Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Barnet - stopped in a YBJ
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
MrChips
Hello - you kindly helped one of my sisters a few months ago when she parked with two wheels on the pavement in Barnet (won at tribunal with assistance from Mr Mustard). Now another sister has been in touch with me as she has had a penalty letter through the post in respect of stopping in a yellow box junction, also in Barnet.

So far all I have is a link to the video which I have posted on youtube:

https://youtu.be/BeA-e5ctnK8

According to my sister, she was waiting in the side road for the traffic to start moving. She then pulled in only when this starts to occur (you can see the brake lights of the traffic queuing ahead go off supporting this). Arguably she might have been poking slightly into the YBJ for a few seconds had she got there, however at the same time a van on the other side of the junction makes the same manoeuvre. They both head for the right hand lane and there is only space for one of them and she gives way to the van (I can only assume out of courtesy, or because it was a bigger more imposing vehicle than hers!). This is a mistake as she is then forced to stop in the box junction, although ironically she was blocking nobody in doing so while the van would have blocked the other carriageway for longer if she had been more assertive. In hindsight she could also have taken the spot in the first lane which would have avoided stopping in the YBJ, but perhaps she needed to be in the right hand lane (I don't know).

I saw another thread on here not that long ago, in Hammersmith I think, where the OP got caught in a box junction turning in from a side road which seemed to be designed to prevent cars on the main road blocking the side road entrance, a little like this one. Surely (one of) the function(s) of this box junction is to give cars turning left a chance to turn onto this busy road? Had my sister not turned in when she did, she would have struggled to get into that lane at all as by the time the white van had completed its turn the traffic queued up behind the box junction on the main road would have started moving forward. This pattern could be repeated ad infinitum if there is always a vehicle on the other side of the junction wanting to turn right into that lane.

I've asked her to send me the correspondence from Barnet and I'll post it up as soon as I get it. In the meantime I would value any thoughts on the likelihood of winning based on the video evidence.

She has told me she has 14 days from 6 April to pay at the reduced £65 rate.

Many thanks.
cp8759
Upload all sides of the PCN please.
PASTMYBEST
Barnet's PCN's have a fault. that can win. we need to see it
MrChips
Thanks both - as soon as I have it, I'll post it up.
MrChips
Here is a streetview of the location:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.618259,-0...3312!8i6656

And here is the correspondence from Barnet:












MrChips
Pending thoughts from others, one thing in the PCN is puzzling me. On the first page, it says the discount is available until the end of the 14th day from the date of the notice (i.e. 19th April). On the payment slip, it says the discount is available until the 14th day from when the notice is served. From reading a few posts on this forum over the years, isn't the date of service assumed to be two working days after the date of the notice, i.e. 10 April (which is the actual date the letter arrived), in which case the discount period runs to 23rd April.

Which is it??
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (MrChips @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 16:14) *
Pending thoughts from others, one thing in the PCN is puzzling me. On the first page, it says the discount is available until the end of the 14th day from the date of the notice (i.e. 19th April). On the payment slip, it says the discount is available until the 14th day from when the notice is served. From reading a few posts on this forum over the years, isn't the date of service assumed to be two working days after the date of the notice, i.e. 10 April (which is the actual date the letter arrived), in which case the discount period runs to 23rd April.

Which is it??


The regs say date of notice. That it is different on the payment slip might help, but the high court ruled that the payment slip is not part of the PCN, so while worth mentioning its not strong
What is stronger is paragraph 3 of the PCN.

You can make reps til 28 days from date of service and they cannot issue a charge cert til then either but they say the can 28 days from date of notice depriving you of two days. Appeals have won on this
Incandescent
For the alleged contravention on its own, I don't think your sister would win on this. The video shows she drove into the box when the traffic was stationary and there was no space to take her vehicle on the other side of the box. The van then pulled out, but did not enter the box. The flaw in the PCN may well win, but only at adjudication as Barnet are unlikely to admit their PCN is flawed. Going to adjudication means the full PCN penalty is in play, not the discounted amount. Most people just cough-up to avoid the possibility of having to pay the full penalty, not being experienced in the law relating to content of PCNs, (unlike us on this forum !!). So Barnet just carry on with their flawed PCNs , because they just ignore what adjudicators say about their PCNs and there are no penalties in them for doing so. Good law it isn't, in fact as the Beadle said in "Oliver Twist" - "the law is a ass, sir"
MrChips
Thanks guys. We'll definitely appeal within the discount period on the strength of the technicality, but won't expect Barnet to accept it.

On the video, I'm biased of course. The contravention is to enter the box and stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles. My sister stopped due to the sudden presence of this van which wasn't there when she started her manoeuvre and wasn't stationary. It is definitely arguable that had the van not suddenly arrived she might not have been able to get completely across the junction anyway, we'll never know. Maybe she would have been just poking on it enough to be a de minimis offence, maybe she would have been completely on the box junction.

I know the van does not actually enter the junction itself but it's a natural reaction when a vehicle (especially a big one) is coming towards you to stop and give way. For me it is anyway!

Also, the period she is completely stopped is only about 4-5 seconds (from around 6 seconds to around 11 seconds on the youtube video) - is there scope for a de minimis defence on that basis? After 11 seconds on the video she begins to creep forward again which as I understand it doesn't constitute an offence.

Thanks!
Incandescent
You always have the right to get the circumstances shown on the video tested at London Tribunals. Only thing is this is with the full PCN amount in play. Opinion here so far is that it would be a gamble, but it is your sister's money and her decision in the end.
MrChips
Fully understood. I've been through the process a couple of times myself (and won thanks to the assistance available here) so am coming at this with eyes open.
MrChips
Quick question - what is the last day by which an informal challenge needs to be submitted to protect the 50% discount?

The PCN says the discount runs to the 14th day from the date of notice (i.e. 19 April). The payment slip and Barnet PCN website say the discount runs to the 14th day from date of service (23 April).

https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizen-home/park...ing-tickets-pcn

If we were to make an informal representation on, say, 21 April, would they have to reoffer the discount?
hcandersen
OP, you're getting overconfident.

You posted: '...I'm coming at this with my eyes open..' and then ask about the latest date for submission of informal reps to a postal PCN!!! The reps are formal, there is no informal step.

And as regards 'eyes open..' I'm afraid your sibling sympathy and personal empathy are blinding you: your sister stopped because she could not exit the box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle outside, nowt to do with the incoming van. We do not have both her and the driver of incoming van saying 'after you, no, after you' while there was a vacant space outside the box.
mickR
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 09:56) *
And as regards 'eyes open..' I'm afraid your sibling sympathy and personal empathy are blinding you: your sister stopped because she could not exit the box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle outside, nowt to do with the incoming van.


My thoughts entirely.
MrChips
Sorry - by eyes open I meant I realise we don't seem to have a slam dunk win here and should we not take the 50% discount offer we are risking the full amount. I did not mean that I know all the ins and outs of the deadlines and process, or what factors are likely to lead to this being overturned (is a stop of less than 5 seconds in de minimis territory for example). Or that I am unbiased (to the contrary, I admit that I am in an earlier post!).

I am neither confident nor unconfident, just want to know what the latest date is we can submit a challenge and Barnet will have to reoffer the discount should they turn down the representation. Is it the end of the discount period (in which case of the two dates that they have indicated, which should we trust?), or 14 days from the date of notice irrespective of the end of the discount period?
PASTMYBEST
The 14 day discount period expired yesterday, They do not have to reoffer the discount, but may do
stamfordman
As it's a long box it's easier to wait for a slot from the side road. In some short boxes it can be harder. In long boxes it's the drivers on the main road who risk people nipping out of the side road taking their place.

I would still appeal this though.
MrChips
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 11:12) *
The 14 day discount period expired yesterday, They do not have to reoffer the discount, but may do


Now I'm getting really confused. Does the letter not say that the discount runs until 14 days from the date of notice (which is 6 April 2018, not 31 March 2018)?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (MrChips @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 14:32) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 11:12) *
The 14 day discount period expired yesterday, They do not have to reoffer the discount, but may do


Now I'm getting really confused. Does the letter not say that the discount runs until 14 days from the date of notice (which is 6 April 2018, not 31 March 2018)?


your right, I couldn't see it properly
MrChips
No problem, thanks for confirming.

I'm still unsure when the latest is that we can appeal and retain the 50% discount if we are refused. Is anyone able to confirm?

Is it:
1) no later than 14 days from the date of the notice; or
2) the end of the 14 day discount period (which seems to be 4 calendar days later on the basis of Barnet's own website)?

The PCN also says if my sister "writes to them" within 14 days of the date of the notice then Barnet will reoffer the discount. I interpret this as saying she could write to them (and post 1st class) on 19 April, which would then be deemed to be served by 23 April, so this is the deadline for representations to be received to keep the discount in play.

Is that correct?
Neil B
QUOTE (MrChips @ Sat, 14 Apr 2018 - 15:31) *
I'm still unsure when the latest is that we can appeal and retain the 50% discount if we are refused. Is anyone able to confirm?

Is it:
1) no later than 14 days from the date of the notice; or
2) the end of the 14 day discount period (which seems to be 4 calendar days later on the basis of Barnet's own website)?

Neither.
In answer to your Flame Pit question, you are looking at the wrong legislation.
See - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted
MrChips
The letter says:

"If the Penalty Charge is paid by the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of this Notice [06/04/2018] the amount of the Penalty Charge will be reduced by 50% and you will only have to pay the amount of £65.00."

Neil B, I don't doubt you have seen hundreds of these before so I'm missing something - can you please explain where I'm going wrong?

The PCN amount online is still showing £65 due (checked a moment ago).

I've checked out the legislation link (many thanks for pointing me in the right direction).

If I'm reading it correctly, the discount period runs from 14 days from the date of the PCN (not date of service), and similarly the 28 deadline for payment. However, under Schedule 1, the 28 day period to make representations runs from 28 days from date of service (i.e. two business days later). As was pointed out earlier in this thread, this is inconsistent with the wording in the PCN which would potentially be grounds for appeal.

For what it's worth, Barnet's own PCN payment site states that the discount period runs from 14 days from date of service of the PCN (it's in big letters right at the top of the screen). Surely they have to abide by this? Would there be consequences if they didn't?

https://www.barnet.gov.uk/citizen-home/park...ing-tickets-pcn

Sorry if it seems I'm being slow but I can't reconcile all the different sources (letter, legislation, Barnet website, advice on this forum) saying seemingly inconsistent things.
Neil B
my rubbish
MrChips
But is it not the date of notice that's relevant, not the date of contravention?
Neil B
QUOTE (MrChips @ Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 13:03) *
But is it not the date of notice that's relevant, not the date of contravention?

It is and you are quite right ! huh.gif

I followed PMB's lead and should have noticed: You first calculation 19th is entirely correct !

------- goes away to hide in naughty corner. mellow.gif

I'm going to edit some of my daft posts.
Not so much out of embarrassment but so as not to mislead future readers.
MrChips
I'm relieved I haven't completely lost my marbles! Glad that's all cleared up smile.gif
Neil B
QUOTE (MrChips @ Sun, 15 Apr 2018 - 14:12) *
I'm relieved I haven't completely lost my marbles! Glad that's all cleared up smile.gif

I think a few of mine have rolled off the table rolleyes.gif
Just realised I missed your correction in post #19.
Neil B
-
Moving on. I think this is a valid gripe.
QUOTE (MrChips @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 16:14) *
On the payment slip, it says the discount is available until the 14th day from when the notice is served. From reading a few posts on this forum over the years, isn't the date of service assumed to be two working days after the date of the notice, i.e. 10 April (which is the actual date the letter arrived), in which case the discount period runs to 23rd April.

QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 12 Apr 2018 - 19:16) *
but the high court ruled that the payment slip is not part of the PCN, so while worth mentioning its not strong

Aha, but I see a big difference.
IIRC, that case concerned a mandatory piece of info, missing from a PCN but included on the payment slip.
For me, that ruling cannot be taken to mean it's ok to impart wholly wrong, misleading and contradictory
information on a payment slip.
MrChips
Now we are getting somewhere smile.gif

Currently formulating strategy. Current plan is to send reps by email late on 19th April on grounds that:
- the stop in the box is only 4-5 seconds and therefore in de minimis territory
- no obstruction caused, the box seems to be designed to allow cars to enter the main road (this is mitigation rather than a valid appeal point)
- the reason for the stop is the emergence of the white van which comes in from a side road which is a little further down the street and therefore comes out in front of my sister's car. If it hadn't arrived she would have had time and space to creep forward at 1mph and therefore not commit a contravention
- the PCN wording is flawed as the first page implies I have 28 days from date of notice (not service) to provide representations.

I will also log into the payment site between 20 and 23 April and hope that the charge has increased to £130. I can then add the fact that the penalty exceeds the amount applicable, given the wording on the payment slip and on Barnet's own website.

The alternative is to actually pay the discounted amount on 23 April and hope that Barnet come back to ask for the other £65 - if they do would I have good case that the penalty exceeds the amount applicable?
Mr Mustard
I have had decisions for and against the charge certificate 28 day point.

I'm expecting a decision on it any day and have one I lost to send back for review.

Eventually we will have agreement between adjudicators or else Barnet will correct the wording.

I'm happy to do the tribunal appearance as I did for another sister once before.

I would email on the correct day 14 (don't use the on line system, use proper email) 14 days from the date of the pcn with that date being day 1, so yes on 19 April.

The representation must be in the name & address of the regsitered keeper.
MrChips
Thanks Mr Mustard - will definitely take your informed views on board.

Can I check a point about the video evidence itself? The video stops before she is seen exiting the junction. If she turns right onto the side road that the van emerges from then she wouldn't be committing a contravention as she is allowed to stop in the box if she is prevented from turning right by oncoming vehicles.

As such can the video be said to adequately prove the contravention? I'm not saying she didn't travel straight ahead (I believe she did), but would the video not need to show this to show the contravention occurred? My understanding is if the video doesn't show her entering the box, then it isn't sufficient as the contravention is entering and stopping due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Would it not also be true that the video would need to show she did not turn right and was prevented from doing so by the van, and other oncoming traffic?

To consider this argument, it's important to understand that the junction is almost but not quite a crossroads. The road the van comes out from is slightly further down the main road and so to turn into it from the road my sister come from (while not committing a box contravention) one would need to turn onto the main road and then turn right almost immediately afterwards.
peterguk
QUOTE (MrChips @ Mon, 16 Apr 2018 - 10:47) *
If she turns right onto the side road that the van emerges from then she wouldn't be committing a contravention as she is allowed to stop in the box if she is prevented from turning right by oncoming vehicles.


Her position and direction of travel on the road would preclude any resonable person from accepting she may have been intending turning in any direction other than that indicated in the video.
MrChips
I'm not sure about that - as I said it's almost a crossroad. If you do try to drive straight across, there is no way of guaranteeing you won't get stuck in the box while waiting for traffic on the other side of the main road to clear. The only way to avoid being in contravention of the box is to effectively turn onto the main road before turning off it again. This gives the defence about waiting for oncoming traffic while turning right.

The video stops before it shows the final direction taken. How is the PCN addressee (who may not be the driver) to know which way she was going?

Edit - here's a link to GSV to give you an idea https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.618259,-0...3312!8i6656
MrChips
OK - we need to get representations in on Thursday (19th) to preserve the discount. Here is my first draft, constructive criticism welcome! Arguments 2-4 seem more persuasive to me, but I felt it was important to try and argue 1 before using more technical arguments.

To whom it may concern.

Thank you for your recent Notice, AGXXXXXXX, dated 6 April 2018. I would like to offer representations against the alleged contravention on the grounds that there was no contravention of a prescribed order for reasons as follows:

1) The contravention being alleged is that the driver caused the vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle had to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. From the video, it seems to me that the reason for stopping is not the presence of stationary vehicles on the far side of the box junction but the emergence of a white van from Avenue Road (slightly further down High Road) after my car begins to enter the box junction. The van pulls out and stations itself in front of the car's intended path which is what causes my car to have to stop. My car only enters the box junction after the traffic further along High Road begins to move off (if it waits much longer the likelihood is that cars stopped behind the junction on High Road will begin to move forward and the opportunity to enter High Road will be lost). There is a period of around 4 seconds between my car being stopped due to the van being in my car's path and sufficient space clearing on the far side of the box. But for the white van, my car would have been able to proceed (very) slowly through the box for that short period of time which would have meant no contravention occurred (the contravention is stopping, not driving slowly). Therefore, the reason the stop occurred was due to the presence of the van (which was not a stationary vehicle), and therefore I argue that my vehicle was not in contravention.

2) The period of being stopped on the yellow box junction is short. The car comes to a complete stop around 9 seconds from the start of the video and starts to move at around 13 seconds. I time the period of being stopped at only around 4 seconds, and I would suggest this might be considered as falling into "de minimis" territory, particularly as it is clear from the video there was no impact on other traffic.

3) It is not clear from the evidence provided to me (chiefly the video footage) that a contravention did indeed occur. The footage ceases before it can be seen in which direction the vehicle proceeded from the box. If the driver turned left from Ravensdale Avenue into the High Road in order to then turn right out of the box into Avenue Road (the road from which the van emerges), then no contravention occurred as it is permitted to stop in a box junction if prevented from turning right by oncoming traffic.

4) The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) itself is flawed and does not comply with the requirements of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Specifically your PCN states that:

"The Penalty Charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this Notice [6 April 2018]...If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period and no representations have been made an increased charge of 50% to £195.00 may be payable and a Charge Certificate may be served..."

Under the regulations, if no representations are made you may only serve a Charge Certificate 28 days after the Penalty Charge Notice has been served (deemed to be 10 April 2018 in this case). Your PCN therefore deprives me of 4 days which I am entitled to under the regulations.

Thank you for considering these representations. I look forward to hearing the outcome of your decision.

Yours faithfully

Registered Keeper
MrChips
bumpity bump smile.gif
Neil B
Not including the misleading payment slip?
MrChips
I'll probably keep that up our sleeve for now (if they aren't going to accept the CC flaw in reps, they won't accept the payment slip flaw either I expect). I'm hoping they increase the charge on the online portal before 23 April which would then mean the charge is more than is due going by the payment slip. If I tell them about the contradiction in my reps they may realise not to increase it. If I also point it out now, it's clear that I am aware of the issue and it weakens the argument that I am prejudiced by it (perhaps?).

I can always bring it up later if/when it goes to adjudication.

Current plan is to submit reps very late on Thursday. I can then say I was worried we'd missed the deadline for Barnet to reoffer the discount so decided to quit while we still had the discount in play, only for Barnet to move the goalposts. It's also then the case that we can say if challenged that we didn't leave it until the last possible minute to appeal, we appealed with 4 days to spare wink.gif
Incandescent
QUOTE (MrChips @ Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 22:16) *
bumpity bump smile.gif

Clearly you have read 'Winnie The Pooh" !!

I would submit what you have written but without Para 3 as it is clear from the positioning of the vehicle that the driver intends to go left. I'm also doubtful on the de minimis point as I make it about 6 seconds. It is virtually 100% certain they will reject your reps, so to get a decision either way, you will have to forego the discount and take the matter to London Tribunals. Councils keep every last cent of PCN penalty income so unbiased they ain't !
MrChips
Thanks for the feedback Incandescent. Are you sure about para 3? I know I am biased, but have you looked at the streetview link I posted showing the layout of the junction? I'm not sure how a driver wanting to go across would navigate the junction any other way than to turn onto the main road as if going left and then to turn right (i.e. broadly as my sister does before the footage stops).

You can't go in a straight line as you then run the risk of stopping in the box and getting a penalty. You have to "play the game" of semi turning onto the main road to then turn right off it to give yourself the defence open to you when turning right out of a box junction.

Notwithstanding this (which I agree is a subjective point), is it sufficient for the footage to stop when it does. Even if you say it is "clear" that she intends to go left (I would say it is suggested, but not clear), does it not need to be established? By analogy, I have read that box junction footage has to show a vehicle entering the box even though it might be "clear" that the driver caused the car to enter the box (i.e. he wasn't shunted on, or spirited on by magic fairies).

Re deminimis, it looks like 6 seconds, but for the final two she is creeping forward (you can see the wheels move to a slightly different position against the yellow box lines). I've told my sister if this happens again to creep forward at a snail's pace like that to avoid being in contravention.
Neil B
QUOTE (MrChips @ Tue, 17 Apr 2018 - 22:36) *
I'll probably keep that up our sleeve for now (if they aren't going to accept the CC flaw in reps, they won't accept the payment slip flaw either I expect). I'm hoping they increase the charge on the online portal before 23 April which would then mean the charge is more than is due going by the payment slip. If I tell them about the contradiction in my reps they may realise not to increase it. If I also point it out now, it's clear that I am aware of the issue and it weakens the argument that I am prejudiced by it (perhaps?).

I can always bring it up later if/when it goes to adjudication.

Current plan is to submit reps very late on Thursday. I can then say I was worried we'd missed the deadline for Barnet to reoffer the discount so decided to quit while we still had the discount in play, only for Barnet to move the goalposts. It's also then the case that we can say if challenged that we didn't leave it until the last possible minute to appeal, we appealed with 4 days to spare wink.gif

I understand but it can also weaken the argument: At the mo you have a PCN; you query the PCN.

Since they will only progress to full amount if they don't not on system your reps received and unlikely they'll read promptly, then it
doesn't alert them to anything.

It's up to you.
If including it could be as simple as >

'I am confused as to when the discount period expires. The PCN first states "----------------------", then, later, "---------------------------",
which I calculate to be some four days later. Please explain.'


Note that this increases the chance they will trip themselves up, by words or indeed actions meanwhile.

MrChips
Good thinking - I'll chuck it in, thank you Neil.
MrChips
The not unexpected rejection letter arrived on Wednesday. Barnet have not responded to the two main issues:

i) the incorrect Charge Certificate date
ii) that the evidence doesn't show if the driver went straight or turned right out of the box (although they do confirm that if turning right then that may not be a contravention)

They talk about not following "the vehicle in front" into the box - my sister didn't do this, there was no vehicle to follow. They say motorists are expected to take into consideration that other vehicles may enter one's path blocking your exit. Surely it's a valid defence to say that an exit which was clear when entering the box was unexpectedly taken by another driver?

In the end we didn't include the query about the length of the discount period as we were hoping Barnet would forget to reoffer it (as has happened before) and didn't want to inadvertently remind them. Unfortunately though they have remembered to reoffer it. They state the representations were received on 21 April (Saturday?) when they were actually sent by email on 19 April so should have been received the same day.

Anyway, it's coming up to decision time re paying discount or taking it all the way. Thoughts?











MrChips
Reading another post has just reminded me of another possible issue. The penalty demanded on the Barnet PCN site did increase to £130 well after we submitted (and they received) reps. I have a screenshot on 28 April showing £130 as being due. However it is now back down at the £65 level.

Would this help - or is it normal for the penalty to increase while they are still considering the representations?
cp8759
QUOTE (MrChips @ Sun, 6 May 2018 - 00:34) *
Reading another post has just reminded me of another possible issue. The penalty demanded on the Barnet PCN site did increase to £130 well after we submitted (and they received) reps. I have a screenshot on 28 April showing £130 as being due. However it is now back down at the £65 level.

Would this help - or is it normal for the penalty to increase while they are still considering the representations?

The council increased the penalty to £130 when the discount expired, however they used their discretion to re-offer the discount, that's not a ground for challenge.
MrChips
Thanks cp8759, it doesn't feel like a winning argument to me although I disagree that reoffering the discount is discretionary as they've guaranteed to reoffer it in their PCN. Indeed one of my other sisters won her case at tribunal on the grounds that Barnet didn't reoffer the discount although that was in a letter rather than on their payment portal.

See 2170134366
cp8759
QUOTE (MrChips @ Mon, 7 May 2018 - 17:26) *
Thanks cp8759, it doesn't feel like a winning argument to me although I disagree that reoffering the discount is discretionary as they've guaranteed to reoffer it in their PCN. Indeed one of my other sisters won her case at tribunal on the grounds that Barnet didn't reoffer the discount although that was in a letter rather than on their payment portal.

See 2170134366

I meant it's discretionary in the sense that the council doesn't have to guarantee to re-offer the discount in the first place.
MrChips
Agreed - although once they do guarantee it, are they able to remove it (but then reinstate it again)? Honestly have no idea... It's not like they removed it the same day or even the same week they received reps. They confirmed in their rejection letter they received representations by 21 April (although actually it was 19 April) and then seven days later they bumped up the penalty. I was checking it online every day and it was still at £65 a day or two prior to 28 April.

Either way I'm not sure I'd like to go a adjudication on the strength of that argument alone, but maybe that in conjunction with the Charge Certificate issue, and the fact the video evidence doesn't conclusively show that she wasn't waiting in the box to turn right (in my opinion although others on here have poo-pooed that one!)...
cp8759
QUOTE (MrChips @ Mon, 7 May 2018 - 18:01) *
Agreed - although once they do guarantee it, are they able to remove it (but then reinstate it again)? Honestly have no idea... It's not like they removed it the same day or even the same week they received reps. They confirmed in their rejection letter they received representations by 21 April (although actually it was 19 April) and then seven days later they bumped up the penalty. I was checking it online every day and it was still at £65 a day or two prior to 28 April.

Either way I'm not sure I'd like to go a adjudication on the strength of that argument alone, but maybe that in conjunction with the Charge Certificate issue, and the fact the video evidence doesn't conclusively show that she wasn't waiting in the box to turn right (in my opinion although others on here have poo-pooed that one!)...

Once they have given an assurance that they will extend the discount, they are bound by that assurance. The PCN says the discretionary discount period runs from 14 days "from the day we write to you" and it looks like they have abided by that.
Mr Mustard
I hate paying up but in this case I think it is the wisest course.

I would lose on the charge certificate timing point as I get the same adjudicator every time and he is currently against me. One other adjudicator will allow for it but allocation of adjudicators is random so it is a risk to argue.

I would not argue turning right unless that really happened & it doesn't look logical given the position of the car.
MrChips
Thanks Mr Mustard - your input is valued as always.

On the turning right issue, the point I'm trying to get at is that the registered keeper isn't necessarily the driver. They get the video and have to decide how to proceed. The evidence as presented doesn't seem to be complete as it shows the car entering the box but not leaving. The keeper might not know which way the car went (even the driver him/herself might not remember).

As I understand it the video needs to show the car entering the box to satisfy the first limb of the contravention (driver causing the car to enter the box) even if it is extremely unlikely that the car entered by any other reason (eg shunted in). Does it not therefore also need to show the car leaving if there is a possibility it left by a method which would not cause a contravention (even if this is similarly unlikely)?

This is where the car is positioned at the end of the video.



And here is the box junction from view of the side road (with an orange box to show the approx position of my sister's car)



Doesn't seem to me to be impossible that the car might have turned right.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2018 Invision Power Services, Inc.