PCN: YBJ Forest Road/Kingsley Road (Waltham Forest), Contravention 31 - rear of car in box |
PCN: YBJ Forest Road/Kingsley Road (Waltham Forest), Contravention 31 - rear of car in box |
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)
wfpcn_20181102_0002.tif ( 41.43K )
Number of downloads: 69
wfpcn_20181102_0001.tif ( 354.57K ) Number of downloads: 74 wfpcn_20181102_0003.tif ( 36.2K ) Number of downloads: 66 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 23:43
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 23:51
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
The council's video is the best thing to view.
From the pic on the PCN you had a clear right hand lane to move into! |
|
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 00:23
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 5 Nov 2009 Member No.: 33,440 |
I could not have moved right because the car behind me did - by the time it had passed I had no room to do so. I can view the council's video (and have) but I am not sure I have any way to allow others access.
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 11:18
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Message me the PCN details and I can put the video on YouTube.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 13:03
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 5 Nov 2009 Member No.: 33,440 |
Before going any further, I may have found out something relevant:
Based on my own knowledge of the lanes at the junction ahead, there was room for two small cars comfortably in the space. The one ahead stopped short of the next ahead after I had entered the box, therefore an unforeseeable obstruction not present as I reached the decision point. The move forward of the car ahead, allowing me to clear the box, before the lights changed, makes this even more the case. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 13:32
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Before going any further, I may have found out something relevant: Based on my own knowledge of the lanes at the junction ahead, there was room for two small cars comfortably in the space. The one ahead stopped short of the next ahead after I had entered the box, therefore an unforeseeable obstruction not present as I reached the decision point. The move forward of the car ahead, allowing me to clear the box, before the lights changed, makes this even more the case. You're describing something we still haven't seen. -------------------- |
|
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 15:41
Post
#7
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNNTaX5LIjc
It seems to be that the mini ahead of the OP's car left an unusually large gap, but still the contravention is technically complete. -------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 16:04
Post
#8
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
As Incand would say this is a venal money grubbing PCN. Offside wheel about on line of box and if you'd pulled up nearer to the Mini you would have been pretty much out.
I'd be tempted to put this in front of the adjudicator but not my money. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 17:23
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
If you freeze frame at 01 seconds you see the mini in front clear of the box, it is still moving and there is a huge space easily enough to accommodate your car. IMO you were entitled at entry to believe your exit would be clear, so as per the essoo case here and to a degree khan no contravention occurs
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...n%20v%20TfL.doc -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 19:47
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,919 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
As Incand would say this is a venal money grubbing PCN. Offside wheel about on line of box and if you'd pulled up nearer to the Mini you would have been pretty much out. I'd be tempted to put this in front of the adjudicator but not my money. "as Incand would say" Indeed, and I do say ! Actually it is venal and rapacious money-grubbing with no traffic management purpose whatsoever !! I would take them to London Tribunals on this one, but obviously it's not my money. |
|
|
Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 21:16
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
this one is also helpful
2180405914 The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. I have viewed the council's video footage of the incident. I am satisfied on it that this vehicle had to stop in this box due the presence of the stationery vehicle in front but it did so with just its back wheels on box junction markings it only doing so for perhaps 5 seconds and I am satisfied that that amounts to no more than a de minimus breach of box junction rules. I find for that reason that the contravention did not occur and I allow the appeal. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 10:37
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 5 Nov 2009 Member No.: 33,440 |
I have emailed a representation and am awaiting a response.
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 11:02
Post
#13
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Seen it now.
I echo the others. Disgracefully petty. -------------------- |
|
|
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 11:38
Post
#14
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
I have emailed a representation and am awaiting a response. show it to us -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 12:38
Post
#15
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
And when you receive their inevitable rejection, I suggest you add a further strand as regards de minimis.
In your opinion the incursion of your rear wheels into the hatched area is trivial but this has not been accepted by the authority. Therefore as they are prepared to argue their case on the margins you feel entitled and obliged to do the same. A yellow hatched area may be marked only to the limits of the junction and no further - see TSRGD etc, we'll flesh this out later. In this case the video shows a side road marked with a 'give way' road marking. This comprises two parallel dashed lines. In this case the inner line is marked to the kerb of the side road, the outer line being longer and marked to a point on the kerb radius. It could be argued that the junction should be no more than the width of the carriageway of the side road i.e. the shorter of the lines. But even if the junction exists to the extent of the longer line, this is still at least 6-12 inches LESS than the hatched marking which for reasons unknown extends beyond even the longer of the 'give way' markings. I suggest that at best, for the authority's case, the junction should be defined as that area of my carriageway at right-angles to the longer of the 'give way' markings. This would give none or at worst millimmetres of my car in contravention. There is at least one adjudication decision on this point. This post has been edited by hcandersen: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 12:38 |
|
|
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 16:03
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 5 Nov 2009 Member No.: 33,440 |
I have had acknowledgement of receipt of representation - it has made no difference to the "Manage my PCN" page, but then again I'm not sure it should.
The authority have not yet rejected the representation, and the discount period in the absence of one is up in a matter of days. Do I need to chase them for this, or do they have to answer and still allow me a period of discount if they reject the representation? The text of my representation: I write in representation against the above PCN. The relevant law is the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19 Part 2 Paragraph 7 subparagraph 1. This provides as follows: “Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, [box junctions] shall each convey the prohibition 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.” No other paragraph or subparagraph is applicable in this case. It is clear from this that no contravention occurs if, at the time the vehicle is caused to enter the box, that is, when the decision has to be made as to whether to stop or to proceed, there is no stationary vehicle preventing the intended exit from the box. It is clear from the CCTV footage that the vehicle for which I had to stop was not stationary at the time of my entry to the box, becoming so only after I entered it, stopping very short of the vehicle ahead. To not enter the box based on the traffic would have required an emergency stop, which, due to the level and flow of traffic behind, would have been risky, as well as needing at least 12 metres to execute, based on Highway Code stopping distance figures. Likewise, a change of lane would have been risky partly due to a vehicle from behind changing lane. The “View your PCN” page quotes section 174 of the Highway Code, but this itself is simply an interpretation of Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, so that is the only definitive reference. As the vehicle ahead was moving, and could have continued to move, this being evident by the Mini drawing forward sufficiently for me to clear the box before the lights holding the three vehicles including the taxi changed, its short stopping was a factor beyond my reasonable consideration at the point at which I had to decide whether to stop or to proceed. Adjudication in Essoo v. London Borough of Enfield, (case 2130232767), states: "In our view the Regulation, describing as it does a consequence that a vehicle has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles, does not thereby impose a necessity upon a driver that he must wait outside the box to see if traffic ahead will become stationary before he decides to enter. The traffic may still be moving when s/he enters and yet a contravention still occur... unless... the driver could not have predicted the reason for the stopping of the vehicles ahead." and in the very next paragraph "We have had regard to the relevant paragraph advising motorists in the Highway Code... However we are of the view that this steps rather beyond what is required by the Regulation. A driver may exercise a prediction in his judgment as to whether the exit space will be clear. He is not to blame if the exit is thereafter blocked by an unexpected event" - in my case, the unexpectedly short stopping of the Mini ahead. I know that stretch of road well, and there was definitely room for both the Mini and my Clio, but the Mini stopped short, drawing forward just before the lights changed. Also, my car was stopped with the back wheels almost on the end line of the box, not really obstructive or a traffic management issue, only minimally not clearing the box. In view of these factors and the adjudication quoted above, I do not accept that the contravention occurred, and therefore the PCN should be cancelled. |
|
|
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 18:45
Post
#17
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 38,006 Joined: 3 Dec 2010 Member No.: 42,618 |
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 were repealed in 2016, not a great start.
-------------------- If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 00:00
Post
#18
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 5 Nov 2009 Member No.: 33,440 |
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 were repealed in 2016, not a great start. Well, something else must have replaced them. I will have to find it and see what it says. If it's broadly the same I can't see much of a problem. I will, of course, check this point. |
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 09:04
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 were repealed in 2016, not a great start. Well, something else must have replaced them. I will have to find it and see what it says. If it's broadly the same I can't see much of a problem. I will, of course, check this point. Its TSRGD 2016 and is pretty much identical. -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 09:23
Post
#20
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 42 Joined: 5 Nov 2009 Member No.: 33,440 |
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 were repealed in 2016, not a great start. Well, something else must have replaced them. I will have to find it and see what it says. If it's broadly the same I can't see much of a problem. I will, of course, check this point. Its TSRGD 2016 and is pretty much identical. I've had a look but haven't found all the relevant bits yet. Will keep looking. Today is the 9th day since the representation. As I had the acknowledgement email, do I need to chase a reply or is the onus on them to do so? I have checked my mail logs - there has been no attempt made to contact me about this. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:46 |