PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Green lanes PCN back wheels in box junction
cuttingman
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:04
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,329



Hi all, do you think I can appeal this?

I saw the cars in front had space to move, but they all stopped with big gaps and I ended up with my back wheels on the box junction. I should of gone bumper to bumper and I would of been ok. I didn't block anyone and cars coming out of the left road had more than ample room to turn right (if a car had been turning then the camera wouldn't have even been able to see my wheels on the box junction).

Video shows me stopped for 20 seconds. Shows me entering, but not leaving the box.

Thanks for reading. Images of PCN and car.

https://ibb.co/gVc8Wm
https://ibb.co/fMZSP6
https://ibb.co/ehFTWm

Video: https://streamable.com/jqg8d

This post has been edited by cuttingman: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:43
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:04
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:34
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,203
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



please show the video
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cuttingman
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:45
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,329



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:34) *
please show the video


Video uploaded.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 20:56
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,129
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



I'd go for de minimis on this - only about 25% of car in small box, which is Hammersmith/Fulham rule of thumb.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:27
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,203
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Two arguments, you should make them both One as per this case you could have moved forward

2170439250

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The alleged contravention occurred in Barking Road at 1.49pm on 9 April 2017.
Paragraph 7(1) of Part II of Schedule 19 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 states that no person shall 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. It is an offence to enter the box without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to stationary vehicles in front.
Paragraph 7(2) states that this prohibition does not apply to any person causing a vehicle to enter a box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of making a right turn out of the box and stopping the vehicle for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary waiting to complete the right turn.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case and I am allowing the appeal. The footage shows that, when Mr Ali's vehicle entered the box. the traffic beyond the box was stationary but that there was a space that appeared sufficient for another vehicle between the box exit line and the first stationary vehicle. Mr Ali's vehicle entered into that space and stopped so that just the rear wheels were over the box line. The footage does not enable me to see whether or not Mr Ali's vehicle had any further space in front but I suspect that this may well have been a case where the driver did have sufficient space and that Mr Ali did not even know that the rear wheels were across the box line. I am not satisfied that this was a case where the vehicle was stopped in the box because of the stationary vehicle in front and I find for this reason that the alleged contravention did not occur.

this is a generous finding, but shows the thinking of some adjudicators.

and then as per Stamfordman De minimis

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.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:40
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,977
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



+1
OP has a good case, I think, but such is the greed for money of London councils, must be prepared to stand his/her ground and take them all the way to London Tribunals.

QUOTE
I'd go for de minimis on this - only about 25% of car in small box, which is Hammersmith/Fulham rule of thumb.

Is this in a document anywhere ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:53
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,129
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:40) *
QUOTE
I'd go for de minimis on this - only about 25% of car in small box, which is Hammersmith/Fulham rule of thumb.

Is this in a document anywhere ?



it's old now but a good doc - note it downloads a Word file:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...Na1u1_wax3_9yiM


9. On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25%”grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction. An attached list shows which boxes the 50% or 25% rule should be applied to. Some very small/special case box junctions should have 0% discretion. Decisions on Lorries and Buses would be left down to how much of problem they would cause.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:53
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:29
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,977
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:53) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 21:40) *
QUOTE
I'd go for de minimis on this - only about 25% of car in small box, which is Hammersmith/Fulham rule of thumb.

Is this in a document anywhere ?



it's old now but a good doc - note it downloads a Word file:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&a...Na1u1_wax3_9yiM


9. On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25%”grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction. An attached list shows which boxes the 50% or 25% rule should be applied to. Some very small/special case box junctions should have 0% discretion. Decisions on Lorries and Buses would be left down to how much of problem they would cause.

A very useful document to have in one's possession ! Clearly H&F hope nobody ever sees this, and it is certainly not on their website. ALthough 10 years old, it clearly shows they recognise the concept of de minimis, and the need to act proportionately. Would that they do so in 2017 !!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cuttingman
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:45
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,329



Thanks for the replies.

I've not done one of these appeals before. Is this a good response?

I'm appealing the PCN on the grounds of de minimis as I caused absolutely no obstruction. I also had room to move further forward if it was necessary. The images show my vehicle covering only 15% of the box junction. On approach to the box junction I judged there to be room to exit it and from the images it is clear the cars in front left large gaps between themselves.

Probably need more technical/legal stuff to put in that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 23:00
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,203
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cuttingman @ Tue, 9 Jan 2018 - 22:45) *
Thanks for the replies.

I've not done one of these appeals before. Is this a good response?

I'm appealing the PCN on the grounds of de minimis as I caused absolutely no obstruction. I also had room to move further forward if it was necessary. The images show my vehicle covering only 15% of the box junction. On approach to the box junction I judged there to be room to exit it and from the images it is clear the cars in front left large gaps between themselves.

Probably need more technical/legal stuff to put in that?


No, There's no need for legal's at this stage but it does need a bit more. Tell what you could see on approach and why it seemed right that you would clear the box
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 08:20
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,896
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Given that inches either way could determine the outcome here, if ultimately you were minded to take to adjudication, then IMO para. 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of this Schedule to the traffic signs regs applies:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made


(6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is—

(a)at a junction between two or more roads;


Vehicles drive on carriageways, therefore IMO the permitted extent of the markings on the main road is the width of the carriageway of the side road.

IMO, it does not lie with the council to slap paint on the carriageway beyond this.

In this case, if the markings were limited to the width of the carriageway in the side road, then you weren't even within the 'box junction' or if you were to only a trivial degree.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 08:21
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 13:13
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,203
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



With respect i wouldn't. You are making representations to the council that 1/ you could have cleared the box and 2/ that if not any transgression is not worthy of a penalty. An adjudicator if it goes that far will see these representations.

It could be said that the near edge of the box extends to far but not IMO the far edge

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.6088113,-...3312!8i6656
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 14:12
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,896
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



No-one is suggesting this line now, but only if reps have been rejected and the OP is already minded to appeal.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cuttingman
post Wed, 10 Jan 2018 - 15:36
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,329



I think they painted the box junction for the original side road, but then they narrowed the side road. Still about a foot too wide on each side. Any rules about box junctions on narrowed side roads, should they be the width of the narrowed part?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.608901,-0...3312!8i6656

I hate the fact that others have probably stopped and blocked the side road traffic get the same fine.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cuttingman
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 13:05
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,329



Going with the below and see what happens. Whats the worst case scenario if I take this to an adjudicator and they side with the council, I have to pay the higher fine £130?

1. When approaching the box junction I could see that there was sufficient space for the 3 cars in front and myself to exit. But then these cars stopped early with very big gaps between themselves. Therefore I was forced to stop where I did.

2. I judged that I had exited the box junction as I could see I was not causing any obstruction to the side road (Spencer Avenue).

3. It is also evident that if a vehicle was not able to exit Spencer Avenue I had further space to move forward and that I could have sounded my horn for the cars in front to move further forward too.

4. I am also not satisfied this box junction meets the regulations because it is clearly longer than the width of the side road by over a metre on both north and south ends. And that the north west corner is obscured by being painted over by the bus lane markings.

5. The infringement is so minimal as my vehicle is covering less than 15% of the road markings, the fact the markings are longer than necessary and that I still had space to move forward would make this a case of de minimis (the law does not concern itself with trifles).

In conclusion I did not do the alleged contravention and that if you wish to proceed this further you are legally required to satisfactorily reply to my representations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 13:25
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,129
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



This discussion from Hammersmith and Fulham relates to point 1. You could add something like:

"I understand that discretion can be applied where a driver has a reasonable judgement that there was space for all cars to clear the box in normal traffic flow, as is clearly the case here."


5. Steady slow moving traffic over a box junction is probably the most difficult scenario to deal with especially if we are dealing with multiple lanes. Somebody suddenly slowing down or stopping short for no good reason may cause a judgement problem, when drivers in the vehicles behind, looking in advance of the vehicle in front of them thought they had judged it correctly and would make it off the box. An example maybe when there are 3 empty car spaces in one lane on the exit side of the box junction and 3 cars start to travel over the box towards them in one line. The first 2 cars may use up all 3 spaces due to leaving large gaps between them. This would be unfair to the third car driver who thought they would all fit in. The critical factor here is that the drivers have a reasonable line of sight to make their judgements. We should apply discretion. We have to weigh up the good momentum of traffic travelling freely over box junctions while not trying to make people treat it like a stop line or give way line unnecessarily. In time deterrence should make more drivers aware of how to treat their approach to a box junction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cuttingman
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:51
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,329




Appeal rejected: https://ibb.co/gBOYFn

Should I cough up or go to tribunal? What do you think my odds of winning are?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 13:28
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,203
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (cuttingman @ Mon, 12 Feb 2018 - 12:51) *
Appeal rejected: https://ibb.co/gBOYFn

Should I cough up or go to tribunal? What do you think my odds of winning are?


I would go for it. with help from us you can strengthen your representation points. The NoR also contains two errors in that it extends the period in which you may appeal by one day, by using the term within to describe the period.
legal practice has it that when the term within is used the start date for counting is the next day after service. The regulations require that the day of service is counted.

They then fail to tell you that the adjudicator may extend the time to appeal.

They also play a bit clever with the wording of the statement re charge certificates.

The law allows that a charge certificate MAY be served. this allows the council the discretion to do so or not that they always have.

this NoR says the charge WILL increase and a CC MAY be served. As the CC is the instrument for increasing the charge they cannot make the statement as they do.

IMO this would be seen by an adjudicator, and what we call the will/may issue has won on its own many times
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cuttingman
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 09:21
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12
Joined: 5 Aug 2014
Member No.: 72,329



Thanks PASTMYBEST, below is what I said in my appeal, not sure how to explain your point about will/may for the tribunal.

1. I understand that discretion can be applied where a driver has a reasonable judgement that there was space for all cars to clear the box in normal traffic flow. When approaching the box junction I could see that there was sufficient space for the 3 cars in front and myself to exit. But then these cars stopped early with very big gaps between themselves as can be seen in the photo. Therefore I was forced to stop where I did.
2. I judged that I had exited the box junction as I could see I was not causing any obstruction to the side road (Spencer Avenue).
3. It is also evident that if a vehicle was not able to exit Spencer Avenue I had further space to move forward and that I could have sounded my horn for the cars in front to move further forward too.
4. I am also not satisfied this box junction meets the regulations because it is clearly longer than the width of the side road by over a metre on both north and south ends. And that the north west corner is obscured by being painted over by the bus lane markings.
5. The infringement is so minimal as my vehicle is covering less than 15% of the road markings, the fact the markings are longer than necessary and that I still had space to move forward would make this a case of de minimis (the law does not concern itself with trifles).
In conclusion I did not do the alleged contravention and that if you wish to proceed this further you are legally required to satisfactorily reply to my representations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 14 Feb 2018 - 11:15
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 21,896
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I would appeal.

I do not think your lead points are procedural, although these are strong.

The authority have misstated the law and by clear implication must have applied the wrong legal tests when they considered your reps.

They say:
'..the contravention occurs even if only part of the vehicle is in the box'

The law provides:
De minimis, and you raised this in your reps. Their reply was therefore required to state that we have considered your reps on these grounds and do not consoder that the principle of de minimis applies as regards the facts of this case and that a contravention occurred.

They say:
'The min requirement being that the layout of the junction is clear and apparent..'

The council does not accept that any reasonable person would be confused as to the nature of this junction

The law states:
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is—

(a)at a junction between two or more roads;


Its effect is therefore circumscribed by the limits of 'a junction' and does not permit the council to extend the markings - and thereby their legal effect - beyond the junction.

And an unlawful marking does not became lawful simply because it is clear.


Wait for other views, after all you have £65 at stake.



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, 17th August 2018 - 19:35
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.