Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Barnet Council PCN 31(J)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
MrSneeze
I am a new member on here seeking advise for making a representation to have a PCN cancelled.
The alleged contravention is: "31(J) Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)".

I attach links for images and video of alleged offence: https://imgur.com/qg4I1sM https://imgur.com/RewY37L

Should I claim the the amount of the amount of my car that occupied the box junction is negligible especially considering that the car behind me was blocking the junction entirely? In truth, I had anticipated that the car ahead would get in lane by the time I had crossed the junction. As he continued to straddle the two lanes, I chose to keep my distance and not aim to pass on his side as he was obviously a driver who was not entirely aware of his surroundings. Would this claim have any standing?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

EDIT: Here is the full PCN: https://imgur.com/kS9NXtX
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (MrSneeze @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 17:36) *
I am a new member on here seeking advise for making a representation to have a PCN cancelled.
The alleged contravention is: "31(J) Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)".

I attach links for images and video of alleged offence: https://imgur.com/qg4I1sM https://imgur.com/RewY37L

Should I claim the the amount of the amount of my car that occupied the box junction is negligible especially considering that the car behind me was blocking the junction entirely? In truth, I had anticipated that the car ahead would get in lane by the time I had crossed the junction. As he continued to straddle the two lanes, I chose to keep my distance and not aim to pass on his side as he was obviously a driver who was not entirely aware of his surroundings. Would this claim have any standing?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.


post up all of the pcn

You have a good shot at de minimis and also not being stopped due to stationary vehicles (you could have cleared the box)
MrSneeze
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 17:44) *
post up all of the pcn

You have a good shot at de minimis and also not being stopped due to stationary vehicles (you could have cleared the box)


Many thanks, I have now uploaded the PCN as an edit to my original post
stamfordman
Golders Green - we've seen this junction few times.

As per PMB, good shout for minimal contravention.


https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5718516,-0....3312!8i6656
MrSneeze
Cheers

Do you think I should mention the other points in my claim or stick with de minimis?
PASTMYBEST
Every point but post a draft here before you send They PCN has a flaw that could win on its own in that it mis states the time you have to make representations and when they may serve a charge certificate
MrSneeze
I will post a draft up tomorrow. In the meantime, could you clarify what you mean by the 'flaw' in the PCN?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (MrSneeze @ Tue, 17 Jul 2018 - 20:14) *
I will post a draft up tomorrow. In the meantime, could you clarify what you mean by the 'flaw' in the PCN?


it mis states the time you have to make representations and when they may serve a charge certificate
MrSneeze
Apologies for the delay in my posting of a draft. Here it is below.

Dear Sir/Madam,

PCN Number:
Date Served:
Vehicle Registration Number:

I am writing in order to present a representation to challenge the PCN I recieved that alleges my contravention of 31(J) Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited on the Finchley Road (NW11) at 09:48 on 20/06/2018.

My grounds for challenging are as follows:

  • Before crossing the junction, I had anticipated that the car ahead would get in lane. As he continued to straddle the two lanes, I chose to keep my distance and not aim to pass on his side as he was obviously a driver who was not entirely aware of his surroundings. I could have driven further forward so as not to block the junction (which I was anyhow not aware I had done) but chose not to. I therefore believed I have not contravened the clause Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. Highway code rule 174 states: "You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear.” — the road ahead was clear to the extent that I believe I entered the junction legally.
  • The amount of my car that occupied the junction is negligable.
  • The area of the junction occupied by my car is negligable, especially considering that a car trying to cross the junction latterally would have been obstructed by the white car behind me, rendering my ‘blocking’ the junction a mere triviality.


I ask that you take these factors into account and, as a minimal contravention if one at all, reconsider this PCN.

Sincerely,


Let me know if there's anything I can do to enhance clarity or better my case.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (MrSneeze @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 12:37) *
Apologies for the delay in my posting of a draft. Here it is below.

Dear Sir/Madam,

PCN Number:
Date Served:
Vehicle Registration Number:

I am writing in order to present a representation to challenge the PCN I recieved that alleges my contravention of 31(J) Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited on the Finchley Road (NW11) at 09:48 on 20/06/2018.

My grounds for challenging are as follows:

  • Before crossing the junction, I had anticipated that the car ahead would get in lane. As he continued to straddle the two lanes, I chose to keep my distance and not aim to pass on his side as he was obviously a driver who was not entirely aware of his surroundings. I could have driven further forward so as not to block the junction (which I was anyhow not aware I had done) but chose not to. I therefore believed I have not contravened the clause Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. Highway code rule 174 states: "You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear.” — the road ahead was clear to the extent that I believe I entered the junction legally.
  • The amount of my car that occupied the junction is negligable.
  • The area of the junction occupied by my car is negligable, especially considering that a car trying to cross the junction latterally would have been obstructed by the white car behind me, rendering my ‘blocking’ the junction a mere triviality.


I ask that you take these factors into account and, as a minimal contravention if one at all, reconsider this PCN.

Sincerely,


Let me know if there's anything I can do to enhance clarity or better my case.


The flaw in the PCN is identical to that in this case number 2170469036

The Appellant has not attended and the Authority is not represented.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Finchley Road/Bridge Lane on 27 June 2017 at 17.27.
The Appellant's case is that he had anticipated that the exit would be clear.
He also takes a point on the Penalty Charge Notice in relation to the time permitted time for representations to be considered and referred me to the case of Atlas - v Barnet case number 2170053479.
I have considered the evidence and I have allowed this appeal on the truncated period point that an Authority must consider representations. I have copied into this decision the relevant part of the Atlas case.
"Section 4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that A penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state ... (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; ... (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; ... and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served. {effectively 28 days + 2 days}
Mr Atlas correctly points out that in this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: 'The penalty charge of £130 must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. 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 may be payable and a charge certificate may be issued.'
Mr Atlas submits that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time he has to make representations.
I accept this submission. The wording does not comply with the requirements of the Act and therefore effectively limits the time a recipient has to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued."
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.



MrSneeze
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 14:55) *
The flaw in the PCN is identical to that in this case number 2170469036

The Appellant has not attended and the Authority is not represented.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Finchley Road/Bridge Lane on 27 June 2017 at 17.27.
The Appellant's case is that he had anticipated that the exit would be clear.
He also takes a point on the Penalty Charge Notice in relation to the time permitted time for representations to be considered and referred me to the case of Atlas - v Barnet case number 2170053479.
I have considered the evidence and I have allowed this appeal on the truncated period point that an Authority must consider representations. I have copied into this decision the relevant part of the Atlas case.
"Section 4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that A penalty charge notice under this section must [amongst other things] state ... (iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; ... (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable; (vi) the amount of the increased charge; ... and (viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and (8)(b) requires that they specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
Paragraph 1(3) of the Schedule provides that the enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served. {effectively 28 days + 2 days}
Mr Atlas correctly points out that in this case the Penalty Charge Notice states: 'The penalty charge of £130 must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice. 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 may be payable and a charge certificate may be issued.'
Mr Atlas submits that this wording is not compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act and, further, effectively limits the time he has to make representations.
I accept this submission. The wording does not comply with the requirements of the Act and therefore effectively limits the time a recipient has to make representations or, indeed, to pay the full penalty charge before a Charge Certificate is issued."
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.


Thanks for this, PMB. How can I add the above information into my representation draft?
cp8759
Under your grounds of challenge add another bullet point with:
------------
The Penalty Charge Notice is not substantially compliant with section 4(8)(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003: Under the Act the authority is entitled to increase the charge by 50% and issue a charge certificate if no payment or representations have been received after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, the date of service of the PCN would normally be two working days after the date of the PCN. Contrary to the requirements of the Act, the PCN wrongly states that the authority may increase the charge by 50% and issue a charge certificate if the charge has not been paid, and no representations have been received, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. The effect of this is to deprive the recipient of at least two days during which, as a matter of law, he would be entitled to serve representations or pay the full penalty charge before it is increased. I refer you to the enclosed adjudication in Antell Peter v London Borough of Barnet (case reference 2170469036). As the PCN does not comply with the statutory requirements, the amount payable in the circumstances of the case is nil.
-----------------
Print off a copy of the decision from https://londontribunals.org.uk/ and enclose it with your representations.
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.