escape liability for a box junction contravention by the argument that he could have proceeded in another lane but chose not to do so. The motorist who enters the box junction and has to stop because of the presence of stationary vehicles on his chosen course commits the contravention. The enforcement camera footage shows a straightforward example of the contravention. Mr. xxxx entered the box junction when the traffic was already stopped ahead in the lane he was in. It seems he attempted to avoid stopping by slowing to a crawl but was unsuccessful. Mr. xxxxx times what he calls the 'cumulative stop' at 6.209 seconds. For this time the vehicle was committing the mischief of blocking the box junction. The motorist who stops and starts in such a situation cannot in my view rely on the brevity of each stop to establish de minimis. The evidence here plainly goes beyond what could properly be termed de minimis in the context of a contravention which occurs when the vehicle stops. Mr. xxxxx refers me to the decision in case reference 2170053479. As I set out in my decision in case reference 2170489099 I was satisfied that the moving traffic PCNs issued by London Borough of Barnet at that time were substantially compliant. I am also satisfied that the PCN in the present case was substantially compliant. Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies. Michael Burke Adjudicator what a Burk any way to appeal further, his reasons for rejecting seem a bit childish, the pcn is written wrong and he just glosses over this. |
|
|
Mon, 2 Dec 2019 - 16:07
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
You were unlucky to get Michael Burke, he's known for being harsh.
Unless you want to challenge his decision as being wrong as a matter of law, that's the end of the road. Taking it further would likely require a judicial review in the High Court, which doesn't seem worth the risk. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2019 - 11:23
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 90 Joined: 26 May 2017 Member No.: 92,190 |
what do i do now, will they send me another demand for £130?
any chance of £65, if i ask nicely? |
|
|
Tue, 3 Dec 2019 - 12:25
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
what do i do now, will they send me another demand for £130? any chance of £65, if i ask nicely? Nope ! You now have to pay the £130 and they won't ask for it, just send you a Charge Certificate if you exceed the payment period. Mr Burke is generally regarded as the London Tribunals resident "hanging adjudicator", although I have to say in compensation it was him who first ruled for the appellant in a "continuous contravention" case a few years ago. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:14 |