Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for entering & stopping in Finchle Road - appeal?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
riccume
Hi guys, great site! I hope somebody can tell me whether I would stand a chance in appeal? I've made a repesentation against my PCN for entering & stopping in a box junction when prohibited, but was turned down. The representation was based on 1) unlawful wording in the PCN (the "28 day period", as described elsewhere on this forum) and 2) my exit from the yellow box was clear while I was stopping - Finchley road on that stretch has a third lane for buses, which was empty and was not restricted at that time of the day. In turning the representation down TLF commented on the first point while they didn't say anything about the second one.

If I proceed with the appeal I'm also planning to add the mitigating factors that 1) I was driving home my 7-week old son from a surgical procedure (frenulotomy) which caused bleeding and distress, putting me in an emergency situation (I have a doctor's letter confirming this) and 2) at no point in time my 8-second stop in the yellow box caused any trouble to other vehicles.

Thanks for your advice!

Video attached
Communication from TFL below









Incandescent
Stopping for 8 seconds is a de minimis transgression as proved by a recent PATAS case for a 7 second stop. You can cite this as a support for an appeal.

Not only this, the letter from TfL shows the person writing it is ignorant of the law on box junctions and has mislead you so you can also appeal on this as a collateral argument. The law is that you "must not cause a vehicle to enter the box such that the vehicle has to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles." The TfL letter writer seems to think just stopping is an offence; not true !!
riccume
Thanks Incandescent. But I believe rule 174 of The Highway code states "You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear". If I read it correctly the issue is whether one enters the box with no clear exit. I believe I did (the bus lane); TfL believes I didn't.
Incandescent
The Highway Code is NOT the law. Any offence is against the statute, not the Highway Code, even if some PATAS adjudicators seem to think otherwise. The main point to make is that a recent adjudication allowed an appeal on the basis of de minimis, the stop time being a few seconds like yours.
riccume
Thanks Incandescent. So I'll refer to the "de minimis" basis, and the fact that I did not have to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles (I could have driven to the bus lane, but decided to stay in my lane for a few seconds). In your opinion should I also refer to the unlawful wording in the PCN (the "28 day period", as described elsewhere on this forum), or better to keep it simple?
interlog
In all honesty, there is not a lot there to win at Adjudicaton. You will be entering a lottery where you win or lose depending on the Adjudicator hearing the Appeal.

If you have the opportunity to still pay at discount, you may wish to consider this.

Entirely up to you of course.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Sun, 10 Mar 2013 - 20:35) *
Stopping for 8 seconds is a de minimis transgression as proved by a recent PATAS case for a 7 second stop. You can cite this as a support for an appeal.

Not only this, the letter from TfL shows the person writing it is ignorant of the law on box junctions and has mislead you so you can also appeal on this as a collateral argument. The law is that you "must not cause a vehicle to enter the box such that the vehicle has to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles." The TfL letter writer seems to think just stopping is an offence; not true !!

6 seconds no more. Please show me the case for 7 seconds.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t=0#entry792263

I am offering to represent you free of charge having successfully managed to get an adjudicator to change his mind re the wording issue. PM me for the letter, if you wish. Currently, there is a spat, to say the least, between PATAS and me - and others - re this conflation issue of the two distinct periods in which to pay and make reps.
interlog
Reps where already made and rejected?
Hippocrates
QUOTE (riccume @ Mon, 11 Mar 2013 - 22:56) *
Thanks Incandescent. So I'll refer to the "de minimis" basis, and the fact that I did not have to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles (I could have driven to the bus lane, but decided to stay in my lane for a few seconds). In your opinion should I also refer to the unlawful wording in the PCN (the "28 day period", as described elsewhere on this forum), or better to keep it simple?


If you want to win this, you do not keep it simple - you use all arguments as part of the scattergun approach. I have never seen a decision by a PATAS adjudicator which does not cite 174. Got it, now!

I am doing another appeal shortly for someone who is not a member. You really have to know what words and language to use with an adjudicator on this conflation issue.

While I fully sympathise with your circumstances, the best an adjudicator can do is to make a recommendation re compelling reasons if so minded, and the authority do not have to follow it. But, use it.
interlog
Post one shows letter of rejection and points of representation by OP (wording and one lane free)
Hippocrates
QUOTE (interlog @ Mon, 11 Mar 2013 - 23:17) *
Post one shows letter of rejection and points of representation by OP (wording and one lane free)

Thanks. Now awake. But, where is the letter of representation? The NOR contains three flaws. But, we need to see the letter to see if they have failed to consider.

To make the offer even better, if I lose, I will pay half. So, OP, you may as well fight it!
riccume
Here the representation guys. Running out of the door, more comments later. Thanks!

riccume
interlog - thanks for your prudent advise.
Hippocrates - thanks for the offer. I'm sending you a PM.

I notice that none of you has commented the point that I did not have to stop, I could have easily driven to the bus lane which was empty and legally accessible at the time, so there was no infringement. I thought that was a powerful argument - why not?
interlog
That argument has indeed been put to Adjudicators. Indeed it used to be in the key cases directory on the PATAS website but it appears no longer be listed as a key case. That does not surprise me as a lot of Adjudications that I have read have dismissed the findings of that particular Adjudicator reasoning that the contravention did not occur because the driver could have used the free lane but decided not to do so.
Hippocrates
QUOTE (riccume @ Tue, 12 Mar 2013 - 07:06) *
interlog - thanks for your prudent advise.
Hippocrates - thanks for the offer. I'm sending you a PM.

I notice that none of you has commented the point that I did not have to stop, I could have easily driven to the bus lane which was empty and legally accessible at the time, so there was no infringement. I thought that was a powerful argument - why not?


You mean "the knight's move"?
Hippocrates
Apart from the obvious, they have failed to consider point 2 IMO. At least they cite the correct period on page 3 of the PCN, which is what I used as an argument recently i.e. in that it creates confusion. My advice: register the appeal in the standard and advised fashion here: contravention did not occur and add "full details to follow as and when advised".

Also, e-mail TfL for their witness to attend and confirm the date once you have it. S/he will not turn up which will give you further grounds for success.
riccume
Yes, forward and one lane to the left.
Hippocrates
EDW has posted some of these cases re knight's move. 2100599944

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/
Hippocrates
OK, game on. Just register the appeal for now:- contravention did not occur and add "full details to follow as and when advised". Then wait for PATAS response, TfL's evidence pack and a date from PATAS. Will PM letter later. Seen it. Register by Friday at the latest. Deemed date of service is 18th February. Deadline strictly is, therefore, 17th. PATAS is not open then. I would register tomorrow.
riccume
Perfect. Game on.
Hippocrates
Don't forget to register - tomorrow is good. We do not want any charge certificates, thanks. wink.gif
Hippocrates
Another one won today:- 2130043902; however, compare with 2110335439 and 212010963A.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/
riccume
Congrats! Crazy inconsistencies though!
Hippocrates
QUOTE (riccume @ Mon, 25 Mar 2013 - 16:17) *
Congrats! Crazy inconsistencies though!

Quite. I am the proverbial dog with the bone, though, and I will fight for justice for hillcats' father in law et al. This is simply bonkers. IMO, Henry Michael and Neeti should dig into their pockets.
hillcats
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 25 Mar 2013 - 16:36) *
QUOTE (riccume @ Mon, 25 Mar 2013 - 16:17) *
Congrats! Crazy inconsistencies though!

Quite. I am the proverbial dog with the bone, though, and I will fight for justice for hillcats' father in law et al. This is simply bonkers. IMO, Henry Michael and Neeti should dig into their pockets.



Ah, my hero ! cool.gif
Hippocrates
Perhaps Tom Cruise can give some advice on getting FIL's reversed. ninja.gif
riccume
Great news, appeal accepted! The adjudicator felt that the video was too shaky during part of my time in the yellow box to determine whether I was actually at a standstill or moving slowly, and the stop which was clearly visible lasted only 2-4 seconds - de minimis!

Thanks Hippocrates for all of your help, I could not have done it without you and the confidence that we could have used the argument of the incorrect wording if needed!
Incandescent
It is gratifying to see another YBJ PCN cancelled on a de minimis basis.

Councils have got away with this scam for far too long. The whole point of the YBJ regulation is to facilitate movement at the junction so that it is kept clear for traffic that is able to move over it, NOT to offer a source of cheaply-generated cash for councils. PCNs should really only be issued if a vehicle blocks others from moving, i.e spirit not letter of the law.
Hippocrates
The camera operator used too much vibrato. The Adjudicator was informed of my complete dissatisfaction with the fact that TfL are still issuing defective PCNs and that he had allowed 5 cases on this basis. Of course, he had already decided by then. Still, a nice man, fair adjudicator and very polite. Unlike yesterday's.

Well done riccume. Salute! icon_jook.gif My pleasure, any time.
riccume
Incandescent, I couldn't agree more. The system is way too skewed in favour of the TfL/councils. They have virtually no downside in sending out gratuitous tickets: in the worst case scenario they get challenged, the appeal is accepted, and they've wasted one hour (max) of cheap labour pulling together some boiler-plate paperwork, and a couple of stamps.

On the contrary, there is plenty of downside for a driver who is forced to appeal against a bogus ticket. First, the risk of having to pay double if the appeal is rejected. More importantly, plenty of time and effort to prove his/her innocence. I've wasted at the very minimum 10 hours of my time to deal with the appeal process and Hippocrates has generously put in a lot of additional effort. We both attended the appeal in person, while nobody from TfL bothered to show up, although we had requested their presence.
When we came out of the hearing my strongest feeling was that of a Pyrrhic victory: it was the right thing to do, but it was not worth the £65 I saved. This certainly helps explain the very low appeal percentages: doing "the right thing" is always a luxury and more so in these tough times.

To be honest, as somebody who works in finance, I think TfL/councils are doing exactly the right thing: maximizing profits by playing a statistical game which has de minimis downside for them. I'd invest in them if it were possible! But as a citizen and taxpayer, given TfL's main role to help and serve Londoners on the move, I think their behavior is utterly untenable and needs to be urgently addressed.
Incandescent
Have a look at the Transport Committe written evidence for their forthcoming investigation. Commercial firms have far greater problems with PCNs and now basically pay them as a cost of doing business, because the time to put an appeal together means they lose money, as no costs are awarded.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons.../PE%20Memos.pdf

Essentially the system has created a scam, and is in urgent need of reform. TfL charge £10 just to provide a copy of the video for heavens sake. Even councils are now providing an on-line facility free of charge. Just so you know, it was that arrogant and conceited politician, Mr Kenneth Clarke who started the whole thing in 1991, and the Blair government that compounded it by allowing CCTV enforcement for everything.
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.