PCN: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (code 31), Video attached: Advice appreciated on whether I should contest Options

[logit]

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!

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

[Advertisement]

[logit]

Sure, I made formal representations via TfL's online system. I have the representation reference number the system generated. A cut and paste of the text is as follows:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

I refer you to Section 4(8)(a)(viii) and section 4(8)(b) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. A penalty charge notice under this section must:

(a) 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

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

The PCN I received in the post was incomplete. I only received page 1 of 4 and page 2 of 4. Parliament chose the word "must" which means it is not an optional requirement to provide this information. It is Parliament's intent that this information must be given to the recipient of the PCN. Without this information, TfL have not informed me that I have the right to make representations, which is prejudicial.

Furthermore, in the correspondence I received in the post from TfL, alongside the first two pages of the PCN, TfL have also sent me an 'Order for recovery of unpaid penalty charge', form PE2. This states that I must pay within 21 days and have no right to appeal. I am not able to file a Statutory Declaration as none of the grounds apply: I have received a PCN, albeit an incomplete one, and I haven't made representations or an appeal to the tribunal.

Therefore, TfL have not only failed to tell me that I can make representations, they have also told me that, in effect, I have no choice but to pay up within 21 days or "your possessions may be removed and sold to pay this charge".
It is completely unlawful for TfL to take this approach, therefore the amount of the penalty exceeds the amount due in the circumstances.
Under these circumstances it would be wholly unreasonable for TfL to continue enforcement and if the matter goes to the tribunal, I will be making an application for costs.

Yours faithfully,

Attachments:

Copies of all correspondence I have received from TfL, as follows:

1) Copy of Page 1 of 4 of PCN

2) Copy of Page 2 of 4 of PCN

3) Copy of 'Order for recovery of unpaid penalty charge' (front page)

4) Copy of 'Order for recovery of unpaid penalty charge' (back page)"



Yes, they have just reissued the PCN with a new date for the notice It seems they have now correctly included all 4 pages:









This post has been edited by logit: Tue, 22 May 2018 - 11:42

[TigerRob]

Date of offence: 24/3
Date of this notice 15/5

It's my understanding that they can't re-issue the ticket like that, but even if they can that's more than the 28 day limit that they have for issuing a CCTV PCN.

Needs someone who knowns more than me to confirm.

[stamfordman]

They can't send an amended PCN to the same person - that's the point. PCNs can be reassigned to someone else (eg from lease company to hirer).

[logit]

Date of offence: 24/3
Date of this notice 15/5

It's my understanding that they can't re-issue the ticket like that, but even if they can that's more than the 28 day limit that they have for issuing a CCTV PCN.

Needs someone who knowns more than me to confirm.

They can't send an amended PCN to the same person - that's the point. PCNs can be reassigned to someone else (eg from lease company to hirer).

Ok thanks for that info guys. In this case, how do I go about getting this thrown out? Do I need to make another representation? How would I frame the argument - Is there a regulation that says they can't send an amended PCN to the same person and/or they only have 28 days to issue a CCTV PCN?

[logit]

Any advice on how to proceed with this chaps?

[cp8759]

Any advice on how to proceed with this chaps?

The person at TFL must be on drugs or something, at this point they're starting to appear wholly unreasonable.

I would submit this as formal representations (keep the italics, add in dates and the PCN number):
------------------------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to make representations against PCN XXXXXX on the grounds that the penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. My reasons are as follows: TFL originally served a PCN dated 5 April 2018, this PCN did not include any information as to how representations might be made against the PCN, and therefore failed to comply with section 4(8)((viii) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Even when applying the requisite standard of substantial compliance, and when read as a whole, the PCN did not come remotely close to satisfying the requirements of section 4(8)((viii) which requires that the PCN notify the recipient of his rights to make representations.

Instead TFL served, together with the PCN, a purported Order for Recovery stating that I must, within 21 days, either pay the amount demanded, or file a statutory declaration with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. As none of the grounds for making a statutory declaration were available to me (I had received the PCN, and had made any representations or appeal against it), this amounted to nothing more than a demand that I pay the amount in full within 21 days. This correspondence included a warning that "If you do nothing your possessions may be removed and sold to pay this charge"; at this stage of the enforcement process such a statement was wholly unwarranted and amounted to oppressive / abusive conduct on the part of the enforcement authority.

Notwithstanding these grave and serious failings by TFL, on XX April 2018 I made formal representations against the penalty charge notice outlining the failings explained above. The approach TFL must follow is explained by Parliament in paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003:

It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—
(a)to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b)to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

Where the representations are rejected, paragraph 3 of schedule 1 provides that:

Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice
3 Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—
(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i)the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and
(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.

Instead of following the statutory process, TFL served a non-statutory letter on 14 May where it conceded that the original PCN did not contain some of the mandatory information, but asserting that a "new" PCN would be served instead. I then received this "new" PCN dated 15 May 2018.

TFL have therefore in their duty to consider my formal representations, and as TFL did not accept my representations and cancel the PCN, TFL has failed in its duty to issue a rejection of representations giving me the option to pay the penalty charge or appeal to the traffic adjudicator.

Furthermore, TFL has no power to issue a "new" PCN to correct earlier failings in these circumstances. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 provides that where a PCN is cancelled under that paragraph:

(1)Where representations are made under paragraph 1 above and the enforcing authority accept that the ground in question has been established they shall—
(a)cancel the penalty charge notice; and
(b)state in the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 1 above that the penalty charge notice has been cancelled.
(2)The cancellation of a penalty charge notice under this paragraph shall not be taken to prevent the enforcing authority serving a fresh penalty charge notice on another person.

Therefore TFL only has a power to cancel a PCN and issue a new one, when the new PCN is to be served on "another person". It follows that TFL has no power to cancel a PCN and issue a new one on the same person.

For all the reasons above, even if the contravention had occurred, the amount now demanded by TFL exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. The grave and substantial errors made by TFL throughout the enforcement process thus far mean that the only amount that may be lawfully demanded is zero.

I will add, as a somewhat academic point, that the alleged contravention did not occur because although I was stopped within the area marked by yellow hatchings, this area was outwith the limits of the junction and that is not a contravention.

I now look forward to your prompt confirmation that the penalty charge will be cancelled, I must point out that for TFL to continue enforcement at this point would be wholly unreasonable and should the matter be brought to the London Tribunals, I will be seeking a costs order against TFL.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sun, 27 May 2018 - 15:47

[Mad Mick V]

The "new" PCN kills their case --not on drugs----just a mindless pursuit of money which degrades their duty to be fair.

Mick

[logit]

Any advice on how to proceed with this chaps?

The person at TFL must be on drugs or something, at this point they're starting to appear wholly unreasonable.

I would submit this as formal representations (keep the italics, add in dates and the PCN number):
------------------------------------
Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to make representations against PCN XXXXXX on the grounds that the penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. My reasons are as follows: TFL originally served a PCN dated 5 April 2018, this PCN did not include any information as to how representations might be made against the PCN, and therefore failed to comply with section 4(8)((viii) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Even when applying the requisite standard of substantial compliance, and when read as a whole, the PCN did not come remotely close to satisfying the requirements of section 4(8)((viii) which requires that the PCN notify the recipient of his rights to make representations.

Instead TFL served, together with the PCN, a purported Order for Recovery stating that I must, within 21 days, either pay the amount demanded, or file a statutory declaration with the Traffic Enforcement Centre. As none of the grounds for making a statutory declaration were available to me (I had received the PCN, and had made any representations or appeal against it), this amounted to nothing more than a demand that I pay the amount in full within 21 days. This correspondence included a warning that "If you do nothing your possessions may be removed and sold to pay this charge"; at this stage of the enforcement process such a statement was wholly unwarranted and amounted to oppressive / abusive conduct on the part of the enforcement authority.

Notwithstanding these grave and serious failings by TFL, on XX April 2018 I made formal representations against the penalty charge notice outlining the failings explained above. The approach TFL must follow is explained by Parliament in paragraph 1(7) of schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003:

It shall be the duty of the enforcing authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—
(a)to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b)to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

Where the representations are rejected, paragraph 3 of schedule 1 provides that:

Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice
3 Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—
(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i)the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and
(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.

Instead of following the statutory process, TFL served a non-statutory letter on 14 May where it conceded that the original PCN did not contain some of the mandatory information, but asserting that a "new" PCN would be served instead. I then received this "new" PCN dated 15 May 2018.

TFL have therefore in their duty to consider my formal representations, and as TFL did not accept my representations and cancel the PCN, TFL has failed in its duty to issue a rejection of representations giving me the option to pay the penalty charge or appeal to the traffic adjudicator.

Furthermore, TFL has no power to issue a "new" PCN to correct earlier failings in these circumstances. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1 provides that where a PCN is cancelled under that paragraph:

(1)Where representations are made under paragraph 1 above and the enforcing authority accept that the ground in question has been established they shall—
(a)cancel the penalty charge notice; and
(b)state in the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 1 above that the penalty charge notice has been cancelled.
(2)The cancellation of a penalty charge notice under this paragraph shall not be taken to prevent the enforcing authority serving a fresh penalty charge notice on another person.

Therefore TFL only has a power to cancel a PCN and issue a new one, when the new PCN is to be served on "another person". It follows that TFL has no power to cancel a PCN and issue a new one on the same person.

For all the reasons above, even if the contravention had occurred, the amount now demanded by TFL exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. The grave and substantial errors made by TFL throughout the enforcement process thus far mean that the only amount that may be lawfully demanded is zero.

I will add, as a somewhat academic point, that the alleged contravention did not occur because although I was stopped within the area marked by yellow hatchings, this area was outwith the limits of the junction and that is not a contravention.

I now look forward to your prompt confirmation that the penalty charge will be cancelled, I must point out that for TFL to continue enforcement at this point would be wholly unreasonable and should the matter be brought to the London Tribunals, I will be seeking a costs order against TFL.

Thank you so much for this magnificent response! The help and advice on this forum is unparalleled! I'll send representations exactly along these lines and update you when I've heard from TfL. Thank you again!

[logit]

Hi all, just to update you on this.... I received a letter from TfL today informing me the representation has been accepted and the PCN is cancelled!

Thank you so much to you all, especially cp8759, for your brilliant help with this. It's actually quite shocking how TfL can try to get money from motorists in this way! I've no doubt that the majority will just pay up and don't know their rights!

Thanks again

[cp8759]

Well done, although to be fair they were never going to win this one. It's one of the most open and shut cases I've seen.