PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (code 31), Video attached: Advice appreciated on whether I should contest
logit
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 14:04
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,581



Afternoon all, I was hoping I could call on your wisdom to decide whether I should contest this PCN I received from TFL. Upon receiving the PCN I contacted TFL as I did not accurately remember the incident and they have sent me the following video footage:

VIDEO FOOTAGE

If you fast forward to 2min 15s onwards you can see the start of the offence. The vehicle in question is the grey VW Scirocco.

Now, I believe the relevant regulation relating to this offence is that:

"No person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles."

My contention is that my passage through the box junction was not blocked by stationary traffic when I entered the junction. I genuinely thought that I could make it through the junction but the white van in front of me came to a sudden halt. The situation was not helped by the fact I could not see around the white van which was obstructing my view ahead due to its size. I tried to react as fast as possible, but by the time I realised the white van was coming to a stop, the car was already half in the box junction (even though I stopped in time so I didn't block any crossing traffic). I would've immediately tried to reverse a few metres so I was no longer in the box junction, but I was unable to do so due to the proximity of the black Mercedes behind me (and the subsequent pedestrians crossing).

I do feel this PCN is particularly unfair - in such 'normal' real world driving conditions with moving traffic, it just simply isn't possible to be 100% sure the way is clear enough so that you won't encroach in to the box junction by a small margin due to the unpredictable nature of other motorists. Indeed, I have been subjected to severe road rage from other road users in the past, when in a similar situation I was perhaps overly cautious and clearly waited for the way forward to be 100% clear in a similar scenario - having angry South London drivers abusing you isn't something that I cared to repeat! laugh.gif

Any thoughts or advice whether I could take this to appeal?

Many thanks to all

This post has been edited by logit: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 14:04
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 14:04
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
peterguk
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 14:13
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,735
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



IMHO, bang to rights on the contravention. Car entered box without enough space to exit. The van came to a halt to avoid driving into the back of the car in front!

See what others think.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 14:20
Post #3


Member


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



QUOTE (peterguk @ Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 15:13) *
IMHO, bang to rights on the contravention. Car entered box without enough space to exit. The van came to a halt to avoid driving into the back of the car in front!

See what others think.

+1, unless someone can find a technical point of appeal, you might be better off paying the discounted penalty.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 14:36
Post #4


Member


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



Post ALL pages of the PCN, TFL used to have a cacophony of errors but might well have corrected them, lets check.

The definition of the box junction is a junction of two or more roads. the box extends beyond the junction at the front so it can be argued you are not in the restricted area. As per this case

217057585A

The Appellant has attended his appeal the Authority is not represented.
Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction marking conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box marking due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at the junction of York Street/Arragon Road on 17 September 2017 at 14.27, as shown in the CCTV footage produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant argues that the Authority should have used its discretion and referred me to some guidances and protocols.
Further, he argues that this box junction is not compliant with the regulations because it exceeds 10% beyond the junction and that is where his vehicle is stopped.
The Authority has refused to exercise its discretion and an Adjudicator is not empowered in law to cancel a Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of mitigation or failure by an Authority to follow a guidance or other some other advice.
The new Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 has relaxed the stricter requirements of box junctions as in the previous TSRGD 2002.
In that respect whilst I find that box junctions are no longer required to touch the kerb or require Departmental approval, I find that they still have to be at a junction.
In this particular case I find that this box junction is neither compliant or substantially compliant with the new TSRGD because it extends too far past the junction (and that is where the Appellant's vehicle was stopped).
The appeal is allowed


--------------------
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
logit
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 15:12
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,581



Many thanks for the input everyone.

Please see attached all pages of the PCN (with personal details redacted)









PASTMYBEST: That's interesting what you say about the box markings extending beyond the actual junction. Would an appeal on this technicality have any weight?

In terms of the actual contravention, the elevated video footage does seem rather damning going by the strict letter of the law. However, from behind the wheel, I could not see that the white van would immediately stop due to congestion ahead - I assumed a smoother flow of traffic and being able to clear the junction with ease. Would it also not be a point that I could not immediately reverse out of the box junction by a metre or so (and so no longer be within the yellow box) due to the close position of the black Mercedes behind me? The Mercedes should not have been that close to me given the circumstances (though I completely understand how it happened - the driver, like me, was surprised by the sudden stopping of the car in front).

Many thanks for your continued advice.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 15:31
Post #6


Member


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



Yes it could win but no guarantee.

What are page 3 and 4 not part of a PCN


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 15:55
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



@PMB +1. You beat me to it.

Contravention did not occur.

I was parked on yellow markings, so I would ask the authority not to belabour this point in their response.

However, the markings do not indicate the box junction because as can clearly be seen they extend well beyond the junction which is a defined term within the regulations as follows:

Box junctions

11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)© of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

(6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is—

(a)at a junction between two or more roads;

As can be seen, that part of the so-called YBJ in dispute is bounded on one side wholly by a kerb parallel to the centre-line of **. Therefore this could not and does not form part of the junction between *** and **** which, even given the most favourable interpretation possible by the authority, cannot start (and therefore have effect) before the beginning of the radiused part of this kerb.

I anticipate that challenging the validity of this part of the YBJ might be an argument with which officers are not familiar. It is therefore for this reason that I ask that this is referred to senior officers, preferably in legal services. I would consider a failure to do so and an unsupported presumption that simply the presence of yellow lines indicates the effect of this restriction to be prima facie evidence of a failure by the authority to give consideration to my representations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
logit
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 15:58
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,581



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 16:31) *
Yes it could win but no guarantee.

What are page 3 and 4 not part of a PCN


The pics I attached are the only sheets I received in the envelope - two sheets of paper in total. Only the first sheet is marked page 1 of 4 on the front, and page 2 of 4 on the back. The other sheet has no page markings. If the PCN itself is 4 pages and there are in fact 2 pages (1 sheet) missing, then that is annoying. But I assume it would be impossible to prove they didn't originally include it in the envelope - they will just say I've lost it (which I most certainly have not!).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 16:05
Post #9


Member


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



QUOTE (logit @ Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 16:58) *
The pics I attached are the only sheets I received in the envelope - two sheets of paper in total. Only the first sheet is marked page 1 of 4 on the front, and page 2 of 4 on the back. The other sheet has no page markings. If the PCN itself is 4 pages and there are in fact 2 pages (1 sheet) missing, then that is annoying. But I assume it would be impossible to prove they didn't originally include it in the envelope - they will just say I've lost it (which I most certainly have not!).

It looks to me like someone loaded the wrong paper in the printer, and instead of sending you pages 3 & 4 of the PCN, they sent you an Order for Recovery. I'm guessing if they'd used the correct paper the date and number plate on page 4 would line up nicely with page 4 of the PCN, rather than being printed in a seemingly random location. Given TFL have purportedly served an order for recovery, I think they have made a mistake which is fatal to the PCN.


--------------------
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
stamfordman
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 16:19
Post #10


Member


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



It's an OfR for the congestion charge... completely wrong sheet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 16:31
Post #11


Member


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



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 17:19) *
It's an OfR for the congestion charge... completely wrong sheet.


Yep and as a result statutory information is missing. Namely 4(8)(viii) and 4(8)(b) of the regs


viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 16:38
Post #12


Member


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



At this point I'm tempted to say the underlying contravention is academic, the OP should just make representations on the basis that the PCN doesn't comply with the regs, and TFL has purported to serve an Order for Recovery when it had no authority to do so.


--------------------
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
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 17:04
Post #13


Member


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



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 17:38) *
At this point I'm tempted to say the underlying contravention is academic, the OP should just make representations on the basis that the PCN doesn't comply with the regs, and TFL has purported to serve an Order for Recovery when it had no authority to do so.


I always like to start with a challenge to the contravention where possible then the technical bits. It gives an easy out but not everyone likes to go through the appeals process so if we can lead it to a quick cancelation we should


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 17:23
Post #14


Member


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



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 18:04) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 17:38) *
At this point I'm tempted to say the underlying contravention is academic, the OP should just make representations on the basis that the PCN doesn't comply with the regs, and TFL has purported to serve an Order for Recovery when it had no authority to do so.


I always like to start with a challenge to the contravention where possible then the technical bits. It gives an easy out but not everyone likes to go through the appeals process so if we can lead it to a quick cancelation we should

I hear you, but the mistake in this one is so significant I'm pretty sure it will lead to a quick cancellation, I don't see TFL wanting to pursue this one at all once the error is pointed out.


--------------------
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
logit
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 12:18
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,581



Afternoon everyone, apologies for not responding sooner but I got caught up with the kids. Thank you so much to everyone for your kind help and advice smile.gif

So am I right in thinking my representations should be based on the fact that TFL didn't send me pages 3 of 4 and 4 of 4 of the PCN, and instead they sent me a Congestion Charging Order for Recovery in place of these pages? Does this really make the PCN invalid? Will they not just admit their mistake and put the PCN on hold whilst they re-send me the complete PCN? Any advice on how I should frame my argument would be most welcome.

Thanks again everyone!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 14:06
Post #16


Member


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



QUOTE (logit @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 13:18) *
Afternoon everyone, apologies for not responding sooner but I got caught up with the kids. Thank you so much to everyone for your kind help and advice smile.gif

So am I right in thinking my representations should be based on the fact that TFL didn't send me pages 3 of 4 and 4 of 4 of the PCN, and instead they sent me a Congestion Charging Order for Recovery in place of these pages? Does this really make the PCN invalid? Will they not just admit their mistake and put the PCN on hold whilst they re-send me the complete PCN? Any advice on how I should frame my argument would be most welcome.

Thanks again everyone!

They can't re-issue the PCN. Section 4(8)(viii) and section 4(8)(b) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted) says the PCN must state

"that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
"

Parliament chose the word "must" which means this is not an optional requirement, it is Parliament's intent that this information must be given to the recipient of the PCN. Without this information, you have nothing to tell you that you have a right to make representations, this is clearly prejudicial.

Also by purporting to serve an Order for Recovery, TFL are basically saying you must pay within 21 days and have no right to appeal. You obviously have received a PCN, albeit an incomplete one, and you haven't made representations or an appeal to the tribunal, so none of the grounds for making a statutory declaration apply (and you are warned that making a false declaration is a criminal offence under the Perjury Act). Therefore TFL have not only failed to tell you that you can make representations, they have also told you that in effect you have no choice but to pay up within 21 days or "your possessions may be sold or removed to pay this charge".

It is completely unlawful for TFL to take this approach (the fact that this is likely a mistake rather than intentional makes no difference), therefore the amount of the penalty exceeds the amount due in the circumstances. You should send representations to this effect.

Include a copy of all pages of the PCN, as their records will no doubt show they send the correct paperwork (I doubt they keep track of what paper they loaded into the printer). I would also mention that in the circumstances it would be wholly unreasonable for them to continue enforcement and if the matter goes to the tribunal, you will be making an application for costs.


--------------------
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
logit
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 18:59
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,581



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 15:06) *
QUOTE (logit @ Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 13:18) *
Afternoon everyone, apologies for not responding sooner but I got caught up with the kids. Thank you so much to everyone for your kind help and advice smile.gif

So am I right in thinking my representations should be based on the fact that TFL didn't send me pages 3 of 4 and 4 of 4 of the PCN, and instead they sent me a Congestion Charging Order for Recovery in place of these pages? Does this really make the PCN invalid? Will they not just admit their mistake and put the PCN on hold whilst they re-send me the complete PCN? Any advice on how I should frame my argument would be most welcome.

Thanks again everyone!

They can't re-issue the PCN. Section 4(8)(viii) and section 4(8)(b) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted) says the PCN must state

"that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
"

Parliament chose the word "must" which means this is not an optional requirement, it is Parliament's intent that this information must be given to the recipient of the PCN. Without this information, you have nothing to tell you that you have a right to make representations, this is clearly prejudicial.

Also by purporting to serve an Order for Recovery, TFL are basically saying you must pay within 21 days and have no right to appeal. You obviously have received a PCN, albeit an incomplete one, and you haven't made representations or an appeal to the tribunal, so none of the grounds for making a statutory declaration apply (and you are warned that making a false declaration is a criminal offence under the Perjury Act). Therefore TFL have not only failed to tell you that you can make representations, they have also told you that in effect you have no choice but to pay up within 21 days or "your possessions may be sold or removed to pay this charge".

It is completely unlawful for TFL to take this approach (the fact that this is likely a mistake rather than intentional makes no difference), therefore the amount of the penalty exceeds the amount due in the circumstances. You should send representations to this effect.

Include a copy of all pages of the PCN, as their records will no doubt show they send the correct paperwork (I doubt they keep track of what paper they loaded into the printer). I would also mention that in the circumstances it would be wholly unreasonable for them to continue enforcement and if the matter goes to the tribunal, you will be making an application for costs.


Many thanks for this. I will reply along these lines and will let you all know the outcome! Fingers crossed. Many thanks again!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 20 Apr 2018 - 19:55
Post #18


Member


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



Add a short paragraph.

Though I was stopped within the area marked by yellow hatchings, this area was outwith the limits of the junction. The hatched area therefore does not comply with the regulations and the PCN must be cancelled


--------------------
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
logit
post Tue, 22 May 2018 - 10:09
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 19 Apr 2018
Member No.: 97,581



Hi All, I've just received a response to the representation I submitted. To recap, the representation was based around a technicality - TfL did not send all the correct pages of the PCN and the argument was based around the information in cp8759's post above. Unfortunately, in my haste to send off the representation,I didn't see the post from PASTMYBEST re: the yellow hatch marks being larger than the limits of the junction before I submitted the representation, so there was nothing related to the actual contravention.

In short, TfL have admitted their original mistake and simply reissued the PCN with the correct documents this time biggrin.gif



Should I now make a new representation along the lines of the box junction not being compliant with the 2016 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions regulation as it exceeds beyond the limits of the junction? If the markings were drawn according to the strict limits of the junction then the front of my car wouldn't have been stopped in the yellow markings.

Any and all advice is most welcome.

Many thanks all.

This post has been edited by logit: Tue, 22 May 2018 - 10:12
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 22 May 2018 - 10:29
Post #20


Member


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



You made formal representations I think, Can we see them? If that is the case then there are two options open to TfL serve a notice of acceptance or a notice of rejection.

What they cannot do is re issue a new PCN or send a copy of the original as it is out of time with no exemption valid


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

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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:56
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