PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

London Borough of Waltham Forest PCN, Contravention 31 - Entering and stopping in a box junction
efunc
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 23:29
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



Hello all,

I would be very grateful indeed if someone could offer me some advice on the following, even if it’s to say it’s a slam dunk and I should just cough up, should that be the case!

Local Authority: London Borough of Waltham Forest
In: Hall Lane E4 / Albert Crescent E4 (cctv)
Contravention 31 - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited

Video evidence: https://youtu.be/_6LnS8yj4mI

Street view: https://tinyurl.com/y787whq2

Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image


"No5 in the list of highest-earning box junctions across London’s 32 boroughs, over the past 18 months.” according to this article:
http://www.times-series.co.uk/news/1477879...or_the_council/

'Number of PCNs issued and representations made' available here under Freedom of Information request:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/4278...chment.doc.html


Incident summery:

I am in the Black Golf, stuck behind the Green Fiesta on the right hand lane.

I was proceeding along Hall Lane (A1009) and intending to continue straight on across the junction over the traffic lights.

I am completely unfamiliar with this area never having been through here before. The traffic light is green, I can see there are no obstructions ahead, the traffic is moving forward and I enter the box junction as the Fiesta in front of me is leaving it. As I get to the other side the traffic stops, but the lights are still green and the road ahead still looks clear so I’m confused as I can’t see any cause for the sudden stop. I believed the left lane was a filter lane only for vehicles turning left and the right lane is for traffic moving straight ahead, but I now realise I’m in the wrong lane and so attempt to indicate left and change to the correct lane, which is clear of traffic and still moving. I now realise I have no room to manoeuvre and so have to edge out after reversing a little bit. In my defence I am not impeding traffic flow and there is still enough clearance for cars emerging out of Albert Crescent to turn both left and right across the box junction. When safe to do so I move into the clear lane and resume proceeding along the A1009, however the lights have now turned red.

Yes, it’s all a little messy, but it was a combination of an unfamiliar junction to me and one which is slightly counter-intuitive: i.e. the junction is a little offset as can be seen on a map, so the way ahead is to the right and it looks like the right lane is the correct position to be to go forward. With that in mind the green light and clear road ahead made it seem like it was perfectly safe to now enter the box junction.

How should I pursue this, if at all?

Thank you for reading!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 11 Apr 2018 - 23:29
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 07:44
Post #2


Member


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



Forget green lights, forget traffic moving, the fact is neither of these are grounds for an appeal. The contravention is an absolute one, being stopped in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles. You drove into the box without hesitation behind the green car, no pause to wait for a space beyond the box which is what you have to do to make sure you cross the box without stopping. Due to the cash sums generated for very little cost, virtually all YBJs in London are enforced by CCTV, in fact the government have refused to open up this YBJ cash earner to councils outside London under the TMA 2004 because they have presumably realised how unpopular it would be.

Looking at the video, I reckon an appeal to London Tribunals would fail, but see what the others say. There may, of course, be fatal errors in the PCN that would succeed at adjudication.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 07:47
Post #3


Member


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



Quicker thinking and you could have driven into the left lane almost immediately and avoided the contravention.

As it stands you charged into the box without waiting for a gap in the lane you were in.

There may be faults in the PCN so we'll look at that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 09:36
Post #4


Member


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



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 08:47) *
Quicker thinking and you could have driven into the left lane almost immediately and avoided the contravention.

As it stands you charged into the box without waiting for a gap in the lane you were in.

There may be faults in the PCN so we'll look at that.


there are faults in the PCN. My tactic would be to make an argument re the contravention, you being prevented from immediately executing the manoeuvre you did to move left by the car behind undertaking you at speed then a pretty detailed analysis of the PCN pointing out both the statutory faults and the deceptive layout. (nothing about reps til page 3)


--------------------
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
efunc
post Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 10:20
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 10:36) *
there are faults in the PCN. My tactic would be to make an argument re the contravention, you being prevented from immediately executing the manoeuvre you did to move left by the car behind undertaking you at speed then a pretty detailed analysis of the PCN pointing out both the statutory faults and the deceptive layout. (nothing about reps til page 3)

I see, thanks all for the advice. Yes, the car undertaking me to the left is a pretty thin thread to hang things on, but it's hope nonetheless. What are the mistakes in the PCN you've referred to? Are they glaring ones and have they succeeded in the past?

thanks again
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
efunc
post Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 10:32
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 08:44) *
Forget green lights, forget traffic moving, the fact is neither of these are grounds for an appeal. The contravention is an absolute one, being stopped in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles. You drove into the box without hesitation behind the green car, no pause to wait for a space beyond the box which is what you have to do to make sure you cross the box without stopping.

This is absolutely true. It was a mix of being unfamiliar with the road layout and trying to quickly determine where I should be. I clearly dropped the ball. All the traffic ahead of me however, as shown in the clip, also charged into the box, pretty much bumper to bumper and carried on across. I at least left several car lengths in the assumption that things would be alright on the other side of the box. But I was the one that got caught out. Presumably none of this constitutes any form of mitigating evidence or is worth pointing out in combination with stronger arguments about the PCN?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 10:35
Post #7


Member


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



QUOTE (efunc @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 11:20) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 10:36) *
there are faults in the PCN. My tactic would be to make an argument re the contravention, you being prevented from immediately executing the manoeuvre you did to move left by the car behind undertaking you at speed then a pretty detailed analysis of the PCN pointing out both the statutory faults and the deceptive layout. (nothing about reps til page 3)

I see, thanks all for the advice. Yes, the car undertaking me to the left is a pretty thin thread to hang things on, but it's hope nonetheless. What are the mistakes in the PCN you've referred to? Are they glaring ones and have they succeeded in the past?

thanks again


One glaring one re when they are allowed to issue a charge certificate. This has won on its own. I will explain later if others do not


--------------------
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 Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 17:24
Post #8


Member


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



QUOTE (efunc @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 11:32) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 08:44) *
Forget green lights, forget traffic moving, the fact is neither of these are grounds for an appeal. The contravention is an absolute one, being stopped in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles. You drove into the box without hesitation behind the green car, no pause to wait for a space beyond the box which is what you have to do to make sure you cross the box without stopping.

This is absolutely true. It was a mix of being unfamiliar with the road layout and trying to quickly determine where I should be. I clearly dropped the ball. All the traffic ahead of me however, as shown in the clip, also charged into the box, pretty much bumper to bumper and carried on across. I at least left several car lengths in the assumption that things would be alright on the other side of the box. But I was the one that got caught out. Presumably none of this constitutes any form of mitigating evidence or is worth pointing out in combination with stronger arguments about the PCN?

Unfortunately not, this is civil law that works on the basis that if a set of statutory conditions are met a penalty is payable. The only people who can accept mitigation and cancel the PCN are the authority that issued it and who keep all the money if it is paid. They are hardly going to be unbiased when taking a decision, are they ? Yes, it stinks, but Parliament saw fit to pass the legislation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
efunc
post Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 03:27
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 18:24) *
Unfortunately not, this is civil law that works on the basis that if a set of statutory conditions are met a penalty is payable.

Understood. Thanks for clarification. I had written a mitigating defence on the contravention based on being undertaken and then not being able to get into the left lane, but I'm not sure of the value of this now:

"On the 30th March 2018 I was proceeding eastbound along Hall Lane (A1009) and intending to continue straight on across the junction, remaining on the A1009. I was in a queue of slow moving traffic immediately prior to the box junction. As the Ford Fiesta directly in front of me moved ahead and exited the junction I went forward to continue my journey since the forward (left) lane was clear. As I did so I noticed the silver car behind me accelerating and entering my blind spot to the left. It undertook me at speed which I observed in my nearside mirror. Instead of taking the left lane as intended I now remained in the right lane behind the green Fiesta attempting to cross the box junction and unable to manoeuvre fully into the left lane where my exit was clear. I eventually did so to continue along New Road and the A1009 as planned."

Regarding the matter of wording on the PCN, is it this paragraph on Page 2?

"If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge of £195 may be payable (this is a 50% increase of the Penalty Charge amount). We may then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount. At this stage it would be too late to make representations."

What's the conflation here others have referred to, and what's the best way to present it?

Thanks in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 13 Apr 2018 - 09:30
Post #10


Member


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



Your appeal text re the circumstances is fine, just don't expect them to cancel based on it, although you could be lucky !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
efunc
post Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 06:44
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 10:36) *
there are faults in the PCN. My tactic would be to make an argument re the contravention, you being prevented from immediately executing the manoeuvre you did to move left by the car behind undertaking you at speed then a pretty detailed analysis of the PCN pointing out both the statutory faults and the deceptive layout. (nothing about reps til page 3)

It's been 10 days since the PCN was issued so I guess I should really get on top of this now in order to qualify for the discounted penalty. My representation regarding the circumstances are relatively weak I would imagine since they really don't need to consider them at all. However I would be very grateful if you could expand on the faults in the PCN. Are you referring to the paragraph on page 2? Could you indicate how I should argue this and if it would help me to cite any past judgements?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
efunc
post Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 17:52
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



Am I right in thinking the faults in the PCN are not very significant, or not worth pursuing? Could anyone confirm by viewing the document in the first post please? Many thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 18:04
Post #13


Member


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



QUOTE (efunc @ Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 18:52) *
Am I right in thinking the faults in the PCN are not very significant, or not worth pursuing? Could anyone confirm by viewing the document in the first post please? Many thanks.

As PASTMYBEST has said, the flaw in the PCN can win on its own so while you should make the other arguments, you should not ignore this one. The essence is this: Paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/paragraph/5/enacted) says a charge certificate may be issued if there has been no payment and no representations by the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN is served.. The date of service is deemed to be two business days *after* the date of the PCN. The PCN is misleading because it suggests they can increase the penalty and issue a charge certificate 28 days from the date of the PCN, so they are effectively depriving you of two days in which you could still, by law, either pay the full charge or make representations.


--------------------
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
efunc
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 05:02
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



Thank you for the assistance, that was very helpful! I'm having a little trouble with the wording and I need to submit this later today. I wonder if someone could please check the below and advise if it reads correctly?

---

I am making representations on the grounds (1) That the contravention did not occur, and (2) that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

(1) On the 30th March 2018 I was proceeding eastbound along Hall Lane (A1009) and intending to continue straight on across the junction, remaining on the A1009. I was in a queue of slow moving traffic immediately prior to the box junction. As the Ford Fiesta directly in front of me moved ahead and exited the junction I went forward to continue my journey since the forward (left) lane was clear. As I did so I noticed the silver car behind me accelerating and entering my blind spot to the left. It undertook me at speed which I observed in my nearside mirror causing me to hesitate out of concerns for safety. Instead of taking the left lane as intended I now remained in the right lane behind the green Fiesta attempting to cross the box junction and unable to manoeuvre fully into the left lane where my exit was clear. I eventually did so to continue along New Road and the A1009 as planned.

(2) This Penalty Charge Notice was issued under section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Section 4(8)(a) of the Act provides that a penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state ... (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; ... (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; ... and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.
In this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: ' If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge of £195 may be payable (this is a 50% increase of the Penalty Charge amount). We may then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount. At this stage it would be too late to make representations.'
It is submitted that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time I have to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued. The date of service is deemed to be two business days after the date of the PCN. The PCN issued suggests that the London Borough of Waltham Forest can increase the penalty and issue a charge certificate 2 days before the date stipulated by law.

----

Thank you
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
efunc
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 14:20
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



Is the above technically worded correctly, or is there anything that needs to be dropped/amended? Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 16:30
Post #16


Member


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



QUOTE (efunc @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 15:20) *
Is the above technically worded correctly, or is there anything that needs to be dropped/amended? Thanks


looks ok to me


--------------------
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
efunc
post Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 17:06
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 17:30) *
QUOTE (efunc @ Wed, 18 Apr 2018 - 15:20) *
Is the above technically worded correctly, or is there anything that needs to be dropped/amended? Thanks


looks ok to me

Thank you very much. Will submit today and report back. Thanks for the help.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
efunc
post Thu, 19 Apr 2018 - 05:29
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



Well, the first hitch I've encountered is that their online form submission is broken, which is frustrating given that I've left it till the last day. The form submission produces an error on multiple attempts using different browsers, so the appeal can't be sent. I've had to email it instead and have received an email receipt, so that's sufficient. It's possible they take the systems offline outside of business hours, like some banks, but there is nothing to suggest that on the website. Worth noting though for other forum members.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
efunc
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 09:52
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Member No.: 21,871



Well, I'd submitted my representation on time and have now received a response saying the inevitable, that the PCN is valid.

Here is the video evidence: https://youtu.be/higyaj_RJ48

And my representation:

QUOTE
Dear sir/madam,

I am appealing against the above PCN on the grounds (1) That the contravention did not occur, and (2) That the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case.

(1) On the ** ***** 2018 I was proceeding eastbound along Hall Lane (A1009) and intending to continue straight on across the junction, remaining on the A1009. I was in a queue of slow moving traffic immediately prior to the box junction. As the traffic lights turned green and the Ford Fiesta directly in front of me moved ahead and exited the junction I went forward to continue my journey since the forward (left) lane was clear. As I did so I noticed the silver car behind me accelerating and entering my blind spot to the left. It undertook me at speed which I observed in my nearside mirror causing me to hesitate out of concern for safety. Instead of taking the left lane as intended I now remained in the right lane behind the green Fiesta attempting to cross the box junction and unable to manoeuvre fully into the left lane where my exit was still clear. I eventually did so to continue along New Road and the A1009 as planned.

(2) This Penalty Charge Notice was issued under section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Section 4(8)(a) of the Act provides that a penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state ... (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; ... (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; ... and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.
In this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: ' If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge of £195 may be payable (this is a 50% increase of the Penalty Charge amount). We may then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount. At this stage it would be too late to make representations.'
It is submitted that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time I have to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued. The date of service is deemed to be two business days after the date of the PCN. The PCN issued suggests that the London Borough of Waltham Forest can increase the penalty and issue a Charge Certificate 2 days before the date stipulated by law. This is a procedural impropriety on the Local Authority’s part.

Considering the above, I request that the penalty charge and the PCN must be cancelled.


The council's response is attached below:

Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image


Attached Image

Attached Image


I'm disappointed that they did not consider the circumstances and that my exit lane was indeed clear, but would I be best advised to pay the discounted rate at this point?

This post has been edited by efunc: Tue, 8 May 2018 - 10:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 8 May 2018 - 10:43
Post #20


Member


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



i would be fighting all the way. The rejection does not consider your points at all, and statute requires that it does. but no guarantees so your choice


--------------------
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

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 - 06:50
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