Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Searching DfT FOI responses re YBJ
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Neil B
Anyone know a quick way?

Specifically, Moneyboxjunction lists 'Shaftesbury Ave/St Giles' as having SoS authorisation and that's the one I'm interested in. Case post, on behalf of a good friend, may follow.

only by ploughing through e.g.

must admit have never searched there for YBJ auths - just the usual 'signs'.
Neil B
thanks bama. That may shorten the search, LOL Not found anything yet so if anyone has any direct knowledge about that junction please let me know.

Even if dfT approved I think it is worth checking that they have marked as DfT have approved! it has a ridiculous extension beyond the kerb line, that in this case accommodated almost an entire cab without getting close to obstructing the junction?

Dave O has kindly looked at the vid with me and we both reached the same conclusion. Contravention but of no consequence hence de minimis. Other mitigation too.

i also have all the usual errors on the camden PCN.


just having a little think so opinions welcome. The usual fault of no reps period advised. Now quite close to 14 day point but I see no reason to make an appeal to preserve the discount, it being a one shot thang. I also think the re-offer of a discount will worry the appellant more - stress etc. i fought a Westminster one for him and he was very anxious but went along all the way.

I'd rather delay to a) reduce that stress factor and b) give camden a little test.

PCN posted on a friday gives me a minimum 4 days to play with at the deadline end. i'm toying with the idea of appealing 'in-time' according to the law but 'out of time' according to the PCN. 

Any thoughts on that?


QUOTE (Neil B @ Wed, 27 May 2009 - 12:26) *
PCN posted on a friday gives me a minimum 4 days to play with at the deadline end. i'm toying with the idea of appealing 'in-time' according to the law but 'out of time' according to the PCN.

I don't see the need. This is a strong appeal as it is.

Also, if the guy is as nervous as you say, you don't want to run the risk of them sending him a CC (EN?), even if you are strictly in the right.
Neil B
yep, that's the other side of the coin. Fair enough.

Having just spent 40 minutes trying to get a google earth or streetview image up to show i now realise I can't find it!

i think I'll give them a nudge on 'vague locus' too cos they probably have more than one cam in Shaftsbury Ave.

All the PCN says is Shaftsbury Ave. Apellant mentioned st Giles, holborn and new Ox St in trying to explain. i linked that to MBJ mention of St Giles High St - but now not so sure. If i can't find the bloody thing then clearly there is a vague locus issue as well!


This one maybe...

You may have had problems because St. Giles High Street doesn't intersect Shaftesbury,. St Giles is a continuation of High Holborn, which DOES intersect Shaftesbury.

The one linked is partially hidden by trees, but does seem to overlap the footway somewhat!
Neil B
it's a lovely shape too!!!

thanks morty, i'd seen that one but no, traffic lanes/flow/intersections don't match.

he's just told me on the phone that they have actually got rid of one and he thinks his PCN relates to a relatively new one. Hence various maps are not much help but i think that just emphasises vague locus applies.

couple of interesting things on the vid. two cams involved. operator zips briefly first to a bus in contravention but doesn't focus, same for a private car in contravention and definitely obstrcuting junction then my appellant the cab where he decides to zoom in and linger! Not so fair methinks?


Do you have any stills we can look at?

I know that area a bit, because my wife works in that area on Monday nights. AND no, she is not doing that? You smutty lot! huh.gif She teaches dance at a club just off Drury Lane.
Neil B
thanks mort, i'll try later but they wouldn't load so far, only the vid.


Neil B
After something of a wrestle with my crap cnxn, cluttered files and a big assist from dave - let's see.

To clarify cos it foxed me, being permanentlyorentated north. I think we are looking roughly East and traffic there is moving very roughly south.
As PM'ed its Shaftesbury intersection with Bloomsbury.
Looking at the streetview, it looks as though the YBJ had been painted more or less correctly before, then scrubbed and painted fresh with huge overlaps with the corners!

edit - ignore.
Neil B
Thought i'd finished reps but a few things to resolve.

Viewed the vid again with the whole family - 4 generations at a laptop! LOL.

After several viewings you can see an awful lot more going on in that vid than at first. There is a lane changer that causes the domino effect, 3 pedestrians forced to walk a long way into the box to cross cos obstructed - but not by appellant, 4 other vehicles in clear contravention with two clearly obstructing. Of those 3 are ignored and one only possibly PCNd.

Mortimer. Where in PM you said he was right next to the pavement? Yes he's in contravention, more importantly in the box BUT clearly no obstruction to junction and the only one not obstructing pedestrians whereas 5 others are!

- and yes re the re-marking, he is indeed on the new bit!

Not all valid appeal points but a good overall picture of ridiculous enforcement.


Mortimer. re the Video glitches. Yes I can see something might be wrong but is there something specific I need to say on that?

Don't forget the bus straddling two lanes at the front of the queue.

My point about him being next to the pavement was to illustrate why yellow boxes are supposed to meet at the corner of the pavement. The new markings appear to try and protect areas that don't need it.

The yellow box concept doesn't work very well at this location. You have two sets of lights very close together, which are possible not sequenced together in a meaningful way. The second set is at a junction where clearly buses, particularly the bendy ones (Come on Boris get rid of the damn things!!!!!) need two lanes in order to negotiate the bend. Nothing wrong in that, the Highway Code makes it plain that vehicle drivers should make allowances for long/wide vehicles that need to occupy more road space in order to negotiate junctions, the problem is that the situation changes so rapidly in these instances. It is so easy to become trapped in these boxes. If you dither and wait until you can get across, then only a few vehicles would get through the light sequence at each cycle, and the area would be gridlocked in no time. Its a nasty junction, and really needs better thought from the traffic planners.
Neil B
- and the video glitch thang Mort?

As far as I am concerned a continuous, unbroken sequence of video frame numbers should be there as proof that the video is original, unedited and has not been subjected to any tampering. It is like the water mark in bank notes. The watermarking in this video seems broken to me. Now clearly the video is unlikely to have been tampered with, there is no evidence of editing certainly, i.e. visual artifacts, or unexplained jerkiness in vehicle movements etc. The only editing of course has been the joining of video from several cameras into one video file.

Neil B
Neil B
Unusual development.

Not sure it is of any use but certainly not heard of it before.

Letter from camden 'apologising', and clearly so apparently. 'In scanning your represenations we lost them.' ??? 'Sorry about our mistake'.

Don't yet have the letter from appellant, for exact wording an content, cos away and working 16+ hour days. Will scan in when I see it.

They have invited a repeat rep in 14 days.


Being 'in the know', i had not bothered with original discount period. reps went in around 22nd day I think.

Only thing i can think of is that this is prejudicial in not re-offering the original 28 day period (the correct one or otherwise).


Comment welcome/appreciated - although it isn't a particularly difficult one to win  - it's extra work.

Neil B
Bing Bong !! biggrin.gif  Chalk another one up.


What followed. ------

On the phone they agreed to wait for repeat of the reps they had 'lost'. Giving an extra 4 days??? Still not the original 28 i feel they should.

Letter dated same day as phone call 7/7 actually gave another 14?? They make it up as they go along!

Then, surprise surprise, Charge Certificate £180 dated 14/7. Whoops.

Then letter dated 20/7 cancelling everything.

No sight yet but apparently usual tosh about 'you are naughty but we'll let you off'. Oh, and 'The box is fully compliant' ---- my arse. 

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.