Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
FightBack Forums _ Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices _ 31J Kew Road Richmond KEW15CUV
Posted by: parsnip Wed, 14 Jun 2017 - 20:50
Post #1292765
We've recevied a PCN from the yellow box camera at this junction. Given that this is a daily route, we've given it a few days to make sure that there weren't a stream of these in the post as a result of a new camera or change of council policy. It seems that this is the only one.
I've attached a scan of the PCN notice (with our name and address redacted), but hopefully you can see the images. I think there's enough detail still there to view the images and video on Richmond Council's website (https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PCNViewer/PCNDetails.aspx). At least I hope so because I don't know how to download and upload them.
Our car is the silver VW Polo which ends up stranded in the yellow box after the cars in front stop.
Our observations are:
1. Had it not been for the parked car (the maroon coloured SUV), there would have been plenty of space for all the cars who cross the traffic lights.
(a) We see from other posts that this isn't a useful defence, although you might be amused to see that it's the same car, parked on the same red route as in topic 111522 (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=111522)
(b) Is there a defence that we were overly cautious in not moving alongside the two cars in front?
2. The PCN makes no attempts to demonstrate that the addressee was driving the car. Surely they have to prove that the accused was the driver of the car, not just the owner?
3. At the time we pass the stop line at the lights, there is no reason to believe that there was not space to clear the box junction.
(a) There are normally two lanes of traffic at this point to the next set of lights. The camera has the benefit of the high vantage point, and can better see around both the bus and the cars in front. From the vantage point at road level, it it not clear that the maroon SUV is a parked vehicle; one would have expected it to continue towards the next lights.
(b) Similarly from road level, it was not clear that the black car next to the bus had come to a stop (even through it looks like it in the photo)
© had the Micra not stopped in the middle of the two lanes or closer to the black car next to the bus, there would have been space for the two cars behind it who passed the traffic signal.
4. The purpose of a yellow box junction is to ensure that traffic remains free-flowing. It is clear from the final few frames of the video that the bus was not obstructed in any way. I.e. we did not obstruct the objective of the yellow box junction.
Is there any point submitting a representation on the basis of 1b, 2, 3 or 4 above?
Posted by: Neil B Wed, 14 Jun 2017 - 21:13
Post #1292767
PCN and VRM on attachment for those who wants to view.
https://www2.richmond.gov.uk/PCNViewer/PCNDetails.aspx
Clear contravention imo.
When the car in front also doesn't clear the box you're pretty much cooked.
You do, arguably, have an unlawful PCN though.
The part on page 1 referring to Charge Cert has the wrong timescale and, through
the wording of that, also infers a wrong timescale for making reps, at odds with the
correct description of the period on page 3.
Posted by: Incandescent Wed, 14 Jun 2017 - 21:31
Post #1292771
The offence is entering the box and then having to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles. So this test has to be met, nothing else. One defence is that of de minimis, (not stopped for long), but this needs to be 5 seconds or less to succeed at adjudication. Other thing that adjudicators allow appeals on is something unexpected happening after you enter the box, like somebody barging-in from the side street and then taking your exit space. Unfairness can also be caused by the camera view being different from what the motorist can see at street level. So a number of things can succeed at adjudication, but there's the rub, the council never give way because they get your money if you pay-up so like to force the issue. Most people don't want to risk double the discount so cough-up and don't bother appealing. The councils rely on this for their cash stream.
Not causing an obstruction to other traffic is not a defence. Your point about addressee is also irrelevant, as the law says the owner, (or keeper as per the V5) is responsible for paying or appealing.
Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 14 Jun 2017 - 21:32
Post #1292772
We've had a nasty rash of these right turn box PCNs - they are clearly hard to judge and unfair in my view.
I think you have a case that the other car took your space as you were lining up with the far lane. The other car got caught and took your space - he could have gone to the right and you would both have been OK.
So I would appeal on an event beyond your control.
Posted by: stamfordman Wed, 14 Jun 2017 - 22:10
Post #1292777
Here's the video. I would certainly have a good ago at appealing this as I said. Just click on the image and then again to view on Flickr.
https://flic.kr/p/VNoyjRhttps://flic.kr/p/VNoyjR by
Posted by: parsnip Thu, 15 Jun 2017 - 06:47
Post #1292800
Thanks everyone. We'll submit based on the space disappearing after entering the box, and the different view that the camera has.
Neil B - I have to confess that I don't understand the point about the PCN being incorrect, but it strikes me that objecting to the wording on their template letter won't get much traction when appealing with the council, but might later? Or do we need to include it now in case we decide to formally appear to PATAS?
Posted by: Neil B Thu, 15 Jun 2017 - 10:26
Post #1292824
Include but in simplest terms. More detail at next stage if needed.
Let them respond with nonsense first; it helps.
I haven't explained yet.
Firstly, the law deems a Notice to have been 'served' two working days after it is posted;
So 28 beginning DofS is a longer period than 28 beginning DofN.
At some point, if no payment received and no reps made, they may escalate by serving a Charge Cert
- but when?
The relevant Act says this, at Sch1 s5
"Charge certificates
5(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.
(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;"
Your PCN says -
"If neither payment nor representations have been received before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of this notice, a Charge Certificate may be sent to ---"
Firstly, that's an unlawful threat of premature escalation. That's the main point.
But it also, effectively, suggests the period to make reps is the same as that for payment, i.e. beginning DoN.
It isn't; an oddity of this Act; it begins DoS, as they correctly state on page 3. ( Sch1 s1(3) )
Clear as mud?
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted
Posted by: parsnip Thu, 15 Jun 2017 - 20:05
Post #1292958
Thanks; I think I get it.
I've submitted a response via the on-line portal. Let's see what happens next.
Posted by: altin Sun, 25 Jun 2017 - 10:38
Post #1295082
Hello,
Have you heard anything yet?
My OH got cough on the exact same place on almost same scenario a few days ago.
Before paying the reduced charge I thought to appeal.
Regards
Altin
Posted by: John U.K. Sun, 25 Jun 2017 - 11:43
Post #1295090
Have you heard anything yet?
My OH got cough on the exact same place on almost same scenario a few days ago.
Before paying the reduced charge I thought to appeal.
Regards
Altin
Please start your own thread, and there, as usual, for best advice post up both sides of the PCN.
Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method:
Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems.
STAGE 1 takes care of resizing. If you use Tinypic for Stage 2, on the left each image in Tinypic is a list of links. Highlight and copy the entire link 'for forums' from the list for each image - beginning with IMG and ending /IMG (include all the square brackets [ ] ), and paste each link into your post. Each copied and pasted link will embed a thumbnail link in your post.
Using the attachment method is not advised as it means quickly running out of attachment space.
Redact/obscure personal details, PCN no. Reg No.
Also post up a GSV (Google Street View) link to the location.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.
Posted by: parsnip Mon, 26 Jun 2017 - 18:32
Post #1295446
Hi Altin
We've had nothing back from the Council yet, although I don't know how long I should expect to wait because there were no timescales in the paperwork.
John's advice is good - the guys on here were really helpful, and I guess that building up a catalogue of PCNs, appeals etc will help others in the future too.
Samir
Posted by: parsnip Mon, 10 Jul 2017 - 09:57
Post #1299198
Just to conclude this, we received, just over a week ago, a "rejection of representations" letter from the council along with various ETA appeal forms. The delay in getting back to you here has been because of other stuff going on, including complete failure of our internet and telephone connection meaning that we couldn't do much. Given the lack of time for the 50% payment date, and a lack of energy to fight both Richmond Council and our internet/phone provider at the same time, we've decided to pay up.
If anyone sees a VW polo sitting at these lights not moving forward when you'd like us too, any amount of horn-tooting will not make any difference. The local residents will have to put up with it, as will the traffic behind us.
Posted by: stamfordman Mon, 10 Jul 2017 - 11:47
Post #1299244
You are entitled to stand your ground at yellow boxes.
Commiserations on the rejection - I think I would have taken it further and appreciate you feel hard done by with this one.
Posted by: chag Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 01:58
Post #1398513
I have received a PCN for the similar offense of being in the box junction turning right.
I have not responded through Representations but faxed the legal department that they wish to proceed.
they have 20 working days to respond. (their due diligence)
I will demand if they are to proceed on what legal basis.
I would refer to the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 which empowers the SoS to make regulations the latest is SI 2016/362
Schedule 9 part 6 item 25 describes the Box Junction then following page (167 in my pdf) Box Junctions 11 - (1) Then describes the regulation concerning Box Junctions.
It states subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4)
we have interest in (3) (a) and (b). We are carrying out (a) and (b) is caused by a vehicle in front stopping completion of right turn.
The issuer has a duty to cite the appropriate legislation for the infraction.
The Highway Code is a guide and interpretation of TSRGD and is quoting incorrect legislation paragraphs in its 20180604 version
We await with interest
Posted by: PASTMYBEST Fri, 13 Jul 2018 - 10:30
Post #1398585
I have not responded through Representations but faxed the legal department that they wish to proceed.
they have 20 working days to respond. (their due diligence)
I will demand if they are to proceed on what legal basis.
I would refer to the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984 which empowers the SoS to make regulations the latest is SI 2016/362
Schedule 9 part 6 item 25 describes the Box Junction then following page (167 in my pdf) Box Junctions 11 - (1) Then describes the regulation concerning Box Junctions.
It states subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4)
we have interest in (3) (a) and (b). We are carrying out (a) and (b) is caused by a vehicle in front stopping completion of right turn.
The issuer has a duty to cite the appropriate legislation for the infraction.
The Highway Code is a guide and interpretation of TSRGD and is quoting incorrect legislation paragraphs in its 20180604 version
We await with interest
Best start your own thread and post the pcn and video.
going out side of the regulatory frame work is likely to end up with bailiffs on your door step
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)