Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN for stopping in box junction at Uxbridge Road - Holland Park Roundabout
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Cents
Hello All,

I received the attached PCN for stopping in a box junction at Holland Park Roundabout on Uxbridge Road.



In a previous post (see http://forums.pepipoo.com/lofiversion/index.php/t76889.html) a similar case was already treated.
It was mentioned that "according to The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Regulation 29, this box is not enforceable". This seems to be due to the way the box is laid out, with double yellow and double red lines in various areas in between the kurb and the yellow box.

As you can see from the picture in the attached file, to make things more complicated, they fenced one area overlapping the box for some ongoing work.

I would like to ask your opinion on whether you think it is worth appealing against this PCN. Yes, I did stop in the box, but in the traffic, with people trying to cross the road and fences on one side I must say it was not easy to judge whether to carry on following the car in front (also in the box) or stopping early.

Thanks in advance for yuor help.

Kind Regads,
Cents
qafqa
Unexpected pedestrians in the yellow box area
can be used at adjudication so you need to see
the video to assess the traffic flow, roadworks
and other factors such as how long the car
was stationary.
Cents
Hello Quafqa,

Thanks for your fast reply. I am completely new to this, so the answer to my question might be well known already.
If I request further evidence such as a video, would they freeze the payment discount period until when such evidence reaches me?
Or will it be the case that if I am not able to successfully appeal, after 14 days from the PCN date I will have to pay the full amount?

Thanks in advance for your help.
qafqa
QUOTE
If I request further evidence such as a video, would they freeze the payment discount period until when such evidence reaches me?
Or will it be the case that if I am not able to successfully appeal, after 14 days from the PCN date I will have to pay the full amount?

I cannot guess what will happen as a result of engaging with a council parking
department so will cop out of stating what they will do smile.gif
H&F do have a web page with the following information.
View PCN videos
http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/Transport..._PCN_videos.asp

QUOTE
You can now view video footage of alleged parking and traffic contraventions issued from 16th July 2012

To view CCTV video footage of your alleged contravention visit www.viewmypcn.co.uk/lbhf (link opens in new window. You will need to enter your PCN number and vehicle registration mark and submit a viewing request.

Your request will then be processed and you will be notified by email and sms when your footage is available for viewing. This should arrive within 24 hours.

Should an email or text not arrive within 24 hours, please try the link above again to see if the video has been prepared for you.

Not all forms of software or devices are compatible to play the traffic contravention videos. If you experience difficulties viewing the video, please make sure you are using an up to date PC with Microsoft windows XP 2 software and Internet Explorer 8, or the latest version of Firefox Browsers as a minimum standard.

Page last updated: 16/11/2012
interlog
The info about re-offering discount may well be on the second page of the PCN which I suggest the OP posts up as well.
Hippocrates
The PCN will be flawed for two reasons.
Cents
Hello,

I have attached also the remaining pages of the PCN, where it is mentioned that if the appeal is not successful I shall pay in full.

In the meantime I have received evidence in the form of pictures and a video. Thank you Qafqa for pointing me at the web page to request them.

I have attached a picture that shows that the light is clearly green when I am approaching the box and also that the pedestrians on the right are approaching the road.
In fact, I stopped quite abruptly also because I did not know whether the pedestrians were trying to cross or were going to stop.

I would be interested to know why the PCN is contestable/invalid, if you think that is the case.

Thanks in advance for your help.
qafqa
The roadworks appear to encroach onto the YBJ so ......
2110376334
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: The Appellant attended for a personal hearing at which he explained that there were road works taking place on this junction which had effectively squeezed the offside lane in which he was travelling. As a result traffic was obstructed. The road works signs and bollards can be seen in the CCTV footage.

The Authority relies on CCTV evidence. The recording only shows part of the junction and is of poor quality but it shows the Appellant's vehicle stopping for 3 seconds. There are road works taking place on the junction itself obstructing part of the offside lane.

A box junction has to comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2002. I am not satisfied that this junction, where part of the lane was restricted by road works, was compliant and on this evidence I am not satisfied that this Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.

This appeal is therefore allowed.

----------------------------

Pedestrians featured in these cases:
2120295997
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: This appeal follows a statutory declaration.
The Authority has produced DVD evidence. This shows that the exit lane of the box junction was clear when the appellant's vehicle entered it.
The appellant claims that pedestrians crossed in front of the vehicle which caused it to stop. The DVD evidence supports this account.
The Regulations provide "...no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles."
I find as fact that the vehicle was not forced to stop in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred and I allow the appeal.
--------------------------
2110481510
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: The Appellant has attended his appeal I find him to be an honest witness I believe what he tells me.
The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Shaftesbury Avenue on 18 July 2011 at 09:44.
The Appellant's case is that his exit to the left of his vehicle was clear and he had intended to follow the green taxi but could not due to pedestrians crossing.
I have considered the evidence and watched the CCTV footage, and on a balance of probabilities, I find that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction due to the presence of pedestrians crossing and not stationary vehicles.
The appeal is allowed.
----------------------------
Another roadworks one:
2110406617
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: This appeal was listed today for a personal hearing but the Appellant has not attended and it is therefore being decided as a postal case.
The Appellants accept that this vehicle stopped on the junction. Their case is that there were road works which effectively reduced the width of the road and altered the original dimensions of the box. They state that the signage was inadequate in the context of these road works.
The Authority relies on CCTV evidence in which this vehicle is recorded stopping for several minutes. However the CCTV evidence does not show the full box junction and no Map/Site Report or authorisation has been provided. It is evident that there is at least one cone on the junction and the full extent of the road works and temporary restrictions cannot be assessed.
I am not satisfied from this evidence that the box junction is compliant and in those circumstances this appeal is allowed.
------------------------------
Hippocrates
The PCN is defective because it limits to one ground and, arguably, the TWOC ground fetters to theft. Schedule 1 of the 2003 Act clearly states "one or other of the grounds". 2120030405 - review.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/
danws1
It appears to me that from the 2 photos included within the PCN they are separated by 12 seconds, and the one which is timed later, clearly shows your vehicle outside & beyond the box junction?! (assuming you are the Alfa on which they are focusing the camera), where is the contravention proved to have occured, and how long are you allowed to take to cross the junction?
Cents
Hello,

Regarding my permanence in the box I believe it was of about 9 seconds, as per attached picture, where I am shown stationary 9 seconds after entering the box.
Nevertheless, I don't think I have entered the box illegally, as the light was green when I entered.

Based on the post from Qafqa I am tempted to go for something like this in my representation:

>
Due to road works occurring on this junction at the time the PCN was issued a whole lane and part of the lane in which the vehicle was transiting were not usable, altering the original dimensions of the box. This caused traffic to bottleneck in mainly two out of three lanes after the junction box.
Further, the road works were poorly signed, making the full extent of the road works and temporary restrictions difficult to assess.
Hence, despite the traffic light was green and the traffic was flowing at the time of entering the box it was not possible to judge that the traffic would stop ahead of the vehicle.

Moreover the evidence shows the vehicle stopping abruptly once entering the box. This was due to pedestrians approaching the middle of the box, causing the driver to stop in the uncertainty that pedestrians would carry on crossing the box.
>

With regards to the post from Hippocrates, I must admit I am not able to follow, perhaps due to my complete inexperience to this field or in general in law. I would appreciate if the reasoning behind Hippocrates' comments could be explained further.

I would be glad if you could share your opinions on the representation drafted above and if you could provide your feedback on whether the text is adequate enough, given the evidence.

Thanks in advance for your help!
Incandescent
As I see it, the key fact is you stopped for pedestrians, not stationary vehicles, so no offencewas committed
interlog
QUOTE
Due to road works occurring on this junction at the time the PCN was issued a whole lane and part of the lane in which the vehicle was transiting were not usable, altering the original dimensions of the box. This caused traffic to bottleneck in mainly two out of three lanes after the junction box.
Further, the road works were poorly signed, making the full extent of the road works and temporary restrictions difficult to assess.
Hence, despite the traffic light was green and the traffic was flowing at the time of entering the box it was not possible to judge that the traffic would stop ahead of the vehicle


This does not make any sense to me. It would have bottlenecked if it went from 3 to 2 lanes but it is the opposite.

Agree that the stopping for the pedestrians is a good point of representation and that it was because of these pedestrians appearing to wanting to cross you had to stop and that once you established they were not crossing you moved across the junction.

Throw also in the point of representation made by Hippocrates.
Cents
Hello Interlog,

Yes, I thoght about what you said. Watching the video it can be seen that traffic accumulates in two out of three lanes simply because it is difficult to move to the third available lane after the box due to the road work fencing. However, I should maybe skip completely this sentence, which is speculative and questionable, so good comment!

Regading the point mentioned by Hippocrates, would this sum it up correctly:

"The PCN is defective because it limits to one ground, while Schedule 1 of the 2003 Act clearly states "one or other of the grounds""

Again, thanks a lot for your help!
interlog
Yes, limits to one ground of representation only
Cents
I posted the representation today.
Thanks to you all for the valuable support!

I shall inform you of how it ends up.
Hippocrates
Post up what you wrote.
hummertime
HI there

I to received a PCN notice at the same intersection and my appeal refused by Hammersmith & Fulham BC.

How did people get on with YBJ being compliant? and is this YBJ at this intersection complaint ?

I am about to lodge a appeal with PASTAS but just wondered how everyone else got on.

Thanking you in advance and any information would be of great help

Cheers.

P.s Attached is my CCTV pictures of my "alleged" entering a box junction. Any thoughts? My Vehicle is the Grey 4wd in the left hand lane.

Cheers
Incandescent
QUOTE (hummertime @ Tue, 21 May 2013 - 01:34) *
HI there

I to received a PCN notice at the same intersection and my appeal refused by Hammersmith & Fulham BC.

How did people get on with YBJ being compliant? and is this YBJ at this intersection complaint ?

I am about to lodge a appeal with PASTAS but just wondered how everyone else got on.

Thanking you in advance and any information would be of great help

Cheers.

P.s Attached is my CCTV pictures of my "alleged" entering a box junction. Any thoughts? My Vehicle is the Grey 4wd in the left hand lane.

Cheers


Please start your own thread and also post up the PCN. The offence is entering and (then) stopping in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The law doesn't have the word 'then' in the clause, so this is not very good law making, IMHO. The Highway Code clause on these junctions is not the law, just advice on one way of avoiding getting a PCN
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 © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.