PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN from Hammersmith and Fulham, Timings of contacting me for PCN
Owler
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 17:19
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,500



Hi Guys,

I am new to this forum but I have received a PCN from Hammersmith and Fulham Council, stating an entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited offence. I am not from the area and was down there for the football, I do not know the area and was just following the sat nav in traffic. The offence is clear and correct but there is 42 day delay between the offence and the date of the notice. I lease my car and the lease firm charged me £12 to retrieve my details for H&F back in September, also the notice i dated the 6th and sent first class but it's 12th today when I received it.

Now I thought that they had 14 days from either the offence or retrieving my details or this notice could be quashed as not handled in a timely manner....

Where do I stand with this, many thanks.



This post has been edited by Owler: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 - 08:08
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 35)
Advertisement
post Thu, 12 Oct 2017 - 17:19
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 15:37
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,089
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Owler @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 15:11) *
I have had to Quicktime screen grab it but its 170MB ish and won't upload to here sadly


https://youtu.be/tPYE0xYrjW8 is the video

Looking at that, no chance.

--
Your topic seems to have been hijacked, albeit initially well intentioned.
I'm sorry that I've been complicit in that.
Cab Driver should start his own thread.


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 16:28
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,309
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



I'm sure we've had this junction before. And as I recall we were successful by arguing that this is a right turn at a Tee junction.
"(2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person—
(a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right; and
(b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn."

The video evidence clearly shows traffic exiting Butterwick (the stem of the Tee) and then turning right (towards the camera on the right arm of the Tee) onto the road alongside the flyover. Approaching traffic from the left (left arm of the Tee) is held by the red traffic lights. And these waiting cars can also been seen in the camera shot. They can't enter the box to go straight across until their light is green and the exit from the YBJ is clear. But those entering from Butterwick when their light is green are clearly turning right.

This post has been edited by Enceladus: Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 16:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 17:24
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,089
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



The exemption doesn't apply, simply because it's unworkable in such a scenario.

By that thinking, all of the red vehicles below are not in contravention.

RT exemption NOT by Neil Black, on Flickr


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Owler
post Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 07:39
Post #24


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,500



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 16:37) *
QUOTE (Owler @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 15:11) *
I have had to Quicktime screen grab it but its 170MB ish and won't upload to here sadly


https://youtu.be/tPYE0xYrjW8 is the video

Looking at that, no chance.

--
Your topic seems to have been hijacked, albeit initially well intentioned.
I'm sorry that I've been complicit in that.
Cab Driver should start his own thread.


No chance of appeal...?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 08:14
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,309
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



I can only find one other case for this junction that went to Adjudication. That's from 2011, was lost, and the layout of the yellow box has apparently changed since then. So there's not a single case, that I can find, for the junction as it is now. So that suggests that LBH&F eventually cave in and don't want to risk the Adjudicator. I can't believe, given the probable volume of PCNs, that nobody has tried.

Traffic approaching along Butterwick encounters road markings directing them to turn left or right in the nearside lane. And directing them to turn right in all of the offside lanes. There is no ahead option. That implies that this is a right turn at a Tee junction.

Nor can you reliably see the exit form the box before you enter it. Your view will always be obstructed by vehicles in the other lanes.

Your option to pay at the discount expired yesterday. It might still be accepted if the computer system has not yet updated, you would need to check on the LBH&F website. If there is no discount then you might as well fight all the way to the Adjudicator as you have no financial incentive to do otherwise.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 08:19
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,848
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



@Enceladus. I think you've missed a bit.

Accepting that the markings relate to item 25 in the Sign Table of Part 6, then AIUI the exemption regarding turning right applies only when the markings fall within 11(6)(a) - junction between two or more roads- and does not apply when the markings are placed at a roundabout or gyratory which is (6)(b), which is the case here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 08:38
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,309
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



What is there to indicate a roundabout?

And I'm not saying it's right or wrong. I'm laying out some facts and the consequences. So if the discount is no longer available then the OP might as well challenge. And unless I am mistaken, LBH&F haven't let a single case concerning the 2012 re-layout of the box to reach the Adjudicator.

OK Seems the search function on the LT site wasn't working properly last night. Looks like there are 28 appeals and they were mostly refused.

The Secretary of State's authorisation does refer to the junction as part of the Hammersmith Gyratory.

Nonetheless there is a YBJ across a stretch of Talgarth Rd at the mouth of Butterwick. A vehicle can enter the YBJ from the east and go straight across to the west side. Or a vehicle can enter the box from the north side, from Butterwick as is the case here, and turn right onto Talgarth. The road markings indicate a turn right.

This post has been edited by Enceladus: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 09:37
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 09:30
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,089
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 09:38) *
And unless I am mistaken, LBH&F haven't let a single case concerning the 2012 re-layout of the box to reach the Adjudicator.

39 since 1/1/2016 ?


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 09:51
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,089
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



217002454A supports you and is 100% wrong.

For the reason shown in my pic of similar Bagleys Lane.

When would traffic from the left ever get to proceed?

and same adjudicator in 2170340980 forgot any such exemption.

Overall score 29 lost 7 won + 3 default wins.

Edit.

Uh? now seeing 90 ! ?

This post has been edited by Neil B: Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 10:01


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Enceladus
post Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 10:25
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 5,309
Joined: 14 Jan 2009
Member No.: 25,447



Somethings up with the LT register. The number of results returned for any given search criteria are varying.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 10:38
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,089
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Enceladus @ Fri, 20 Oct 2017 - 11:25) *
Somethings up with the LT register. The number of results returned for any given search criteria are varying.

It does seem to be 90 again for that period 1/1/16 +


--------------------
17/10/11.

Sme f yu may have nticed I dn't currently have a letter ' ' n my keybard!!!!

S if I appear t be talking mre gibberish than nrmal then that's the answer - the missing 'o' --<<<< Aha, clever eh!? (reserve on-screen keyboard)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Owler
post Wed, 8 Nov 2017 - 18:03
Post #32


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,500



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 15:37) *
QUOTE (Owler @ Thu, 19 Oct 2017 - 15:11) *
I have had to Quicktime screen grab it but its 170MB ish and won't upload to here sadly


https://youtu.be/tPYE0xYrjW8 is the video

Looking at that, no chance.

--
Your topic seems to have been hijacked, albeit initially well intentioned.
I'm sorry that I've been complicit in that.
Cab Driver should start his own thread.


I've had a letter rejecting my representation and requesting that I pay up the reduced price within 14 days, despite all the evidence and the poor visibility of the exit from the entry point, they use capital letters in their response many times to scare people into just paying which is what I am going to do I think just to get rid of the issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Wed, 8 Nov 2017 - 18:49
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 2,860
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
I've had a letter rejecting my representation and requesting that I pay up the reduced price within 14 days, despite all the evidence and the poor visibility of the exit from the entry point, they use capital letters in their response many times to scare people into just paying which is what I am going to do I think just to get rid of the issue.


They always say that - they want your money - and the less certain they are of winning an appeal the more times they will try and tempt you with the discount.

Post up the letter, redacted as usual, and let's see if there are good reasons for either paying or continuing to dispute.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Owler
post Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 08:34
Post #34


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 12 Oct 2017
Member No.: 94,500



QUOTE (John U.K. @ Wed, 8 Nov 2017 - 18:49) *
QUOTE
I've had a letter rejecting my representation and requesting that I pay up the reduced price within 14 days, despite all the evidence and the poor visibility of the exit from the entry point, they use capital letters in their response many times to scare people into just paying which is what I am going to do I think just to get rid of the issue.


They always say that - they want your money - and the less certain they are of winning an appeal the more times they will try and tempt you with the discount.

Post up the letter, redacted as usual, and let's see if there are good reasons for either paying or continuing to dispute.


Here goes John, hopefully these show in the right format :-





Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 09:11
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,242
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Agree with HCA at post 26 it is a gyratory system

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Butterw...33;4d-0.2223288

and falls under 11(6)(b)

The discount offer looks attractive
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 9 Nov 2017 - 09:26
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,848
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Isn't life funny!

It is a gyratory, but in their NOR the authority do not consider it as such: they refer to it only as a junction or T-junction.

Good news, the argument regarding right turn could be applied, IMO.

Bad news: the OP's car at the time of the contravention was not prevented from exiting by a car waiting to turn right, the car in question has completed the turn and is simply stationary outside the box.

As per PMB, the discount looks attractive because adjudicators are difficult to pursuade on technicalities, if any exist, when the contravention is clear.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
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, 23rd February 2018 - 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.