PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN stopping in a box junction - ROMFORD ROAD / Fourth Ave, Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Mocede
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 23:23
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,540



Hi all, first of all thanks to Stamfordman for helping me get here.
I have received a pcn for entering and stopping in a box junction while travelling to London recently.
Letter and video link to follow.
I need help to challenge this pcn. Can anyone here please help me?

Sorry I am new here so if there is anything I missed please correct me.


For some reason my pcn photo won't upload?

Had to reduce file size. Here they are.
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 53)
Advertisement
post Tue, 23 Apr 2019 - 23:23
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mocede
post Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 15:24
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,540



Thanks for that add up Neil B. It does clear up a lot of things in my head.
The crossing is 2 cars in front of me, don’t think I can say I left a clear crossing?

Thinking about time consumption, I am in a very awkward predicament at the moment.
I have this crazy 3 year old boy (best thing in my life) literally eats my time and wife due to deliver anytime as her date is less than 4 weeks.
Newham have really caught me at a very very bad time. I can’t even think what’s best for me in this situation?
It’s the time that I don’t really have at the moment ...it’s always the time we don’t have but we can always spend it.

Also as stamf said adjudicator can be fickle. So is it worth going through all this in my given situation for £65? Or is it worth running myself down for a win or lose?

I have until the 19/06/19 to pay reduced price of £65 so will wait it out and see what else others would suggest.

Big thank you to all who have posted so far 🙏🏻
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 15:43
Post #42


Member


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



My thoughts were in relation to what I've found myself considering for all of my own and some others.

Re 'time' and is it complex, you've reached the wrong conclusion. No, yours it not.

Re the crossing, I can't see where the vid is now?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mocede
post Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 15:54
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,540



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 16:43) *
My thoughts were in relation to what I've found myself considering for all of my own and some others.

Re 'time' and is it complex, you've reached the wrong conclusion. No, yours it not.

Re the crossing, I can't see where the vid is now?


Sorry I deleted old video and uploaded new clearer one here.

https://youtu.be/U9xCAwEUiqg

This post has been edited by Mocede: Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 15:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 17:04
Post #44


Member


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



I am a bit sceptical re the stop but I look to the NOR

The council effectively define de minimis in the view (5 seconds ) but are seeking to enforce a stop of less

The council quote TSRGD 2002 these were revoked an replaced by TSRGD 2016

The council say any stop is a contravention. Not true only a stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles is a contravention

You have been offered the discount again, how can you make a reasoned decision when you have been given inaccurate info

I also think along the lines of Neilb save the cost of a cup of coffee a week between now and when you would have to pay ( more like 3 months than 6 weeks) you would save the difference if you lost


--------------------
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
Mocede
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 15:54
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,540



QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 15:08) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 14 Jun 2019 - 22:33) *
Well the decision is whether to go to adjudication at the full rate or pay discount. Wait for more views. It is possible Newham won't contest if you call their bluff. Strictly speaking the contravention did not occur but adjudicator can be fickle. There is also the brief nature of the stop.


When weighing up that choice, for my own cases in the past, I work roughly like this >

> Was there actually a contravention and, if arguable, can I present my arguments clearly?
> Do I feel I've done wrong, generally?
> Do I feel I've been fairly treated by Newham and is their rejection reasonable?
> My finances; £65 now vs £0 or £130 in 6+ weeks time?
> Apart from waiting time, is it complex legally/technically hence likely to take up a lot of my personal time?

Roughly.

Attending a tribunal hearing is a worthwhile experience, win or lose.

There's actually an upside to a loss: You know that you've stood your ground, had your say, been listened to
at last, your points properly examined and considered.

On balance, I think you have a good chance and certainly a possibility Newham won't contest.



Absolutely appreciate the weighing up of cases of your own and others.
I think it’s a really good way to look at it and I agree with it totally so I tried it on my case and it just logically tells me to go ahead and appeal to tribunal but what I was trying to say, it’s that little extra stress and weight of it on my shoulders for the next 3 months for the predicament I’m in. I am concluding up the wrong end don’t know why?

Maybe I got too much on my plate. I feel like taking a break however still in 2 minds.

Thanks for that update pastmybest.

Cheeky Newham misquote with revoked tsrgd!
Would you happen to know where does my driving fault actually lie in tsrgd2016?

This post has been edited by Mocede: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 15:49
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 16:29
Post #46


Member


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



QUOTE (Mocede @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 16:54) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 15 Jun 2019 - 15:08) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Fri, 14 Jun 2019 - 22:33) *
Well the decision is whether to go to adjudication at the full rate or pay discount. Wait for more views. It is possible Newham won't contest if you call their bluff. Strictly speaking the contravention did not occur but adjudicator can be fickle. There is also the brief nature of the stop.


When weighing up that choice, for my own cases in the past, I work roughly like this >

> Was there actually a contravention and, if arguable, can I present my arguments clearly?
> Do I feel I've done wrong, generally?
> Do I feel I've been fairly treated by Newham and is their rejection reasonable?
> My finances; £65 now vs £0 or £130 in 6+ weeks time?
> Apart from waiting time, is it complex legally/technically hence likely to take up a lot of my personal time?

Roughly.

Attending a tribunal hearing is a worthwhile experience, win or lose.

There's actually an upside to a loss: You know that you've stood your ground, had your say, been listened to
at last, your points properly examined and considered.

On balance, I think you have a good chance and certainly a possibility Newham won't contest.



Absolutely appreciate the weighing up of cases of your own and others.
I think it’s a really good way to look at it and I agree with it totally so I tried it on my case and it just logically tells me to go ahead and appeal to tribunal but what I was trying to say, it’s that little extra stress and weight of it on my shoulders for the next 3 months for the predicament I’m in. I am concluding up the wrong end don’t know why?

Maybe I got too much on my plate. I feel like taking a break however still in 2 minds.

Thanks for that update pastmybest.

Cheeky Newham misquote with revoked tsrgd!
Would you happen to know where does my driving fault actually lie in tsrgd2016?


Schedule 9 part 4 paragraph 11 I think. The contravention is identical but that is not the point


No need to stress, if you decide to appeal bump the thread to remind me at the end of the month and I will draft an appeal for you.

It will win and you pay nothing or it will lose and you owe £130 but you will have saved a big chunk of that , All you have to do is submit the appeal and answer any questions we might have

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 16:33


--------------------
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 Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 16:31
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Would you happen to know where does my driving fault actually lie in tsrgd2016?


According to you, it doesn't.

Their NOR is falsely reasoned:
1. The contravention is:
Box junctions

11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 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 contravention is so lengthy that authorities are permitted to shorten the description in a PCN to '...where prohibited', but this does not mean that the authority can attach any meaning they like to 'prohibited', they cannot.

They say...'any stopping within the box junction is a contravention'.

Au contraire!

The Key Case decision on LT's website which is a detailed and wide-ranging decision by senior adjudicator Houghton states the following:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...14031217350.pdf

Had the adjudicator himself not used the following expression then I would have been loath to do so for fear that I might be seen as being frivolous or facetious, however his lengthy decision does state:

'..if the vehicle stops because, for example, the driver wishes to read a book or light a pipe...it seems to me that this contravention would not have been committed. It is a question fact that any adjudicator to conclude what the operative reason for stopping in the junction was' (I apologise for the last sentence, no doubt a typo in the adjudicator's draft, but I felt I had to let it stand rather than to insert/adjust words.)

I cannot recall the exact reason I stopped (which is what you've submitted) , on reviewing the video I can see that there was sufficient room for me to exit the junction (in this respect, I would draw particular attention to the adjudicator's use of the word 'junction' whose meaning is not synonymous with the extent of the markings, as in this case).
I did not stop because of the presence of a stationary vehicle, in fact I wonder now whether my concern was whether the car ahead might possibly reverse, it is difficult to tell from the video ( don't put this part if it played no part in your reasoning.)

But only if you decide to carry on.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 20:21
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



If you carry on, this case is relevant:

Eyong Besong v Transport for London (2180132152, 03 May 2018)
The Appellant makes a relatively simple point: how can I be satisfied that the Respondent has properly considered her
representations when they have made references to the incorrect law? Or perhaps properly, how can I be satisfied that they
have met their statutory duty?
The Respondent made reference to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, these were revoked by Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016/362 Sch.19(1) para.1 on 22 April 2016, before this contravention is said to
have occurred.
The Respondent acknowledges the error but avers it matters not as the prohibition is identical. Whilst I do not demur from that
as a statement of fact, it is not a sufficient rebuttal to the Appellant's point.
In my view, it would be wrong for this Tribunal to find that the Respondent has fulfilled its statutory duty to consider
representations when it has referred to the incorrect statutory framework.
It follows that I allow the appeal.


--------------------
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
Gert
post Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 21:17
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 838
Joined: 15 May 2019
Member No.: 103,884



Your vehicle entered the box junction when there WAS its' length between the rear of the vehicle in front and the end of the box junction markings. On that basis the contravention genuinely did not occur. There was no presence of stationary vehicles as stated in a post above. As per 174 Highway Code, your exit was clear.

You should challenge the LA case and appeal to the Tribunal if they are unable to grasp the nuance and reject your reps .



Your vehicle entered the box junction when there WAS its' length between the rear of the vehicle in front and the end of the box junction markings. On that basis the contravention genuinely did not occur. There was no presence of stationary vehicles as stated in a post above. As per 174 Highway Code, your exit was clear.

You should challenge the LA case and appeal to the Tribunal if they are unable to grasp the nuance and reject your reps .

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mocede
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 18:19
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,540



Thanks for the replies and cases everyone.

As I already initially submitted that I do not exactly remember why I stopped in the box, I have been thinking if I take this to tribunal, what else I could say that will justify myself for stopping short?
Obviously when the adjudicator views the video he will clearly see I pulled up short and there was space ahead for me not to be in the yellow box.

I have viewed the video so many times and I still can’t find anything to blame. Even to this day I can’t really recall why I did that? All I know is I was lost in Newham.

I feel 80% negative, not that I did wrong just as a whole on a win or lose basis and my reasons.

I will update on here what I end up deciding tomorrow.

Many many thanks to all here, who have taken their time to read, reply and help me in this matter.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Longtime Lurker
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 18:55
Post #51


Member


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



You don't have to remember why you stopped. You're being accused of stopping "due to the presence of stationary vehicles", and as long as you can show it wasn't that, you'll win. You don't need a good reason to stop, you just need it not to be *that* reason, "I decided to stop and have a picnic" would be an acceptable reason, and "I can't remember, guess I just felt like it" would too.

This post has been edited by Longtime Lurker: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 18:57
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 19:12
Post #52


Member


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



QUOTE (Mocede @ Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 19:19) *
As I already initially submitted that I do not exactly remember why I stopped in the box

To the council.
Adjudicator is a different ball game.

btw, you do understand you don't have to attend?


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

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mocede
post Tue, 18 Jun 2019 - 19:18
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,540



Neilb I wasn’t aware at first but someone here did inform me I do not need to attend .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mocede
post Thu, 20 Jun 2019 - 11:29
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Member No.: 103,540



After careful consideration I have decided to pay Newham £65 today.

I totally grudge paying it to them but really caught me at a very bad time.
I don’t actually have the time to keep up with this as I mentioned I have way too much on my plate at the moment and for this reason alone I feel a relief even though i unfairly threw away £65.

To all on this forum who have helped me and kept me posted, i thank you very much and I really appreciate your time and help.
It has been an experience and it’s also been a pleasure talking with you all on here.

Thanks to all.
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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 22:10
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