PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Yellow box Juncion PCN
rosturra
post Wed, 19 Jul 2017 - 17:11
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Hi everyone.

I have just had a PCN for stopping in a box junction.

I believe I have a good case for appealing this, but that is not the point of this initial post.

The PCN has the location slightly wrong:

The incident actually took place on junction of Welling High Street and Danson Lane.

Now Welling High Street changes name to Parkview Road about 100m further down the road.

The PCN states location as "Welling High St/Junct w/Danson Ln and Parkview Road" (sic).

I am considering appealing on the basis that the location is wrong. Location is NOT Parkview road.

1) Does anyone know if the location matters? And this is a ground for appeal?
2) Is this error sufficiently wrong?
3) Should I keep the first appeal solely on this technical basis;
and not mention my mitigation for the offence?

I currently have a draft appeal which (abridged) says:

I wish to appeal against this PCN for the following reasons.
The first is technical; the second concerns the details of the alleged offence itself.

1) "The location of the incident was NOT on junction with Parkview Road as stated, hence I submit that the PCN is factually incorrect, and therefore invalid."

2) Please continue with this appeal only if you have dismissed point 1. ( I then go onto my spiel about poor road markings etc)


In the second point, I believe I have a good case; certainly worth an appeal. But there is photographic evidence of the offence, so I need to rely on appealing to the council's sense of fair play and good will.

So I am worried that I might lose their sympathy by trying a technical challenge first. They might put me down as a chancer, and be more inclined stick to the letter of the law!

Can you see my dilemma?
Or am I worrying too much?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 19 Jul 2017 - 17:11
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 19 Jul 2017 - 17:32
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,220
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



For the best advice post ALL of the PCN redact only personal details leave in ALL dates times and location.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 08:37
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



This is a scan of the PCN.

[attachment=49781:welling_PCN.pdf]

Here is the location. You can see that Parkview Road is NOT where the box junction is.

[attachment=49783:PCN_map_Welling.png]


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:07
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,887
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Is this it:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4619746,0...3312!8i6656

Seems to me the location is pretty accurately described - isn't that a T-junc of Danson and High Street but Parkview starts a bit further along and merges with High Street? Is there confusion about another junction it could be? I don't think you'll have a case unless the description is way off.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:09
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:13
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,077
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:07) *
56"]https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4619746,0...3312!8i6656[/url]

Seems to me the location is accurately described - isn't that a T-junc of Danson, High Street and Parkview?

No, it's still High St. - the addresses are.

BUT I too think an adjudicator might find it sufficiently accurate - simply cos it can't mean anywhere else.

Docs right way up and the rest of them might help.


--------------------
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
stamfordman
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:16
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,887
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:11) *
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:07) *
56"]https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4619746,0...3312!8i6656[/url]

Seems to me the location is accurately described - isn't that a T-junc of Danson, High Street and Parkview?

No, it's still High St. - the addresses are.

BUT I too think an adjudicator might find it sufficiently accurate - simply cos it can't mean anywhere else.


Yes, I amended my post - Parkview merges with High street a bit further on. These junction descriptions are often like this I've noticed and may be historical. In this case there is no confusion and just qualifies which end of High Street it is.

Just here:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.4616722,0...3312!8i6656

Not really far from Danson.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:23
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:23
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,220
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



there is no requirement in the regulations to state the location, only the reason that a CEO believes a contravention occurs. Adjudicators tend to take the view that if a location is inaccurate then this belief cannot be substantiated
Inherent in this finding is the potential for confusion as to the location, in this case it would be hard to substantiate any confusion.

You may well have a solid argument re the contravention, but to give proper advice on that we would need to see the video. Also re post the PCN the right way up. It is not unusual for there to be helpful errors but I foe one cannot read it
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 09:24
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,077
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:13) *
Docs right way up and the rest of them might help.

Already got two major flaws.

ALL of it please


--------------------
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
rosturra
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:37
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Bear with me. Struggling to see how to reload attachments!!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:48
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



I've uploaded both pages of the PCN - right way up - but I can't see how to insert into a post. Something's not right.

I need to check FAQs.

In the meantime see Welling High Street

This shows the junction where the box is. Park View Road starts after the Ving Hao restaurant.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 10:49
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 4,887
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Use a site such as Flickr and post the BBCode share links to embed pics here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 11:06
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



OK Got there hopefully!

PCN #1
PCN #2

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bod1467
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 11:27
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 18 Aug 2016
Member No.: 86,483



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 19 Jul 2017 - 17:32) *
For the best advice post ALL of the PCN redact only personal details leave in ALL dates times and location.

When OP was directed here from MSE he was advised of this requirement.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 12:04
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,077
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Like I said, two major flaws: Both payment periods wrong.

So, let's test prejudice with a question >

The notice is deemed (in law) 'served' two working days after posting. Sat & Sun are not working days.

So - tell us the dates that are the last day you may pay -
a) £65
b) £130

?


--------------------
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
rosturra
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 12:46
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 13:04) *
Like I said, two major flaws: Both payment periods wrong.

So, let's test prejudice with a question >

The notice is deemed (in law) 'served' two working days after posting. Sat & Sun are not working days.

So - tell us the dates that are the last day you may pay -
a) £65
b) £130

?


Hi;

The offense was on 04/07/2017.
The notice was dated 14/07/2017.

The envelope was not franked. I don't know when it was posted.
I was away from home, I only saw it on Tuesday 18/07/2017.
It probably arrived Saturday 15/07/2017; as it was first class.

According to the PCN; the period begins with the date on which the PCN is 'served'.
Initially, I would have just assumed this meant from the date of the notice.

£65 The penalty charge limit is last day of 14 days beginning with 14/07/2017. I make that 27/07/2017.
£130 The penalty charge limit is last day of 28 days beginning with 14/07/2017. I make that 10/08/2017.

However, I see know that you have given me a nudge that the date begins from when I received the PCN.
So I might have thought this would be the Saturday.

£65 The penalty charge limit is last day of 14 days beginning with 15/07/2017. I make that 28/08/2017.
£130 The penalty charge limit is last day of 28 days beginning with 15/07/2017. I make that 11/08/2017.

Are you saying that the date should be two working days after postage?
This would be Tuesday 18/07/2017.

In which case
£65 The penalty charge limit is last day of 14 days beginning with 18/07/2017. I make that 31/07/2017.
£130 The penalty charge limit is last day of 28 days beginning with 18/07/2017. I make that 14/08/2017.












Actually. Thinking about it.

Does it matter when the PCN was delivered? Surely it was only "served" when I received it?

I am thinking of back in the day when a writ was physically placed into one's hands.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 12:52
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,077
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



Ooops, I wish I hadn't asked now. You've covered it well.

Your final dates 31st and 14th are correct - for what the PCN says


But you would have been completely correct thinking -
QUOTE (rosturra @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 13:42) *
According to the PCN; the period begins with the date on which the PCN is 'served'.
Initially, I would have just assumed this meant from the date of the notice.

Because that's what the applicable legislation (LLA 2003) says and what the PCN should have said. 'beginning date of notice'.

So they've told you that you have 4 days longer than the law prescribes.


Questions welcome.

This post has been edited by Neil B: Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 12:53


--------------------
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
rosturra
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 13:07
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Is this significant?

I'm thinking that the council inadvertently giving me extra days to pay is not a problem, whereas giving me fewer might be!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rosturra
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 13:21
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



OK.

Feeling a bit stupid but I will load up the video now:

Incident video

It looks like I am "bang to rights" here as exit not clear when I entered junction.
The irritating thing was that I was stitched up by the junction layout.

There are two lanes going in, and only one lane going out.
Ther are no road markings or street sign signs, to warn you that you need to filter ahead, so there is an unexpected bottleneck on the exit of the junction!

The car in front of me (Car A) strayed to the right; so I thought there were two lanes after junction; especially as there were two cars abreast.

Car A was in fact so far over to the right, that he was actually on hatched area of the incoming road. I could not see that from my perspective.

From my viewpoint, it seemed that he was two abreast and had a clear road in front.

When he realized he needed to filter, he braked leaving me in no man's land.

Now I know that I should have waited for exit to be clear; before proceeding. But who does that when traffic is flowing?

I could argue that the exit was clear on the left hand lane (it was) when I entered, but this works against the argument that I thought it was two lanes.

So perhaps a defense is that I entered the box with a clear exit [on the left] but with the assumption that the car ahead was in the right-hand lane.
When Car A braked unexpectedly, I took instinctive emergency action to brake immediately and safely; which prevented me from passing to my planned box exit on the left hand lane.
No obstruction was intended or caused by my action.


The following is a draft of my appeal. Thoughts?

===============================================






The box junction relating to this incident is poorly designed and signed.
There are two lanes leading to the box junction; but only one lane after.
There are no prior road markings or street signs to indicate that one needs to merge lanes. This serves to create an unexpected bottleneck on the box junction itself.

I was in the right-hand lane prior to the junction, as was the car immediately in front of me (Car A). It was Car A’s road positioning which led to the incident.

Car A continued forward, on the extreme right-hand side of the box junction; leading me to believe that two lanes continued after the junction.

This belief was supported by the presence of a second car (Car B), which had entered from Danson Lane and was on the left-hand side of the road.

Car A and Car B were laterally side by side, but car A had actually strayed onto a hatched section on the oncoming traffic side of the road.
These hatchings would have been out of sight from my perspective; blocked by car A.

So, from my perspective, it appeared that there were two lanes beyond the box junction, with Car B in the left-hand lane, and Car A on the right-hand lane. Car A was drifting even further to the right and it appeared that the road was clear in front of car A.

Hence when Car A stopped; when realising its error and the need to merge, this was completely unexpected by me. I stopped immediately and safely. Albeit in the box junction.

Please note the very fact that I stopped immediately behind car A, is supporting evidence that I thought I was in a right-hand lane. Had I been familiar with the junction, I would have had time to pull up to the back of car B, and avoided stopping completely in the box junction. However, I would regard this manoeuvre to be less safe than the action I took, due to the possibility of cutting up traffic on my left.

###
### Note the paragraph above may do me no favours. As if I thought it was two lanes then they may say I should have waited for the right hand lane exit to be clear? ###
###

The purpose of the box junction is to prevent inconsiderate drivers from blocking cars from turning right from Welling High Street onto Danson Road and vice versa.
The video and pictures show that my action and positioning did not obstruct traffic in any way.

I understand that Bexley need to control roads and regulate flow and that fines are necessary to ensure that drivers drive safely and considerately.

However, I believe that I drove considerately and safely.
No obstruction was intended or caused.
Hence, I would ask that this PCN be dropped.

I submit my action was a result of poor road design and markings, unfamiliarity with the area and the safe reaction to other road users' unexpected actions.

The PCN letter itself was enough of a warning to be more cautious at box junctions in future, and believe me, the lesson is learned with no need of a financial penalty. I'm sure that fines are not a fund-raising exercise to catch unwary drivers.

I would be grateful if my comments were passed to your traffic planning department so that they can review the road signing on this junction.

Regards
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 13:30
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 18,077
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (rosturra @ Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 14:07) *
Is this significant?

I'm thinking that the council inadvertently giving me extra days to pay is not a problem, whereas giving me fewer might be!

Valid question but -

That would be reliant on the absurd idea that one person in the Council has the same understanding as another ! laugh.gif

e.g.
The draftsman of the PCN doesn't know the legislation but the software programmer may have set parameters for
progression in line with the real legal periods and subsequent progression.

Also, the leg. says a PCN "must state".

A great example of Councils playing fast and loose was the honest testimony of a Council Officer in the ET&A key case
'Al's Bar vs Wandsworth'.
I'll precis to the gist.

Council evidence: 'We normally work to a period of 35 days (for 28) to cover eventualities, before progression.'

Adjudicator: 'Do you always work to 35 days?'

Council Officer: 'No, not always.'

Adjudicator: 'WTF !'


I might have exaggerated the translation of that last bit biggrin.gif

-------

So, pressure is now on Council to justify.





--------------------
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
rosturra
post Thu, 20 Jul 2017 - 13:41
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 31
Joined: 19 Jul 2017
Member No.: 93,086



Thanks.

So do you advise appealing on this basis? Is there a draft text knocking about I could borrow and adapt?

What do you make of the location issue? Is this worth an appeal point?

Oh, and take a look a the video and feel my pain! smile.gif
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, 22nd February 2018 - 01:07
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.