PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Junction Box, Penalty in Junction Box
Emma Thaler
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 13:16
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 May 2018
Member No.: 97,915



Dear Pepipoo members,
It seems that traffic stopped just as it was moving and stopped the car only with the back wheels in the box junction. First traffic was moving well so the car moved, then the traffic suddenly stopped and we were caught in the box junction with a small part of the rear part of the car.
I have been charged £65 if paid within 2 weeks. It seems that had I not moved I might have held up traffic, so I moved and was caught by camera with only my back wheels. Can this offence if one can call it this be challenged? Many thanks! Emma



This post has been edited by Emma Thaler: Fri, 11 May 2018 - 13:20
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 13:16
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 14:46
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,660
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Yes i could be challenged on the principal of de minimis no curat lex (the law does not concern its self with trifles ) But this would be at the full amount at adjudication

get and post the video time stopped will also be relevant

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 11 May 2018 - 14:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 15:04
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,439
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



H&F guidelines:

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.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5072...er%203.doc.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Emma Thaler
post Fri, 11 May 2018 - 18:31
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 May 2018
Member No.: 97,915



Thank you so much, this has all been very helpful!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Emma Thaler
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 21:59
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 May 2018
Member No.: 97,915



Dear Pepipoo members,

I wrote a letter to London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham outlining the leniency advice I was kindly given on this forum before.
( with link here: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari...8&oe=UTF-8)

The letter I wrote was this on the 11th of May 2018:
Dear London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham,
Thank you for your letter and PCN dated the 4th of May 2018, which I received on the 10th of May 2018.
You believe that I am liable to pay a Penalty Charge for entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited.
In your Box Junction enforcement guidance from 2007 in LBHF you explain in paragraph 9 of your scenarios that 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 and on smaller box junctions 25% “grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction. (For your convenience I have enclosed your guidance document with this letter.)
I have now viewed the images and videos you have made available online and find that my car clearly did not pose an obstruction to any traffic to the buses, which can be seen to the left of my car. My car is moving forward and comes to a standstill with just the back wheels inside a large box junction for a very short time before traffic starts moving again.
Therefore I would be grateful for you to confirm that the 50% discretion rule applies in my case as set out in your Box junction guidance of 2007 since less than 25% of my car can be seen stationary for a very short time inside the large box junction. I hope you can agree that the full penalty charge should be cancelled on this occasion.
I look forward to hearing from you within 20 days.


Today (25th May 18) I have received a letter that says the Borough doesn't accept my defence. I have attached the letter and the video below.
My defence was that leniency should be applied because less than 50% of my car was in the junction box and I didn't obstruct any cars/buses, since the buses to my left didn't move, does this apply at all in my case? I have tried to post the video but am unable to upload. It shows my car slowly moving across the junction box. I start moving when my lights go green, unfortunately the cars across the junction box are not moving, which might make my case very weak. In the end the light across the junction box goes green and the cars start moving and in total I am in the junction box with my back wheels for 4 seconds, without ever obstructing traffic. The junction box is empty during the time my rear wheels are in the junction box.
Many thanks! Emma


Response:
NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATION
Thank you for your representation. I have carefully considered what you have said and all the available evidence, but I do not agree that we should cancel your liability for this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
This PCN was issued by one of our camera enforcement operators because they
observed and recorded your vehicle moving onto, and stopping on a, 'Box Junction'
without the exit lane being clear, due to stationary traffic ahead of the vehicle.
I have viewed the CCTV footage, and am able to confirm your vehicle followed the vehicle in front into the box junction when it would not be able to clear the box junction. Whilst I
acknowledge the comments made in the challenge the contravention occurs as soon as a vehicle stops on the yellow box junction when their exit lane is not clear.
This particular type of contravention occurs when a vehicle crosses the threshold of a
Yellow Box Junction, when its exit is not clear, and then, because of said obstruction, any part, or all, of the vehicle becomes stationary within the box. There are no time frame
stipulations regarding how long the vehicle has to be stationary for. The moment the
vehicle becomes stationary, a contravention occurs.
In regards to the term "exit is not clear", this means that an obstruction exists between your vehicle, forward to a length necessary for your vehicle to enter, traverse and then completely exit the box.
This was the case with your vehicle. At the point at which your vehicle was entering the
box, there wasn't enough space for you to exit; therefore your exit was not clear. This then lead to your vehicle becoming stationary within the box and incurring a PCN.
The rigidity of enforcement is equal across every square metre of the box, and although
your vehicle would not be considered to be causing as much of an obstruction as one in
the centre of the box, the car would still be causing an obstruction and this cannot be
permitted.
Drivers have a responsibility to comply with all signs and markings relating to road traffic
restrictions and directions. I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued.
On this occasion only, we will allow you another opportunity to pay this PCN at the reduced amount of £65.00. I must however advise you that we are not required to do this by law. This offer will not be re-offered for this PCN.
Before the end of the period of 28 days (beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection), you should:
1.Pay the charge as described below:
-We will accept £65.00 in full and final settlement of this case provided that we receive payment within 14 days (beginning with the date of service of this notice of rejection).
YOU MAY MNOT MAKE AN APPEAL TO THE ADJUDICATOR AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS £65 SETTLEMENT OFFER.
-The full penalty charge of £130.CO vvili ba ,equired to close the case if we receive payment within 15-28 days (beginning with the date of service of this notice of rejection).
or;
2. Appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators:
To appeal, complete the enclosed form 'Your right to appeal' and send it to it to London Tribunals. DO NOT SEND YOUR APPEAL FORM TO THIS OFFICE. Alternatively you can make your appeal online at the following address www.LondonTribunals.gov.uk. Please ensure that you quote the unique appeal verification code stated on this Notice of Rejection and follow the online instructions on how to complete your appeal.
Appealing to the Adjudicator is free. Adjudicators do not normally award costs or expenses, although they can do so it they decide that either you or we acted frivolously, vexatiously, or wholly unreasonably in the appeal, or that our decision in this Notice of Rejection was wholly unreasonable. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE LIABLE FOR THE FULL PENAL TY CHARGE IF YOUR APPEAL IS NOT SUCCESSFUL. [/font]

This post has been edited by Emma Thaler: Fri, 25 May 2018 - 22:18
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peterguk
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 22:43
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,339
Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Member No.: 14,720



Post the video.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Emma Thaler
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 22:49
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 May 2018
Member No.: 97,915



The video was filmed on the 27th of April, the first letter is dated the 4th of May,but I didn't receive the letter until the 10th of May, and I checked the envelope it is not stamped so I can't check any better, but it seems I got the letter just within 14 days. I am unable to post the video on this site, but have uploaded it onto wetransfer and it can be downloaded here: https://we.tl/yjGamYoL8u
thank you!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 25 May 2018 - 22:57
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,439
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I would continue with this. Their ridiculous statement 'The rigidity of enforcement is equal across every square metre of the box' trashes the concept of de minimis and discretion and they make no ref to their own guidance (although I think they are aiming to distance themselves from it now).




This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 25 May 2018 - 23:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ford poplar
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 02:53
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,709
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Member No.: 24,962



Whilst the Council can exercise their 'discretion' for de minimus etc, but they nor Adj can rewrite prevailing Legislation.
In this case, the Council have applied the extant Legislation correctly, IMO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 07:47
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,660
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Where an authority has a set of guidelines they need be followed or if the authority are going to deviate from those guidelines they must have good reason and explain why. Not doing so is a failure of their common law duty to act fairly.

i would carry on With this as your main point. and regardless of previous post de minimis. The law does not need to be re written to apply this principle it is a finding of fact.

This would however be at risk of the full penalty. Let us know what you want to do and we can help you with an appeal
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 11:34
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,558
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, post their full rejection letter. Your attempt to transpose has left out swathes of info.

Pl don't ask which ones, just post their letter, including what you might consider to be blurb.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Emma Thaler
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 12:24
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 May 2018
Member No.: 97,915



Thank you for all your thoughts, please see a link to the letter attached, i was unable to use the upload link on this forum.
Many thanks!

https://we.tl/TLSwONjtOP

With regards to my thoughts, I tend to want to appeal the decision, since I believe the incident is very minor and I obvioulsy didn't obstruct traffic in this incident. But my case was lucky I would say and unlucky in both ways. I can see I possibly could have been an obstruction to buses had the cars in front of me not moved since my back wheels might have been in their way. but the council's advice clearly says if I am not an obstruction leniency should be applied. So in a way my case is clear, i was lucky and in my case leniency should be applied since in my case i didn't obstruct any buses. The question is how much would their own advice count for in a court?
My gut feeling says I should not have moved from my spot since the cars in front of me didn't move, but unfortunately I moved and the lights moved too late and made me stationary for 4 seconds inside the box. I thank you your opinions but i am really torn.
Many thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 13:10
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 6,238
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



If a Council does not abide by its published policy it should lose the case.

The Council contend that your vehicle entered the box when the exit was not clear--all very well with high cameras and looking at the incident in retrospect. What about from the drivers perspective--you entered the box in good faith because there was a gap behind the vehicle which was already outside the box.

In my view they cannot prove that, when you came to a halt, there was no space for you to move forward a touch and thus clear the box. Remember the contravention relates to stopping in the box because stationary vehicle prevent your exit. So if there was still a gap between your vehicle and the SUV their case collapses.

Last, the de minimis situation relates to two elements -- how far you were inside the box when you halted and the time period you were halted within the box----I reckon this was less than 9 seconds. By both of these measures it was de minimis IMO.

Your money and they have re-offered the discount so you have a decision to make -- pay or fight. We don't know your personal circumstances so it's up to you.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 16:36
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,660
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Reasons that can be argued at appeal.

1;- that you could have moved forward approx. 2 metres, enough to clear the box. Whilst it is not easy to see this on the moving video you come to a stop about the length of the white dash of the lane marking (2 metres)

2:- the de mininis principle

3;- failure of the authority to comply with policy
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Meldrew
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 17:08
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 250
Joined: 31 Aug 2015
From: 19 Riverbank
Member No.: 79,151



So she misjudged the space available.

Having identified that a contravention occurred, the correct approach was to have considered her request for discretion on the basis the car did not pose an obstruction to any traffic and only the back wheels were inside the large box junction for a very short time before traffic starts moving again. It seems to me that the phraseology relied upon in their formulaic response presents an apparent approach that the council will have none of this discretion malarkey because a contravention occurred, which if accepted would not impress an adjudicator.

Both seemingly fragile and strong representations have surprised. I think this one seems a little fragile.

QUOTE
The rigidity of enforcement is equal across every square metre of the box, and although your vehicle would not be considered to be causing as much of an obstruction as one in the centre of the box, the car would still be causing an obstruction and this cannot be permitted.



--------------------
As there is nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the Universe!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Emma Thaler
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 19:31
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 May 2018
Member No.: 97,915



Dear Members,

Thank you for your thoughts. I think it's worth fighting this case. I just rewatched the video and can see that actually I could have moved forward slightly, which would mean that I moved in good faith thinking I would not have to stop inside the box and commit a crime. (Like the person to my right) My initial problem with this issue was that I would not be able to defend myself because I moved inside the box when there was not enough space on the other side. Does de minimis apply when I am stationary less than 9 seconds? I am only stationary for 4 seconds. So how should I phrase this. Should I start defending myself with the space in front of me, then mention de minimis and then state their own policy which clearly applies in my case? Do I quote their own policy in my defense?
Many thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 19:50
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,660
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Emma Thaler @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 20:31) *
Dear Members,

Thank you for your thoughts. I think it's worth fighting this case. I just rewatched the video and can see that actually I could have moved forward slightly, which would mean that I moved in good faith thinking I would not have to stop inside the box and commit a crime. (Like the person to my right) My initial problem with this issue was that I would not be able to defend myself because I moved inside the box when there was not enough space on the other side. Does de minimis apply when I am stationary less than 9 seconds? I am only stationary for 4 seconds. So how should I phrase this. Should I start defending myself with the space in front of me, then mention de minimis and then state their own policy which clearly applies in my case? Do I quote their own policy in my defense?
Many thanks!


now that you have decided to appeal, and i think rightly so please post up all pages of the PCN. there is a potential flaw in it that i did not want to bring up until you had made your decision..

start with the contravention did not occur as you could have moved forward

next the councils failure to adhere to guidance without explanation as to why it should not apply in this case

Then De minimis 4 seconds is within the normally allowed range

then the PCN errors, i will explain them once we see all the PCN
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Emma Thaler
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 20:21
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 May 2018
Member No.: 97,915



Thank you for your help and your support. The full PCN is attached in this link.
Many thanks!
https://we.tl/04DKe1nSWC
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Emma Thaler
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 20:39
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 16
Joined: 11 May 2018
Member No.: 97,915



The online appeal website is asking on what grounds I am applealing, do I choose the first option?

- the contravention alleged by the authority on the penalty charge notice did not occur.
- the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 26 May 2018 - 20:57
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,660
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Emma Thaler @ Sat, 26 May 2018 - 21:39) *
The online appeal website is asking on what grounds I am applealing, do I choose the first option?

- the contravention alleged by the authority on the penalty charge notice did not occur.
- the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case

thank you



Whoa slow down. You have plenty of time. Lets get all the ducks in a row first. There are some very knowledgeable people that will have an input on this to give you the best possible chance of winning. Give us time

Don't fill in the form yet
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: Monday, 25th June 2018 - 00:19
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.