Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bottom hanging over box junction
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
RoyalTezza
Hi,

Posting here in the distant hope I may have some shot of appealing this fine on the basis very little of my car is actually in the box junction, it seemed to be clear when i entered the box junction, I'm not blocking anything off and I could have edged forward a fraction thus saving me £120. I obviously had no idea the back quarter of my car was in the box. Maybe the fine should be proportionate to how much of your car is in the damn junction rolleyes.gif I'm trying really hard to save money at the moment so this is a bit of a kick in the particulars.

Very grateful for any thoughts and keep up the good work!

Box Junction Video

Logician
To be honest the video shows that:
a) It was obvious traffic was building up so that might not be space for you to clear the junction
b) You did actually have space to do so, you do not have a large car so really not knowing your bottom was still in the junction is not an excuse that works, I suggest the reality is that you simply did not think about it.

This is a matter normally dealt with by Councils not the police so you are actually posting in the wrong forum, but there should be a half price offer if you pay promptly, and that is the way to go, I think.
RoyalTezza
Apologies, had assumed on a quick read this was the most appropriate forum - if it's possible for moderators to move please feel free to do so.
PASTMYBEST
I disagree with Logician. There is space for you to move forward so are you stopped NOT due to the presence of stationary vehicles? There are tribunal cases that have ruled that you would not be.

post the PCN redact only personal details

I have asked the mods to move to the council forum
The Rookie
You appear to actually agree with Logician.

That’s a bit more than your bottom, it’s pretty much everything behind the drivers seat!

PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 16:54) *
You appear to actually agree with Logician.

That’s a bit more than your bottom, it’s pretty much everything behind the drivers seat!


Thanks edited to correct
RoyalTezza
Thanks all - so the fact I'm not blocking anything and could have just shifted forward doesn't really give me an avenue to appeal? Legally speaking. In the court of common sense no doubt this would get laughed out.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:21) *
Thanks all - so the fact I'm not blocking anything and could have just shifted forward doesn't really give me an avenue to appeal? Legally speaking. In the court of common sense no doubt this would get laughed out.


the contravention, taken from the regulations

the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)© of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

So what do we have. You entered the box whilst traffic was still moving but slowing down, the car in front cleared the box, and looks like it could have moved further forward, you entered and stopped short leaving your back end in the box, but you to could have pulled forward. So did you stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles or was this stop just poor judgement. If stationary vehicles, a contravention if poor judgement not


2160252038

he appellant attended the hearing arranged for 11 July.
The Council did not send a representative.
The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.

RoyalTezza
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:40) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:21) *
Thanks all - so the fact I'm not blocking anything and could have just shifted forward doesn't really give me an avenue to appeal? Legally speaking. In the court of common sense no doubt this would get laughed out.


the contravention, taken from the regulations

the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)© of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

So what do we have. You entered the box whilst traffic was still moving but slowing down, the car in front cleared the box, and looks like it could have moved further forward, you entered and stopped short leaving your back end in the box, but you to could have pulled forward. So did you stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles or was this stop just poor judgement. If stationary vehicles, a contravention if poor judgement not


2160252038

he appellant attended the hearing arranged for 11 July.
The Council did not send a representative.
The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.


Thank you (and all others) for posting, forgive me just struggling to follow a little - is the precedent you are citing suggesting I might have a chance? Or the opposite! Thanks.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 20:48) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:40) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:21) *
Thanks all - so the fact I'm not blocking anything and could have just shifted forward doesn't really give me an avenue to appeal? Legally speaking. In the court of common sense no doubt this would get laughed out.


the contravention, taken from the regulations

the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)© of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

So what do we have. You entered the box whilst traffic was still moving but slowing down, the car in front cleared the box, and looks like it could have moved further forward, you entered and stopped short leaving your back end in the box, but you to could have pulled forward. So did you stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles or was this stop just poor judgement. If stationary vehicles, a contravention if poor judgement not


2160252038

he appellant attended the hearing arranged for 11 July.
The Council did not send a representative.
The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.


Thank you (and all others) for posting, forgive me just struggling to follow a little - is the precedent you are citing suggesting I might have a chance? Or the opposite! Thanks.


I think you have a chance, draft an challenge and post it here for review, we will help you put together a strong case
mickR
QUOTE (Logician @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 16:25) *
To be honest the video shows that:
a) It was obvious traffic was building up so that might not be space for you to clear the junction


I would say you form that opinion with the benefit of the elevated position of the camera. From a driving position I would suggest the traffic would have appeared to still be moving and for enough room to be available.
hcandersen
Citing a single, non-binding and possibly out-of-step decision can possibly create more problems than it solves.

And I think that this phrase is telling: could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to.....

So although if a driver simply chooses to stop this is not a contravention, if they do so when stationary vehicles are obviously a factor then it probably is. If a driver chooses to leave a significant gap between them and the car in front (without any other reason other than this is their normal driving style) and as a result leaves their car in contravention, then the car ahead being stationary was the key factor and I cannot see an adjudicator buying this line.

Where is the PCN?

The box markings look odd at the near end
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE
Citing a single, non-binding and possibly out-of-step decision can possibly create more problems than it solves.



Non binding yes but a out of step, You are I am sure aware of the decision where the adjudicator said something along the lines of a motorist may stop for a picnic or to light a pipe. that is not a contravention
RoyalTezza
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 21:17) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 20:48) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:40) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:21) *
Thanks all - so the fact I'm not blocking anything and could have just shifted forward doesn't really give me an avenue to appeal? Legally speaking. In the court of common sense no doubt this would get laughed out.


the contravention, taken from the regulations

the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)© of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

So what do we have. You entered the box whilst traffic was still moving but slowing down, the car in front cleared the box, and looks like it could have moved further forward, you entered and stopped short leaving your back end in the box, but you to could have pulled forward. So did you stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles or was this stop just poor judgement. If stationary vehicles, a contravention if poor judgement not


2160252038

he appellant attended the hearing arranged for 11 July.
The Council did not send a representative.
The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.


Thank you (and all others) for posting, forgive me just struggling to follow a little - is the precedent you are citing suggesting I might have a chance? Or the opposite! Thanks.


I think you have a chance, draft an challenge and post it here for review, we will help you put together a strong case


This is what I have based on your advice, very grateful for any thoughts!

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to make representations with regard to this Penalty Charge Notice. I was driving the car at the time of the alleged contravention, but I contest that this amounts to a violation of the Highway Code.

The The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that

"11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not 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."

I would argue that in this instance I was not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles. There was clearly room for me to move my vehicle forward the required distance to avoid any part of it being within the box junction. When I entered the box junction there was no reasons to anticipate or suspect that doing so would result in me having to stop within the box junction and indeed I needn't have. Only a small part of my car remained over the line, but I had space to move forward and was therefore not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Furthermore it is my view that that not only did I not block any entrances or exits through my driving, but I wouldn't have done if vehicles had approached from the left as my car is only small and only a small part of it remained on the junction.

Finally I would emphasise that any part of the car being within the box junction was not a direct result of stationary vehicles, but because of my judgement and my attempt at being courteous to other road users by allowing space in behind them.

Many thanks,

Royal Tezza


PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 13:05) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 21:17) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 20:48) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:40) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:21) *
Thanks all - so the fact I'm not blocking anything and could have just shifted forward doesn't really give me an avenue to appeal? Legally speaking. In the court of common sense no doubt this would get laughed out.


the contravention, taken from the regulations

the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)© of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

So what do we have. You entered the box whilst traffic was still moving but slowing down, the car in front cleared the box, and looks like it could have moved further forward, you entered and stopped short leaving your back end in the box, but you to could have pulled forward. So did you stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles or was this stop just poor judgement. If stationary vehicles, a contravention if poor judgement not


2160252038

he appellant attended the hearing arranged for 11 July.
The Council did not send a representative.
The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.


Thank you (and all others) for posting, forgive me just struggling to follow a little - is the precedent you are citing suggesting I might have a chance? Or the opposite! Thanks.


I think you have a chance, draft an challenge and post it here for review, we will help you put together a strong case


This is what I have based on your advice, very grateful for any thoughts!

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to make representations with regard to this Penalty Charge Notice. I was driving the car at the time of the alleged contravention, but I contest that this amounts to a violation of the Highway Code.

The The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that

"11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not 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."

I would argue that in this instance I was not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles. There was clearly room for me to move my vehicle forward the required distance to avoid any part of it being within the box junction. When I entered the box junction there was no reasons to anticipate or suspect that doing so would result in me having to stop within the box junction and indeed I needn't have. Only a small part of my car remained over the line, but I had space to move forward and was therefore not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Furthermore it is my view that that not only did I not block any entrances or exits through my driving, but I wouldn't have done if vehicles had approached from the left as my car is only small and only a small part of it remained on the junction.

Finally I would emphasise that any part of the car being within the box junction was not a direct result of stationary vehicles, but because of my judgement and my attempt at being courteous to other road users by allowing space in behind them.

Many thanks,

Royal Tezza





Leave out the paragraph starting furthermore it is my view...………. Your view does not matter it only makes you sound a bit pompous
RoyalTezza
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 13:17) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 13:05) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 21:17) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 20:48) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:40) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:21) *
Thanks all - so the fact I'm not blocking anything and could have just shifted forward doesn't really give me an avenue to appeal? Legally speaking. In the court of common sense no doubt this would get laughed out.


the contravention, taken from the regulations

the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)© of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

So what do we have. You entered the box whilst traffic was still moving but slowing down, the car in front cleared the box, and looks like it could have moved further forward, you entered and stopped short leaving your back end in the box, but you to could have pulled forward. So did you stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles or was this stop just poor judgement. If stationary vehicles, a contravention if poor judgement not


2160252038

he appellant attended the hearing arranged for 11 July.
The Council did not send a representative.
The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.


Thank you (and all others) for posting, forgive me just struggling to follow a little - is the precedent you are citing suggesting I might have a chance? Or the opposite! Thanks.


I think you have a chance, draft an challenge and post it here for review, we will help you put together a strong case


This is what I have based on your advice, very grateful for any thoughts!

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to make representations with regard to this Penalty Charge Notice. I was driving the car at the time of the alleged contravention, but I contest that this amounts to a violation of the Highway Code.

The The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that

"11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not 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."

I would argue that in this instance I was not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles. There was clearly room for me to move my vehicle forward the required distance to avoid any part of it being within the box junction. When I entered the box junction there was no reasons to anticipate or suspect that doing so would result in me having to stop within the box junction and indeed I needn't have. Only a small part of my car remained over the line, but I had space to move forward and was therefore not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Furthermore it is my view that that not only did I not block any entrances or exits through my driving, but I wouldn't have done if vehicles had approached from the left as my car is only small and only a small part of it remained on the junction.

Finally I would emphasise that any part of the car being within the box junction was not a direct result of stationary vehicles, but because of my judgement and my attempt at being courteous to other road users by allowing space in behind them.

Many thanks,

Royal Tezza





Leave out the paragraph starting furthermore it is my view...………. Your view does not matter it only makes you sound a bit pompous


Haha sure no problem. Have I captured the thrust of the argument as you suggested it correctly? Do you have a full reference for the case you cited above?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 13:42) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 13:17) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 13:05) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 21:17) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 20:48) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:40) *
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Tue, 25 Sep 2018 - 18:21) *
Thanks all - so the fact I'm not blocking anything and could have just shifted forward doesn't really give me an avenue to appeal? Legally speaking. In the court of common sense no doubt this would get laughed out.


the contravention, taken from the regulations

the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)© of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

So what do we have. You entered the box whilst traffic was still moving but slowing down, the car in front cleared the box, and looks like it could have moved further forward, you entered and stopped short leaving your back end in the box, but you to could have pulled forward. So did you stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles or was this stop just poor judgement. If stationary vehicles, a contravention if poor judgement not


2160252038

he appellant attended the hearing arranged for 11 July.
The Council did not send a representative.
The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.


Thank you (and all others) for posting, forgive me just struggling to follow a little - is the precedent you are citing suggesting I might have a chance? Or the opposite! Thanks.


I think you have a chance, draft an challenge and post it here for review, we will help you put together a strong case


This is what I have based on your advice, very grateful for any thoughts!

To Whom It May Concern,

I would like to make representations with regard to this Penalty Charge Notice. I was driving the car at the time of the alleged contravention, but I contest that this amounts to a violation of the Highway Code.

The The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that

"11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not 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."

I would argue that in this instance I was not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles. There was clearly room for me to move my vehicle forward the required distance to avoid any part of it being within the box junction. When I entered the box junction there was no reasons to anticipate or suspect that doing so would result in me having to stop within the box junction and indeed I needn't have. Only a small part of my car remained over the line, but I had space to move forward and was therefore not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Furthermore it is my view that that not only did I not block any entrances or exits through my driving, but I wouldn't have done if vehicles had approached from the left as my car is only small and only a small part of it remained on the junction.

Finally I would emphasise that any part of the car being within the box junction was not a direct result of stationary vehicles, but because of my judgement and my attempt at being courteous to other road users by allowing space in behind them.

Many thanks,

Royal Tezza





Leave out the paragraph starting furthermore it is my view...………. Your view does not matter it only makes you sound a bit pompous


Haha sure no problem. Have I captured the thrust of the argument as you suggested it correctly? Do you have a full reference for the case you cited above?


Yep fine for representations, we can strengthen it if required if they reject.

That is the full register entry

https://londontribunals.org.uk/

hcandersen
Marching out of step...

that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music.


But the OP has simply said ‘there was room’ with no clue as to why they stopped unlike in the cited case.

IMO, it is reckless to simply pick out the decision without looking at the relevant circumstances of the case.

‘I misjudged the position of my car and had I not I would certainly have moved forward to exit the box’ is at least a positive statement.
RoyalTezza
Thanks all - representations sent!

NB - it seems ridiculous that you could just make up another reason why you stopped (including fiddling with the radio) and get away with it, so I've chosen not to do this but to stress that the reason I'm in the box junction is not directly due to stationary cars but my own misjudgement.
RoyalTezza
QUOTE (RoyalTezza @ Wed, 26 Sep 2018 - 17:50) *
Thanks all - representations sent!

NB - it seems ridiculous that you could just make up another reason why you stopped (including fiddling with the radio) and get away with it, so I've chosen not to do this but to stress that the reason I'm in the box junction is not directly due to stationary cars but my own misjudgement.


Not sure how i've managed this but just received a very brief letter (several weeks late) confirming my appeal has been accepted and the PCN cancelled. Thanks for your help all!
Mr Meldrew
RoyalTezza: icon_cheers.gif PASTMYBEST: icon_salut.gif
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.