PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN: YBJ Forest Road/Kingsley Road (Waltham Forest), Contravention 31 - rear of car in box
Ephraim Monk
post 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)
Attached File  wfpcn_20181102_0002.tif ( 41.43K ) Number of downloads: 69
Attached File  wfpcn_20181102_0001.tif ( 354.57K ) Number of downloads: 74
Attached File  wfpcn_20181102_0003.tif ( 36.2K ) Number of downloads: 66
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Sat, 17 Nov 2018 - 23:43
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post 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!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 13:32
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Ephraim Monk @ Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 13:03) *
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.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 19:47
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,919
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Sun, 18 Nov 2018 - 16:04) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post 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.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 11:38
Post #14


Member


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



QUOTE (Ephraim Monk @ Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 10:37) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post 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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 00:00
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,440



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 18:45) *
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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 09:04
Post #19


Member


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



QUOTE (Ephraim Monk @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 00:00) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 18:45) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ephraim Monk
post Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 09:23
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 42
Joined: 5 Nov 2009
Member No.: 33,440



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 09:04) *
QUOTE (Ephraim Monk @ Wed, 28 Nov 2018 - 00:00) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 27 Nov 2018 - 18:45) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 04:46
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