PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Help to challenge "Entering and stopping in a box junction" PCN
PCN_help
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 10:32
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,615



Hi All,

I'm a first time poster on here but could do with some help with this PCN I received please.

The contravention states: 31J- Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (Camera enforcement). I have attached the photographic evidence here for viewing, and there is also a video on Newham's site.

Please can anyone give me some advice as to how to proceed with this? During some of my research, I've seen some people challenge on the basis that "...the box junction does not go right up to the kerb as is required by law" - will this be a valid basis for challenging the PCN?

PS
I am concerned about the time left for challenging so I'll appreciate quick help. I would have posted sooner but I was on away from home and only returned recently.

Many thanks in advance.

This post has been edited by PCN_help: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 10:34
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 13)
Advertisement
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 10:32
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 10:57
Post #2


Member


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



PCN, Pictures etc ????

Host them on an external piccie hosting site such as flikr and link back to here.
If you can download the video and post that, ideal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PCN_help
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 11:32
Post #3


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,615



Thanks for getting back so quickly DancingDad.

Link here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/140308941@N08/?

Please let me know if it works.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 11:40
Post #4


Member


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



Video - you were about half in the box. Should have moved to outside lane.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 11:48
Post #5


Member


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



Can't see any relief here at all.
Box no longer needs to touch corners and being short is actually to benefit of drivers.

Missed discount as well so a challenge would at least give you chance to save.

Error of judgment, no obstruction caused, please use your discretion to cancel.
And apologies for not getting back sooner but was away (include proof) and could not respond earlier so any chance of the discount being available.

Best I got.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 13:01
Post #6


Member


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



If it where me. I'd go online. if they will still accept the discount pay it . If not ant they want the full amount. and they are entitled to it now, Make representations to the effect that the amount of the vehicle stopped within the box amounted to De minimis and should not attract a penalty

As per this case

2160332024

The allegation in these proceedings is that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. Upon a point being raised by the appellant as to the degree to which this vehicle was stationery within the box on it turning left into it on the council's poor quality video footage of the incident an supporting images taken therefrom although the vehicle stops with its back wheels positioned at the very edge of the box this infringement of box junction rules in that regard amounts to my mind no more than a de minimus breach of the prohibition and I am not accordingly satisfied that the contravention occurred.

and that you could have moved to the right as per this one

2170078458

Mr Preston does not dispute that his car stopped in this box junction at the time alleged by the Enforcement Authority, but put forward a number of arguments as to why he should not have been penalised. In essence he submitted that the traffic was moving steadily as he approached the junction, and that he could not from his point of view predict that the car in front of his would stop as it did, just beyond the box junction markings. He had made every effort to observe the box junction regulations. His car was only stationary for a short time, and in fact no obstruction was caused. He also questioned whether the box junction markings were compliant with the relevant regulations. I do not find that any of those points would give Mr Preston a ground of appeal.
However, having viewed the video footage of the incident provided by the Authority, I have formed the view that the contravention did not occur. Mr Preston’s car undoubtedly did enter the box junction and come to a halt within it. It is also the case that the car immediately ahead of his in the outside lane was stationary, and hence he could not have continued through the junction in that lane. (It actually appears that on the approach side of the junction there is only one lane, but that there are two beyond it, so it cannot strictly speaking be said that Mr Preston’s car was itself in the outside lane at the point when it approached or entered the junction.)
What is also evident is that the inside lane beyond the junction (marked with a Right Turn arrow on the road surface) was unobstructed for a distance that would readily have accommodated the full length of Mr Preston’s car, had he chosen to proceed into it rather than stopping (or indeed after stopping, since the space remained clear throughout the period during which his car remained stationary and even after it moved off). As he pointed out himself, his car had stopped only a short distance into the box junction, so such a manoeuvre would have been entirely feasible, without, for example, the necessity for him to reverse first (which might have been the case had he continued across the junction and stopped immediately behind the vehicle in front).
In his Notice of Appeal, Mr Preston referred to the cases of Gillingham –v- L.B. of Newham (2130193949) and Essoo –v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767), which he contended supported his case.
The decisions in both of those cases were in fact reviewed and overturned by a panel of Adjudicators on 8 October 2013 – see under Box Junctions in the Key Cases section of the London Tribunals/Environment and Traffic Adjudicators website - and no doubt that was the basis on which the Authority said in their Notice of Rejection, “A motorist cannot escape liability for a box junction contravention by the argument that he/she could have proceeded in another lane but chose not to do so, the motorist who enters the box junction and has to stop because of the 'presence of stationary vehicles on his/her chosen course commits the contravention.”
Paragraph 11 of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) provides (so far as is material to this appeal) that that a box junction marking, “…conveys the prohibition that a person must not 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.”
The issue therefore in this case is not whether Mr Preston’ car did stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles, but whether it had to do so. In my view it did not, as it remained open to Mr Preston at the point when he entered the junction, and even throughout the time his car was stationary, to move to the left into the empty inside lane and clear the junction.
If one considers the mischief that this box junction is aimed at, i.e. to keep a passage clear for vehicles entering from the side road, had such a vehicle approached the junction to enter the main road at the point when Mr Preston’ car was stationary in the box, he would have been able immediately to carry out what might be described as a “knight’s move” into the inside lane, thus clearing the junction of any obstruction.
I accept that this view is not one that was supported by the panel of Adjudicators in the above review cases, and that the Authority’s position is based on those decisions. However, as a preface to those review decisions the panel itself stated at paragraph 11, “It should be emphasised that Adjudicators are a Judicial Tribunal. They are not a Court of Record. Therefore, although the Adjudicators will have regard for each other’s decisions and treat them, where appropriate, as persuasive both as to accuracy of law and as to the desirability of consistency, that is the limit of the authority of their decisions. The same is, of course, true of this Panel Decision.”
I would of course advise Mr Preston in future to avoid even entering a box junction unless he can clearly see that there is already a space big enough to accommodate his car immediately beyond the junction and directly ahead of his car, but I am not satisfied that on this occasion the contravention as alleged occurred.
I therefore allow this appeal.


IMO neither of these are that strong, but the council may c**k up their response or re offer the discount if that happened I'd snatch their hand off


--------------------
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
PCN_help
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:09
Post #7


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,615



Thanks everyone for your input.

Just before I go back to Newham with my tail between my legs, does it make a difference if there is actually no junction to turn into?

The "junction" the box is protecting (the left hand side of the image in the direction my car is travelling in) is actually a pedestrianised zone so no vehicles can turn into or come from there. I've added the street view of the road in the link below.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/140308941@N08/?

Thanks again for all your contributions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:31
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (PCN_help @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:09) *
is actually a pedestrianised zone

But it's not?

Check the pay page to see how much they are asking and let us know.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PCN_help
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:45
Post #9


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 18 Feb 2018
Member No.: 96,615



Hi Neil B,

I mean cars can no longer turn into that "junction". Historically, there used to be a road there for cars to turn in and out of but the area has since been modified so cars are no longer allowed to use the road immediately around (to the left of) the box junction.

They are asking for £130 as I have missed the reduced period.

Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:54
Post #10


Member


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



I see your point - no brainer to take it to adjudication on this basis as as you're in for the full whack. But surely there is still vehicular access there?



This post has been edited by stamfordman: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Longtime Lurker
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:59
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,615



That's a "restricted parking zone" sign, not a no entry sign. The sign says cars can use the road on the left if they are loading in the marked bays, so I think you're clutching at straws there. It might add weight to a claim of 'de minimis', possibly?

Here's the GSV if anyone else wants to take a look: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5160195,0...33;8i6656?hl=en

This post has been edited by Longtime Lurker: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:59
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 15:03
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,265
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (PCN_help @ Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 14:45) *
Hi Neil B,

I mean cars can no longer turn into that "junction". Historically, there used to be a road there for cars to turn in and out of but the area has since been modified so cars are no longer allowed to use the road immediately around (to the left of) the box junction.

Again, no, vehicles are permitted -- to park.

As Stamf said, mat as well send reps anyway.


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 15:05
Post #13


Member


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



I would include 3 points:

- de minimis (only partly in box)
- outside lane was available
- junction now changed
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Sun, 18 Feb 2018 - 20:30
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,915
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



No point in paying now until an LT adjudicator tells you to, as the discount has done. However, if you appeal now they may re-offer the discount, and then you'd need to have a rethink as you're bang-to-rights basically/
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 - 19:21
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