PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN: YBJ Forest Road/Kingsley Road (Waltham Forest), Contravention 31 - rear of car in box
Ephraim Monk
post Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 23:43
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,440



I have received a PCN from Waltham Forest for contravention 31 at the junction between Forest Road and Kingsley Road. In reasonably moving traffic, still moving at the time I committed to entering the box (though the car ahead had stopped leaving just short of enough room by the time I actually entered, and it did stop shorter of the vehicle ahead than I would have expected, later to move forwards), I was unable to completely clear the box for about 38 seconds according to the CCTV footage.

Not much of my car was in the box, and no real obstruction was caused. If, at the time of the car ahead stopping, I had attempted to stop short of the box, the following traffic may have had difficulty, and besides, it is likely I would have been in the box by the time of stopping.

On time grounds, it is obviously too much for "de minimis", but is this a possibility on actual amount of vehicle in box/obstruction caused? I was aware of the box but it was not immediately obvious to me that I had not cleared it at the time.

Is there anything it would be helpful to post here that might help in order to come up with a representation against the PCN? I attach the PCN (first 3 pages only - there doesn't seem to be room for the 4th) (with some details obscured). One point I think may have been covered before that I consider an irregularity but don't think it's one that affects the validity, they write to "The Company Secretary, (MY NAME) (a 6 digit number)" - the vehicle is not kept by a company, but is owned and managed by one, they keep the V5c but I am still the keeper for the purposes of these notices.

I still have my dashcam footage (front and rear) from the journey, if that might be of any help.
Attached File(s)
Attached File  wfpcn_20181102_0002.tif ( 41.43K ) Number of downloads: 69
Attached File  wfpcn_20181102_0001.tif ( 354.57K ) Number of downloads: 74
Attached File  wfpcn_20181102_0003.tif ( 36.2K ) Number of downloads: 66
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 48)
Advertisement
post Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 23:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 23:22
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,440



PASTMYBEST, any comments? (especially as you spotted the NoR flaw)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 23:54
Post #42


Member


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



QUOTE (Ephraim Monk @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 23:22) *
PASTMYBEST, any comments? (especially as you spotted the NoR flaw)


To me you have point 3 back to front. As soon as possible means you could submit after the 28 day period because, You were on holiday, you were in hospital, you were busy at work. But the regs do not allow for this it is 28 days beginning with date of service


--------------------
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
Ephraim Monk
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 01:45
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,440



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 23:54) *
QUOTE (Ephraim Monk @ Sat, 15 Dec 2018 - 23:22) *
PASTMYBEST, any comments? (especially as you spotted the NoR flaw)


To me you have point 3 back to front. As soon as possible means you could submit after the 28 day period because, You were on holiday, you were in hospital, you were busy at work. But the regs do not allow for this it is 28 days beginning with date of service


Ah, good point. Will revise accordingly.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 13:35
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,440



OK - revised point 3 - any comments?


3. The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case – due to a flawed document

In the Notice of Rejection, after the lettered paragraphs detailing the actions required, the next paragraph places the words as soon as possible after the address to which to send the form. This is a vague term, and one that could suggest extra time being available to write an appeal. The regulations stipulate 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice. The phrase implies there is not really such a limit – someone could try to depend on this due to being busy with work, on holiday, in hospital or similar – not covered by the regulations. The flawed document is not, therefore, a valid demand for payment of a penalty.

This post has been edited by Ephraim Monk: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 - 13:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:46
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,440



Any further comments? I am planning to submit this relatively soon.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 19 Dec 2018 - 10:59
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



I would go for it.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 09:40
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,440



This is going to a hearing on 26 January - oddly, earlier dates were shown as available when I submitted the appeal but unavailable when clicked.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 16:09
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,440



Update:

Just had an email from the tribunal:

I quote:

"The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest your appeal against the
Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated above.
The adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering the evidence or any details of
the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated
above and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority."

(case 2180509035)

So a win, admittedly one that doesn't provide any answers but a win nonetheless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 16:30
Post #49


Member


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



The man in charge of the brain cell must have seen the video rolleyes.gif well done


--------------------
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

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 11:28
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