PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Yellow Box, Entered yellow box when exit was clear
AnthonyL
post Thu, 20 Apr 2017 - 10:40
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,830



Hi All

As you can see I entered the yellow box when the exit was clear. I'm the White Toyaota Estima. Do I have grounds for appeal? If yes, how do I go about it / is there a standard template?

PCN: http://imgur.com/a/sZfl0
Video: http://imgur.com/a/hCLFj

Thanks

This post has been edited by AnthonyL: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 - 10:47
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 15)
Advertisement
post Thu, 20 Apr 2017 - 10:40
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 20 Apr 2017 - 10:45
Post #2


Member


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



re post the PCN it doesn't work


--------------------
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
AnthonyL
post Thu, 20 Apr 2017 - 10:47
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,830



http://imgur.com/a/sZfl0



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 20 Apr 2017 - 11:09
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Looking at the video, you did not enter the box when exit was clear.
You followed traffic into the box without having a clear exit for your vehicle.
Traffic stopped.
Contravention complete.

Will need something technical or hope that they will accept a de minimis plea as only rear of vehicle in contravention and no obstruction caused.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 20 Apr 2017 - 13:01
Post #5


Member


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



You stopped short of the space you had - looks like you allowed people to cross, which is considerate. Had you taken that space it's possible you would have not been in contravention or only minimally, so this could be a defence. Driving such as large vehicle doesn't help with this one....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Thu, 20 Apr 2017 - 15:55
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



+1 the last post.

In addition the PCN suggests a stark choice between paying up at 50% or challenging with the disocunt not necessarily being offered again. This is perfectly proper and better in some ways as it focuses the mind on the contravention itself. I would take it all the way to the tribunal but it isn't my PCN & it depends how much losing would hurt the pocket of the OP.

This post has been edited by Mr Mustard: Thu, 20 Apr 2017 - 16:02


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AnthonyL
post Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 09:11
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 32
Joined: 13 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,830



Thanks everyone
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 17:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



In law, they do not have to reoffer the discount. Mr M will know if they do or their website. You stopped for about 5 seconds, which involved a pedestrian crossing in front of you, then moved again and stopped for about 3 seconds.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mr Mustard
post Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 17:53
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



I have just hunted through my files and found a complete yellow box pcn from late 2016 (I do not think policy has changed since) on which on page 2 of 4 (think from memory we only have 3 pages of this pcn) the 14 day discount reoffer is promised.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 18:05
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



March 17. Same and you are correct, page 2.

But I'm not sure the discount is of much interest if you're going to fight.

I don't think there's a contravention, as others have already alluded.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hippocrates
post Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 18:07
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9,876
Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Member No.: 53,821



Reoffered discount depends on what the reps. say and their NOR, of course.


--------------------
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

Donald Rumsfeld

There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends PATAS, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know.

"Hippocrates"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 18:21
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 19:07) *
Reoffered discount depends on what the reps. say and their NOR, of course.

I'm not sure what you mean?
---- but I'm maybe twigging as typing --
Is it, whether or not the OP might decide to pay the discount when re-offered?

For me, it's we either believe there is no contravention or we don't.

Also; helpfully, on current form, their NoR is likely to contain a crucial error.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 20:36
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,263
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 19:21) *
For me, it's we either believe there is no contravention or we don't.

and now I'm not sure.

You don't stop 'due to the presence of stationary vehicles' - so no contravention - but -

did you have room to clear the box if you hadn't stopped? Maybe not.

An adjudicator might also be swayed by your reckless entry into the box, contrary to
your opening post.

But - as we've established, you do, effectively, get a free shot at this one

and, I'm fairly sure, as I said, you'll get a legally flawed rejection - adding a helpful twist.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 21 Apr 2017 - 21:03
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,049
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The OP must decide on their primary grounds.

Not being in the box is not tenable, neither is de minimis IMO.

I stopped to allow pedestrians to cross at the crossing. I could have chosen to close up to the vehicle ahead, and by doing so would have not been stationary in the box or at worst to a trivial degree, but I chose not to but instead to allow the pedestrians, who I could see approaching the crossing from my left, to cross the road unobstructed. The stationary vehicle ahead of me played no part in my vehicle being stationary in the box and therefore the contravention did not occur.

Is this the OP's line?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 27 Apr 2017 - 09:51
Post #15


Member


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



This case might help

2170148065

A Personal Hearing was scheduled for 9.30 a.m. today, 26th April 2017; the Appellant did not attend therefore it falls to me now to determine this matter on the evidence of both parties presently before me.
There is no dispute as to the whereabouts of vehicle MK03VKM at the time, on the material date; namely at a location subject to an operative restriction denoted by yellow cross-hatching, such demarcation indicating a prohibition against a vehicle remaining stationary within the defined area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle entered the defined area and stopped.
The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances as detailed in his written representations, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.
The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice together with photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ and the applicable carriageway markings notifying motorists of the prohibition.
It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such prohibitions.
The prohibition, as set out in Paragraph 11 of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to The Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2016 / Paragraph 7 (1) of Part 11 of The Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002, as amended, prohibits vehicles (or parts there-of) from becoming stationary or stopping within the cross-hatched area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined to evaluate this aspect in conjunction with the Appellant's representations; evidentially I am not satisfied that stationary vehicles resulting in the said vehicle becoming stationary on the defined area since the camera angle does not afford a view of the pertinent area ahead of the said vehicle.
Indeed, as the Enforcement Authority itself comments, "a pedestrian is seen walking across the road in front of" the said vehicle; had the vehicle been caused to stop by the action of a pedestrian, the contravention does not occur.
On balance, evidentially I cannot be satisfied that this contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.


--------------------
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
Mr Mustard
post Thu, 27 Apr 2017 - 10:58
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,021
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
Member No.: 59,932



I think the contravention techncially occurred and I can see a tough adjudicator saying you should, of course, leave the area marked for pedestrians to cross clear as well (as an advanced driver would) so it could go either way.

This could go either way at adjudication. I stopped for pedestrians is the best available defence.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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 - 09:03
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