Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN Brent, contravention 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Benjybobs
Hello everyone, I've always heard about this forum as the place to come for sensible advice on the best ways to try and beat unfair penalty charges. i always thought I'd never need it, or at least if I did get caught out, I'd see the error of my ways, suck it up and pay the penalty.

Anyways, inevitably I've finally put a foot wrong and have been spanked. Now whilst I agree that technically I have broken the highway code, I do feel I have been treated a little unfairly and since Brent council seem to love technicalities, I'm looking for another one that might allow me to escape the charge.

Hopefully I've understood the FAQ section and I'll post up the details here, and a link to the video, then hopefully someone will have some god news for me, but more likely I'll be getting my chequebook out.

Now I'll explain my reasoning for feeling a little hard done by. In the video you will see I was in Brent, an area I don't know well, I came to the junction to turn left and saw a string of stationary buses, assuming they could be stopped at a bus stop, I creeped out to attempt to go around them. Once I got a good view I realised this was not possible and I should wait behind them, so I reversed slightly so I wasn't poking out and causing any obstruction, I would have reversed further I guess but people were crossing behind me, and I figured it would be safer to stay where I was.

Anyway as the video shows I ended up waiting quite a while, maybe 30 seconds or more. before the traffic moved on. At no time did I cause an obstruction to anybody, and I think I did the safest thing after realising my initial mistake.

Here's the letter that came through:







and here hopefully is a link to the video:

View My Video

Now I'm fully prepared that I may have to just suck this up to council pedantry and take it on the chin, and I could understand if a non feeling machine had issued a ticket but it was clearly manually operated, and somebody decided I deserved a ticket. The irony is I was only there to do a job on Brent council's behalf anyway.

So, I was wondering, I understand the box junction markers need to meet the four corners of the junction fully. This does not seem to be the case here, can anyone confirm this is a possible problem for them? Also the infraction was dated 24/04/13 and the PCN issued on 06/06/13, that's 43 days. Is there no maximum time within which they have to issue these, i.e. 14 days with a speeding fine, or 28 days, which they state as a reasonable time to pay them in? Also, what is the law regarding a penalty for this, as I understand its in the highway code, but the highway code is exactly that... a code. It's not a document that explains the law, so are they allowed to "enforce" whatever they like? CCTV, is it legal to use CCTV to send penalty charges for things like this?

I appreciate any helpful advice, or constructive criticism.

Thanks



Chaseman
The specified period in which they must send the PCN is 28 days from date of "offence", unless they can demonstrate a delay in receiving information from DVLA to identify the owner/keeper. Under The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005, if the LA has requested the details within 14 days, and they have not been received within the 28 days required to allow a PCN to be served under para 8(2) below, then they have six months in which to serve the PCN.

Penalty charge notices
8.—(1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date.

(3) Where—

(a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and .
(b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2), .
the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).


So given that they took 43 days in your case I would seek confirmation of the dates on which they requested details and received them from DVLA. If they requested on say day 7 and received on say day 25 then they would be out of time, but if received on day 29 they would be within their rights to issue a PCN on day 43.

I have in the back of my mind that bus lanes in London may still be regulated by the London Local Authorities Act 1996 which appears not to specify a period at all. I am sure someone will be along to confirm on this point. There may be other technicalities with the PCN that an expert will spot.

Ironically, looking at the video you would have been best off pulling out past the buses because there was nothing coming the other way. Unfortunately you could see clearly on pulling in to the YBJ that there was a stationary vehicle blocking your exit (which is the terminology of the offence) - it's a bit of a tricky one to say "My exit wasn't blocked because I thought I was going to be able to pull out past the buses and it was only when I was actually in the YBJ that I changed my mind". But worth a try if nothing else works, so long as you are still in the discount period.
Benjybobs
Thanks for the advice, sounds like a great start. Would I seek that information as part of the appeal process, or make the request for information and then after I receive it start an appeal?

Also having just re watched the video, I can see that people were alighting from the bus as I approached, this must have been why I tried to go around it. Do you think this could help my case? I'm not sure it is even a bus stop, but two people step off of the bus whilst its adjacent to double yellow lines.

and as you can see from google maps, it must be a new setup, as none of the road markings are present here in this picture, nice little earner for them I imagine

googlemaps

(edited to add map link)
Chaseman
You can make an informal challenge within the 14 day discount period. Check what Brent says on its website re re-offering the discount if your challenge is turned down, but most will re-offer (so you will not have lost anything). Ask in your letter/e-mail for confirmation on this point and if it's an e-mail, put a delivery receipt on it. I would make two points in your challenge:

1. Referring to the time taken to produce the PCN and to the underlying legislation, saying that on the face of it the PCN is out of time unless they can confirm the dates they requested and received information from the DVLA.

2. Saying that your exit from the YBJ was not blocked by stationary vehicles, there was room to pass but that given limited visibility (which was not apparent before you made the left turn) you then decided it was prudent not to attempt to overtake the bus(es).

The reason the bus(es) were stationary and whether they were or were not discharging passengers is irrelevant. It's simply a question of whether they were blocking your exit. The offence is entering a YBJ when your exit is blocked by stationary vehicles and if you can argue that it was not blocked but nonetheless it was not prudent to proceed you may stand a chance but will doubtless have to take it all the way to PATAS.
Incandescent
I looked at the video, and when you reversed, I expected you to reverse back out of the box, but you didn't ! If you had the offence would not have occurred as you were only stationary for about 1 second between going forward and going back. 5-6 seconds at a stand has won adjudications recently on de minimis basis. Hope you can succeed in an appeal, but from the video, I doubt it, so it's down to the PCN and its content unless our other experts find a 'killer' appeal point. They are pretty good at this BTW !
Benjybobs
QUOTE
I looked at the video, and when you reversed, I expected you to reverse back out of the box, but you didn't !


I know, wish i had now, there were people milling about and crossing behind, and my visibility isnt great in that car so just thought I'd stick it out as there wasnt much traffic, and would be far safer than reversing into a junction. More fool me, I'd have got in less trouble for stopping in the opposite carriageway!

I'm glad Brent are looking after our safety though. I'm going to take the advice of the earlier post and request some information regarding the timings of the information request, I suspect the delay could be down to it being a company car so it probably took a little while to track me down. I'm hoping they were tardy in applying though. fingers crossed.
Benjybobs
Hi, a slightly shameless bump, but can anyone in the know glance over the above and let me know if there are any errors in the wording of the PCN, or if indeed the YBJ is incorrectly painted on the road? (The video helps with this after I've moved off)

Thanks
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Chaseman @ Mon, 10 Jun 2013 - 14:35) *
You can make an informal challenge within the 14 day discount period. Check what Brent says on its website re re-offering the discount if your challenge is turned down, but most will re-offer (so you will not have lost anything). Ask in your letter/e-mail for confirmation on this point and if it's an e-mail, put a delivery receipt on it. I would make two points in your challenge:

1. Referring to the time taken to produce the PCN and to the underlying legislation, saying that on the face of it the PCN is out of time unless they can confirm the dates they requested and received information from the DVLA.

2. Saying that your exit from the YBJ was not blocked by stationary vehicles, there was room to pass but that given limited visibility (which was not apparent before you made the left turn) you then decided it was prudent not to attempt to overtake the bus(es).

The reason the bus(es) were stationary and whether they were or were not discharging passengers is irrelevant. It's simply a question of whether they were blocking your exit. The offence is entering a YBJ when your exit is blocked by stationary vehicles and if you can argue that it was not blocked but nonetheless it was not prudent to proceed you may stand a chance but will doubtless have to take it all the way to PATAS.

No he can't. There is no such beast as an informal challenge to a m.t.c. There is one formal representation and that is it. He can, however, submit as you suggest but that is then it.



QUOTE (Benjybobs @ Tue, 11 Jun 2013 - 23:21) *
Hi, a slightly shameless bump, but can anyone in the know glance over the above and let me know if there are any errors in the wording of the PCN, or if indeed the YBJ is incorrectly painted on the road? (The video helps with this after I've moved off)

Thanks


Send this as well as the other issue:

1. The PCN

(a) One is entitled to know and fully understand the allegation when a PCN is received, and it should describe the allegation sufficiently for the recipient to be able to accept or deny the allegation. The code description begins with a mixture of two verbal nouns - entering and stopping - which are opposite in meaning to each other in conceptual terms because the very activities they describe cannot possibly happen at the same time - as implied by the description - and because they are diametrically opposed to each other ipso facto.

(b) The taken without consent ground limits to theft only and I am not legally obliged to provide a crime reference number, especially if a family member has taken the vehicle without my consent.


2. The Law and The Highway Code.

a) I note that the contravention which the Appellant is alleged to have committed is described as "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited". The alleged contravention is poorly described in that it is clearly not possible to enter the box and stop at the same time; but, irrespective of this, the Authority still have to satisfactorily prove the "when prohibited" aspect of the allegation.

In this respect, the Authority appear to base their case on rule 174 of the Highway Code, which states @174:-:

Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road. You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.


In fact, Regulation 29(2) actually states that the YBJ markings convey the prohibition given in Part II of Schedule 19 of the TSRGD 2002 as amended. However, Part II of Schedule 19 describes two YBJ contraventions. The one with which most are familiar, and that Transport for London claim establishes the contravention is this one in Section 7 Part II of Schedule 19 which states:

7 (1) Subject to paragraph 9, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043, 1044 and 1044.1 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.

However, Section 8 of Part II of Schedule 19 also describes a YBJ contravention:

8. Subject to paragraph 9, the road marking shown in diagram 1044.2 shall convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.

I refer to the highlighted sections and ask you to note the difference between the two. Only one, Section 8, indicates that there is a contravention if one has to stop because the exit is not clear, and this is not the section that applies in this case. Why? Because Diagram 1044.2 indicates a YBJ that is installed in conjunction with sign numbers 615 and 811, which are the priority over / give way to oncoming vehicles signs, placed where the road is narrow or there is limited visibility. These latter two signs are not in place at the location of the alleged contravention.

It is self evident why Section 8 is logical – if one blocks the junction, one blocks the entire road. But, this does not apply in this case. Section 7 does, and the fact that Section 7 deliberately does not refer to a contravention caused by the exit being blocked beyond the box junction is good evidence that such a situation was never meant to be a contravention at all. It is only Section 8 that is relevant when there are vehicles beyond the box junction.

INSERT HERE WHAT HAPPENED IN YOUR OWN WORDS.

Notwithstanding the above, It is my view that Rule 174 of the Highway Code does not refer to Section 7. In any case, any alleged failure to follow The Highway Code is not an offence. Section 7 does not mention clear exits or vehicles outside the box. It mentions stationary vehicles and nothing else.

There is a clear difference between Section 7 and Section 8. The Highway Code, and the PATAS interpretation is correct for Section 8, but not for Section 7 in my view. The argument differentiates the two possible contraventions.

b) The Highway Code is not statute. The TSRGD is. And its amendment. The former refers/points to the latter, and not vice versa. Certain rules in the Highway Code represent various road traffic laws and must be obeyed. Others are not compulsory, but advisable. The Road Traffic Act 1988 @ 38(7) states:

(7)A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative (sic) any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

And @ 38(8):

(8)In this section “the Highway Code” means the code comprising directions for the guidance of persons using roads issued under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1930, as from time to time revised under this section or under any previous enactment.

I rely upon the law as expressed by Parliament and not upon any summary expressed by the Department of Transport. Similarly, drivers are bound by the Law as expressed by Parliament and as interpreted by Courts of Record as, indeed, we all are.

In view of the above, I respectfully ask that the PCN be cancelled forthwith.



Yours faithfully

****************************

For highlighted sections, see this thread from which I edited the above:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...rt=#entry812942
Benjybobs
You sir, are both a scholar asnd a gent. i thank you.

I'll draft a letter/email on Friday and post it up here first. I'll add something in about that time delay also.

I notice you mention a lack of certain signage in the above, but of interest, was the YBJ painted properly on the road in this instance? Or is that not really a good avenue to include?
Hippocrates
Ask them how their YBJ complies and whether there is any special authorisation from the DfT.
Benjybobs
Thanks for everyone's help so far:

What do you think of this, I'm going to send it off by email but if anyone thnks I've omitted anythign useful then please let me know!


Dear Sirs

Ref: PCN: BT68524247

I make these representations against the said PCN

1. Serving of penalty charge notices in a timely fashion.

The Under The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 states:

8.—(1) Where an approved local authority have reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable under Part 2 with respect to a vehicle, they may, in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (5) below, serve a notice (“penalty charge notice”) on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle or on the person appearing to them to be the person liable to pay the charge.

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), a penalty charge notice shall be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the detection date.

(3) Where—

(a)within 14 days of the detection date an approved local authority have made a request to the Secretary of State for the supply of relevant particulars; and .
(b)those particulars have not been supplied before the date after which the authority would not be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice by virtue of paragraph (2), .
the authority shall continue to be entitled to serve a penalty charge notice for a further period of six months beginning with the date mentioned in sub-paragraph (b).


The PCN issued is dated 06/06/2013 and the date of the alleged contravention is stated as 24/04/2013. This is some 43 days, please can you provide a written record of when the application was made and the particulars received from the secretary of State as currently the PCN does not seem to have been issued in time.

2. The PCN is a nullity and unenforceable because of its wording defects.


(a) One is entitled to know and fully understand the allegation when a PCN is received, and it should describe the allegation sufficiently for the recipient to be able to accept or deny the allegation. The code description begins with a mixture of two verbal nouns - entering and stopping - which are opposite in meaning to each other in conceptual terms because the very activities they describe cannot possibly happen at the same time - as implied by the description - and because they are diametrically opposed to each other ipso facto.

(b) The statutory grounds for representation which mentions taken without consent limits to theft only and I am not legally obliged to provide a crime reference number, especially if a family member has taken the vehicle without my consent.



3. The Law and The Highway Code.

a) I note that the contravention which the appellant is alleged to have committed is described as "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited". The alleged contravention is poorly described in that it is clearly not possible to enter the box and stop at the same time; but, irrespective of this, the Authority still have to satisfactorily prove the "when prohibited" aspect of the allegation.

In this respect, the Authority appear to base their case on rule 174 of the Highway Code, which states @174:-:

Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road. You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.


In fact, Regulation 29(2) actually states that the YBJ (yellow box junction) markings convey the prohibition given in Part II of Schedule 19 of the TSRGD 2002 as amended. However, Part II of Schedule 19 describes two YBJ contraventions. The one with which most are familiar, and that Transport for London claim establishes the contravention is this one in Section 7 Part II of Schedule 19 which states:

7 (1) Subject to paragraph 9, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043, 1044 and 1044.1 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.

However, Section 8 of Part II of Schedule 19 also describes a YBJ contravention:

8. Subject to paragraph 9, the road marking shown in diagram 1044.2 shall convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.

I refer to the highlighted sections and ask you to note the difference between the two. Only one, Section 8, indicates that there is a contravention if one has to stop because the exit is not clear, and this is not the section that applies in this case. Why? Because Diagram 1044.2 indicates a YBJ that is installed in conjunction with sign numbers 615 and 811, which are the priority over / give way to oncoming vehicles signs, placed where the road is narrow or there is limited visibility. These latter two signs are not in place at the location of the alleged contravention.

It is self evident why Section 8 is logical – if one blocks the junction, one blocks the entire road. But, this does not apply in this case. Section 7 does, and the fact that Section 7 deliberately does not refer to a contravention caused by the exit being blocked beyond the box junction is good evidence that such a situation was never meant to be a contravention at all. It is only Section 8 that is relevant when there are vehicles beyond the box junction.

I feel that my exit from the YBJ was not blocked by stationary vehicles. There were two buses with passengers alighting onto double yellow lines I assume because there is a bus stop further along. There was room to pass these buses and proceed but that given limited visibility (which was not apparent before I made the left turn) I then decided it was prudent not to attempt to overtake the bus(es). Instead I deemed it safer for myself, other road users, and pedestrians whom were crossing behind my vehicle to remain stationary. During this time I caused no obstruction or hindered the progress of any vehicle or individual.

Notwithstanding the above, it is my view that Rule 174 of the Highway Code does not refer to Section 7. In any case, any alleged failure to follow The Highway Code is not an offence. Section 7 does not mention clear exits or vehicles outside the box. It mentions stationary vehicles and nothing else.

There is a clear difference between Section 7 and Section 8. The Highway Code, and the PATAS interpretation is correct for Section 8, but not for Section 7 in my view. The argument differentiates the two possible contraventions.

b) The Highway Code is not statute. The TSRGD is. And its amendment. The former refers/points to the latter, and not vice versa. Certain rules in the Highway Code represent various road traffic laws and must be obeyed. Others are not compulsory, but advisable. The Road Traffic Act 1988 @ 38(7) states:

(7)A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative (sic) any liability which is in question in those proceedings.


And @ 38(8):

(8)In this section “the Highway Code” means the code comprising directions for the guidance of persons using roads issued under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1930, as from time to time revised under this section or under any previous enactment.

I rely upon the law as expressed by Parliament and not upon any summary expressed by the Department of Transport. Similarly, drivers are bound by the Law as expressed by Parliament and as interpreted by Courts of Record as, indeed, we all are.

In view of the above, I respectfully ask that the PCN be cancelled forthwith.



Yours faithfully
Chaseman
BB, sorry I have misled you by quoting the regs regarding the enforcement of bus lanes. I think it was the fact that you were held up behind a bus that made me think of bus lane contraventions rather than moving traffic offences. Stopping in a YBJ is of course a moving traffic offence and in this respect Hippocrates is right - there is no informal challenge available, only a formal appeal against PCN.

So far as the time taken to produce a PCN is concerned this governed by the London Councils' CCTV code of practice and the relevant part is:

Issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)
2.4.7 The Secretary of State recommends that all PCNs should be issued within 14 days of the contravention. A PCN should be sent by first class post and must not be sent by second class post. Any notice served by first class post is deemed to have been served on the second working day after posting unless the contrary is proved.
6
2.4.8 Reasons for not serving the PCN within 14 days should be restricted to those that are outside of the control of the authority, for example where details from the DVLA have not been received in time.
2.4.9 In any case, PCNs must be served within 28 days of the date of contravention unless keeper details have not been received from DVLA.


so you can see that there is a wish-washy get out for the Council. Having said that PCNs should be sent out within 14 days, there is then an extension to 28 "in any case" ........unless keeper details have not been received from DVLA. After which there appears to be no time limit! So still worth asking that question and it's up to the council to explain why they took 43 days when the recommendation is 14 and "in any case PCNs must be served within 28 days" unless........

Here's the link:

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylob...eofpractice.htm
Benjybobs
No problem, thanks for pointing it out and the assistance.

I've altered the email accordingly, what does anyone think?

Dear Sirs

Ref: PCN: BT68524247

I make these representations against the said PCN

1. Serving of penalty charge notices in a timely fashion.

Taken from the the London Councils' CCTV code of practice:

Issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)
2.4.7 The Secretary of State recommends that all PCNs should be issued within 14 days of the contravention. A PCN should be sent by first class post and must not be sent by second class post. Any notice served by first class post is deemed to have been served on the second working day after posting unless the contrary is proved.
6
2.4.8 Reasons for not serving the PCN within 14 days should be restricted to those that are outside of the control of the authority, for example where details from the DVLA have not been received in time.
2.4.9 In any case, PCNs must be served within 28 days of the date of contravention unless keeper details have not been received from DVLA.


The PCN issued is dated 06/06/2013 and the date of the alleged contravention is stated as 24/04/2013. This is some 43 days, please can you provide a written record of when the application was made and the particulars received from the secretary of State as currently the PCN does not seem to have been issued in time inline with your own council's code of practice.

2. The PCN is a nullity and unenforceable because of its wording defects.


(a) One is entitled to know and fully understand the allegation when a PCN is received, and it should describe the allegation sufficiently for the recipient to be able to accept or deny the allegation. The code description begins with a mixture of two verbal nouns - entering and stopping - which are opposite in meaning to each other in conceptual terms because the very activities they describe cannot possibly happen at the same time - as implied by the description - and because they are diametrically opposed to each other ipso facto.

(b) The statutory grounds for representation which mentions taken without consent limits to theft only and I am not legally obliged to provide a crime reference number, especially if a family member has taken the vehicle without my consent.



3. The Law and The Highway Code.

a) I note that the contravention which the appellant is alleged to have committed is described as "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited". The alleged contravention is poorly described in that it is clearly not possible to enter the box and stop at the same time; but, irrespective of this, the Authority still have to satisfactorily prove the "when prohibited" aspect of the allegation.

In this respect, the Authority appear to base their case on rule 174 of the Highway Code, which states @174:-:

Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road. You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.

In fact, Regulation 29(2) actually states that the YBJ (yellow box junction) markings convey the prohibition given in Part II of Schedule 19 of the TSRGD 2002 as amended. However, Part II of Schedule 19 describes two YBJ contraventions. The one with which most are familiar, and that Transport for London claim establishes the contravention is this one in Section 7 Part II of Schedule 19 which states:

7 (1) Subject to paragraph 9, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043, 1044 and 1044.1 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.

However, Section 8 of Part II of Schedule 19 also describes a YBJ contravention:

8. Subject to paragraph 9, the road marking shown in diagram 1044.2 shall convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.

I refer to the highlighted sections and ask you to note the difference between the two. Only one, Section 8, indicates that there is a contravention if one has to stop because the exit is not clear, and this is not the section that applies in this case. Why? Because Diagram 1044.2 indicates a YBJ that is installed in conjunction with sign numbers 615 and 811, which are the priority over / give way to oncoming vehicles signs, placed where the road is narrow or there is limited visibility. These latter two signs are not in place at the location of the alleged contravention.

It is self evident why Section 8 is logical – if one blocks the junction, one blocks the entire road. But, this does not apply in this case. Section 7 does, and the fact that Section 7 deliberately does not refer to a contravention caused by the exit being blocked beyond the box junction is good evidence that such a situation was never meant to be a contravention at all. It is only Section 8 that is relevant when there are vehicles beyond the box junction.

I feel that my exit from the YBJ was not blocked by stationary vehicles. There were two buses with passengers alighting onto double yellow lines I assume because there is a bus stop further along. There was room to pass these buses and proceed but that given limited visibility (which was not apparent before I made the left turn) I then decided it was prudent not to attempt to overtake the bus(es). Instead I deemed it safer for myself, other road users, and pedestrians whom were crossing behind my vehicle to remain stationary. During this time I caused no obstruction or hindered the progress of any vehicle or individual.

Notwithstanding the above, it is my view that Rule 174 of the Highway Code does not refer to Section 7. In any case, any alleged failure to follow The Highway Code is not an offence. Section 7 does not mention clear exits or vehicles outside the box. It mentions stationary vehicles and nothing else.

There is a clear difference between Section 7 and Section 8. The Highway Code, and the PATAS interpretation is correct for Section 8, but not for Section 7 in my view. The argument differentiates the two possible contraventions.

b) The Highway Code is not statute. The TSRGD is. And its amendment. The former refers/points to the latter, and not vice versa. Certain rules in the Highway Code represent various road traffic laws and must be obeyed. Others are not compulsory, but advisable. The Road Traffic Act 1988 @ 38(7) states:

(7)A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative (sic) any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

And @ 38(8):

(8)In this section “the Highway Code” means the code comprising directions for the guidance of persons using roads issued under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1930, as from time to time revised under this section or under any previous enactment.

I rely upon the law as expressed by Parliament and not upon any summary expressed by the Department of Transport. Similarly, drivers are bound by the Law as expressed by Parliament and as interpreted by Courts of Record as, indeed, we all are.

In view of the above, I respectfully ask that the PCN be cancelled forthwith.



Yours faithfully
Chaseman
Note in para 1 that the council gets your details from the DVLA and not from the Secretary of State.
Benjybobs
In the end I added a bit more, becasue after readingthe guidance I thought that the positioning of the bus top and the road markings dont comply with the guidance. Hopefully this wasnt ill advised, but I thought it would do no harm to add it to the representation. For interest here is the final draft

Dear Sirs

Ref: PCN: BT68524247

I make these representations against the said PCN

1. Serving of penalty charge notices in a timely fashion.

Taken from the the London Councils' CCTV code of practice:

Issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)
2.4.7 The Secretary of State recommends that all PCNs should be issued within 14 days of the contravention. A PCN should be sent by first class post and must not be sent by second class post. Any notice served by first class post is deemed to have been served on the second working day after posting unless the contrary is proved.
6
2.4.8 Reasons for not serving the PCN within 14 days should be restricted to those that are outside of the control of the authority, for example where details from the DVLA have not been received in time.
2.4.9 In any case, PCNs must be served within 28 days of the date of contravention unless keeper details have not been received from DVLA.


The PCN issued is dated 06/06/2013 and the date of the alleged contravention is stated as 24/04/2013. This is some 43 days, please can you provide a written record of when the application was made and the particulars received from the DVLA as currently the PCN does not seem to have been issued in time, inline with your own council's code of practice.

2. The PCN is a nullity and unenforceable because of its wording defects.

(a) One is entitled to know and fully understand the allegation when a PCN is received, and it should describe the allegation sufficiently for the recipient to be able to accept or deny the allegation. The code description begins with a mixture of two verbal nouns - entering and stopping - which are opposite in meaning to each other in conceptual terms because the very activities they describe cannot possibly happen at the same time - as implied by the description - and because they are diametrically opposed to each other ipso facto.

(b) The statutory grounds for representation which mentions taken without consent limits to theft only and I am not legally obliged to provide a crime reference number, especially if a family member has taken the vehicle without my consent.

3. The Law and The Highway Code.

a) I note that the contravention which the appellant is alleged to have committed is described as "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited". The alleged contravention is poorly described in that it is clearly not possible to enter the box and stop at the same time; but, irrespective of this, the Authority still have to satisfactorily prove the "when prohibited" aspect of the allegation.

In this respect, the Authority appear to base their case on rule 174 of the Highway Code, which states @174:-:

Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road. You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.

In fact, Regulation 29(2) actually states that the YBJ (yellow box junction) markings convey the prohibition given in Part II of Schedule 19 of the TSRGD 2002 as amended. However, Part II of Schedule 19 describes two YBJ contraventions. The one with which most are familiar, and that Transport for London claim establishes the contravention is this one in Section 7 Part II of Schedule 19 which states:

7 (1) Subject to paragraph 9, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043, 1044 and 1044.1 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.


However, Section 8 of Part II of Schedule 19 also describes a YBJ contravention:

8. Subject to paragraph 9, the road marking shown in diagram 1044.2 shall convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.

I refer to the highlighted sections and ask you to note the difference between the two. Only one, Section 8, indicates that there is a contravention if one has to stop because the exit is not clear, and this is not the section that applies in this case. Why? Because Diagram 1044.2 indicates a YBJ that is installed in conjunction with sign numbers 615 and 811, which are the priority over / give way to oncoming vehicles signs, placed where the road is narrow or there is limited visibility. These latter two signs are not in place at the location of the alleged contravention.

It is self evident why Section 8 is logical – if one blocks the junction, one blocks the entire road. But, this does not apply in this case. Section 7 does, and the fact that Section 7 deliberately does not refer to a contravention caused by the exit being blocked beyond the box junction is good evidence that such a situation was never meant to be a contravention at all. It is only Section 8 that is relevant when there are vehicles beyond the box junction.

I feel that my exit from the YBJ was not blocked by stationary traffic and that the acrriageway was clear to proceed. There were however two buses with passengers alighting onto double yellow lines I assume because there is a bus stop further along. There was room to pass these buses and proceed down the clear carriageway beyond but that given limited visibility of junctions just beoyond the buses (which was not apparent before I made the left turn) I then decided it was prudent not to attempt to overtake the bus(es). Instead I deemed it safer for myself, other road users, and pedestrians whom were crossing behind my vehicle to remain stationary. During this time I caused no obstruction or hindered the progress of any vehicle or individual.

Notwithstanding the above, it is my view that Rule 174 of the Highway Code does not refer to Section 7. In any case, any alleged failure to follow The Highway Code is not an offence. Section 7 does not mention clear exits or vehicles outside the box. It mentions stationary vehicles and nothing else.

There is a clear difference between Section 7 and Section 8. The Highway Code, and the PATAS interpretation is correct for Section 8, but not for Section 7 in my view. The argument differentiates the two possible contraventions.

b) The Highway Code is not statute. The TSRGD is. And its amendment. The former refers/points to the latter, and not vice versa. Certain rules in the Highway Code represent various road traffic laws and must be obeyed. Others are not compulsory, but advisable. The Road Traffic Act 1988 @ 38(7) states:

(7)A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative (sic) any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

And @ 38(8):

(8)In this section “the Highway Code” means the code comprising directions for the guidance of persons using roads issued under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1930, as from time to time revised under this section or under any previous enactment.

I rely upon the law as expressed by Parliament and not upon any summary expressed by the Department of Transport. Similarly, drivers are bound by the Law as expressed by Parliament and as interpreted by Courts of Record as, indeed, we all are.

4. Validity of the YBJ

The Department for Transport’s document (DfT) “Traffic Signs manual Chapter 5 - Road Markings” Section 12 deals with YBJ.

Section 12.7 states:

Not all junctions are suitable for the installation of box markings, and certain criteria should be applied before deciding whether a particular site should be marked. A traffic survey should be carried out to determine the extent of the problem, not only to assess the suitability of the junction for box marking but also to establish whether any alternative measures might be effective (e.g. re-timing or linking of traffic signals at adjacent junctions). A survey will also reveal what further measures might be needed,
e.g. imposition of waiting and loading restrictions or re-location of bus stops.
I formally request to see a copy of the traffic survey conducted for this location when the siting this YBJ was implemented. In particular the decisions regarding the location of the bus stop adjacent to this junction. In my case it was the positioning of two buses stopped at a bus stop only intended for one bus to stop at a time that impeded my progress down the clear carriageway beyond. I therefore question whether this YBJ meets the guidelines for suitability as outline in section 12.8 (V) which states:


the carriageway beyond the junction should be free from obstruction (this may necessitate the imposition of waiting or loading restrictions, or the adjustment of bus stops on the lengths concerned)

In addition diagram 1044 shows that the corners of the YBJ should meet the kerb line If this is not possible then perhaps a cutaway can be used as per the text in section 12.4:

Up to 10% of the length of the side at any corner may be cut away as shown in the diagram to accommodate corner kerbs

Nether of these methods were correctly implemented at this junction, as can be clearly seen from the video of the incident. After my vehicle moves away, the YBJ can be seen to fall considerably short of covering the entire junction and the markings do not comply with the guidance as set out by the department for transport. Can you illustrate how this YBJ complies with the guidance and whether you have any special authorisation from the DfT?

In view of the above, I respectfully ask that the PCN be cancelled forthwith and considerations be made regarding the continued suitability of this YBJ.



Yours faithfully
roban
I just got my PCN (issued at the same YBJ) cancelled: Wembley Hill Rd YBJ

I don't know how much use my thread will be to you as they've changed the wording on the PCN so that they don't limit the grounds to one any more and I used that in my appeal. They didn't give much away in their letter as they said they cancelled the PCN 'due to technical reasons' and that they 'made no decision in relation to the argument' I raised in my appeal. They've also cancelled another one today that was due to be heard at PATAS on the same day as mine: Bigviv Brent YBJ

I don't know if it was something in the arguments we used or maybe they just couldn't be arsed to do the work putting the evidence pack together (we were both due to receive evidence pack tomorrow) but something seems to have worked in our favour. I hope it works out for you too.
Benjybobs
Hi, a little update for this. I sent in my representations as written above, on the 17th June and I've heard nothing back from them at all since then, except for an automated email on the day to state they had recieved it.

So a quick summary of dates:

"offence" occurred: 24/04/13
PCN issued: 06/06/13 (43 days later)
Representation made: 17/06/13 (11days later)
Today : 01/08/13 (52 days after the representaion, 63 days after the PCN was issued, and 106 days after the "offence")

Am I safe to think I've heard the last of it? Do they have a deadline to complete a PCN, or a deadline to respond to a representaion? Surely this cant hang over my head indefineatly?

Theres been a lot of bad press recently regarding this sort of thing, hopefully this is playing in my favour.

Any advice greatfully appreciated. ,

Ben
Benjybobs
Just a quick bump, does anyone know of any time limits relating to the above?

thanks

Ben
Benjybobs
An update...

I recieved a rejection of my representations. I've posted up the scans below. I've noticed something very curious though and I'd like as many opinions as possible on it.

I understand that the council has 56 days to respond to a representation: the dates so far:

"offence" occurred: 24/04/13
PCN issued: 06/06/13 (43 days later)
Representation made: 17/06/13 (11days later)
Monday: 05/08/13 (56 days after the representaion, 63 days after the PCN was issued, and 106 days after the "offence")

Now bear with me, page one of the rejection letter is dated 02/08/13 so within the time frame (just) however you can just about see in the text below the "Brent" logo is a computer generated date, it must be generated when the letter is written, it states if you cant see it:

"MOV_INSERT-06-08-2013-15-14.csv,06/08/2013,Rec25"

This to me says the document was written at 15:14 on Tuesday the 6th August, and mail merged from a csv file on their computer system (57 days after my representations were made) and then backdated to the 2nd. This is further backed up by the scan on page 4, this is a scan of the pamphlet they sent out with the letter, with details of what I should do if I wish to apeal. This has a box marked "For official use only" and in it is the date 06/08/2013 for NoR (Notice of Rejection)

What chance do you think I have? Assuming that is all above board, I'd appreciate any opinions on appealing, I'm feeling fairly beaten at this stage, they have stated repeatedly that I stopped there, and are technically correct but I feel it was unfair. I'd have been better off If I had pulled into the opposite carriageway and stopped there instead, or attempted to reverse into a junction with pedestrians crossing.

see what you think, I'll post a copy of my representations below the scans.

Thanks

Ben









QUOTE
Dear Sirs

Ref: PCN: BT68524247

I make these representations against the said PCN

1. Serving of penalty charge notices in a timely fashion.

Taken from the the London Councils' CCTV code of practice:

Issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs)
2.4.7 The Secretary of State recommends that all PCNs should be issued within 14 days of the contravention. A PCN should be sent by first class post and must not be sent by second class post. Any notice served by first class post is deemed to have been served on the second working day after posting unless the contrary is proved.
6
2.4.8 Reasons for not serving the PCN within 14 days should be restricted to those that are outside of the control of the authority, for example where details from the DVLA have not been received in time.
2.4.9 In any case, PCNs must be served within 28 days of the date of contravention unless keeper details have not been received from DVLA.

The PCN issued is dated 06/06/2013 and the date of the alleged contravention is stated as 24/04/2013. This is some 43 days, please can you provide a written record of when the application was made and the particulars received from the DVLA as currently the PCN does not seem to have been issued in time, inline with your own council's code of practice.

2. The PCN is a nullity and unenforceable because of its wording defects.

(a) One is entitled to know and fully understand the allegation when a PCN is received, and it should describe the allegation sufficiently for the recipient to be able to accept or deny the allegation. The code description begins with a mixture of two verbal nouns - entering and stopping - which are opposite in meaning to each other in conceptual terms because the very activities they describe cannot possibly happen at the same time - as implied by the description - and because they are diametrically opposed to each other ipso facto.

(b) The statutory grounds for representation which mentions taken without consent limits to theft only and I am not legally obliged to provide a crime reference number, especially if a family member has taken the vehicle without my consent.

3. The Law and The Highway Code.

a) I note that the contravention which the appellant is alleged to have committed is described as "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited". The alleged contravention is poorly described in that it is clearly not possible to enter the box and stop at the same time; but, irrespective of this, the Authority still have to satisfactorily prove the "when prohibited" aspect of the allegation.

In this respect, the Authority appear to base their case on rule 174 of the Highway Code, which states @174:-:

Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road. You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.

In fact, Regulation 29(2) actually states that the YBJ (yellow box junction) markings convey the prohibition given in Part II of Schedule 19 of the TSRGD 2002 as amended. However, Part II of Schedule 19 describes two YBJ contraventions. The one with which most are familiar, and that Transport for London claim establishes the contravention is this one in Section 7 Part II of Schedule 19 which states:

7 (1) Subject to paragraph 9, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043, 1044 and 1044.1 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.

However, Section 8 of Part II of Schedule 19 also describes a YBJ contravention:

8. Subject to paragraph 9, the road marking shown in diagram 1044.2 shall convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.

I refer to the highlighted sections and ask you to note the difference between the two. Only one, Section 8, indicates that there is a contravention if one has to stop because the exit is not clear, and this is not the section that applies in this case. Why? Because Diagram 1044.2 indicates a YBJ that is installed in conjunction with sign numbers 615 and 811, which are the priority over / give way to oncoming vehicles signs, placed where the road is narrow or there is limited visibility. These latter two signs are not in place at the location of the alleged contravention.

It is self evident why Section 8 is logical – if one blocks the junction, one blocks the entire road. But, this does not apply in this case. Section 7 does, and the fact that Section 7 deliberately does not refer to a contravention caused by the exit being blocked beyond the box junction is good evidence that such a situation was never meant to be a contravention at all. It is only Section 8 that is relevant when there are vehicles beyond the box junction.

I feel that my exit from the YBJ was not blocked by stationary traffic and that the carriageway was clear to proceed. There were two buses with passengers alighting onto double yellow lines I assume because there is a bus stop further along. There was room to pass these buses and proceed down the clear carriageway beyond but that given limited visibility of junctions just beyond the buses (which was not apparent before I made the left turn) I then decided it was prudent not to attempt to overtake the bus(es). Instead I deemed it safer for myself, other road users, and pedestrians whom were crossing behind my vehicle to remain stationary. During this time I caused no obstruction or hindered the progress of any vehicle or individual.

Notwithstanding the above, it is my view that Rule 174 of the Highway Code does not refer to Section 7. In any case, any alleged failure to follow The Highway Code is not an offence. Section 7 does not mention clear exits or vehicles outside the box. It mentions stationary vehicles and nothing else.

There is a clear difference between Section 7 and Section 8. The Highway Code, and the PATAS interpretation is correct for Section 8, but not for Section 7 in my view. The argument differentiates the two possible contraventions.

b) The Highway Code is not statute. The TSRGD is. And its amendment. The former refers/points to the latter, and not vice versa. Certain rules in the Highway Code represent various road traffic laws and must be obeyed. Others are not compulsory, but advisable. The Road Traffic Act 1988 @ 38(7) states:

(7)A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative (sic) any liability which is in question in those proceedings.

And @ 38(8):

(8)In this section “the Highway Code” means the code comprising directions for the guidance of persons using roads issued under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1930, as from time to time revised under this section or under any previous enactment.

I rely upon the law as expressed by Parliament and not upon any summary expressed by the Department of Transport. Similarly, drivers are bound by the Law as expressed by Parliament and as interpreted by Courts of Record as, indeed, we all are.

4. Validity of the YBJ

The Department for Transport’s document (DfT) “Traffic Signs manual Chapter 5 - Road Markings” Section 12 deals with YBJ.

Section 12.7 states:

Not all junctions are suitable for the installation of box markings, and certain criteria should be applied before deciding whether a particular site should be marked. A traffic survey should be carried out to determine the extent of the problem, not only to assess the suitability of the junction for box marking but also to establish whether any alternative measures might be effective (e.g. re-timing or linking of traffic signals at adjacent junctions). A survey will also reveal what further measures might be needed.

e.g. imposition of waiting and loading restrictions or re-location of bus stops.

I formally request to see a copy of the traffic survey conducted for this location when the siting this YBJ was implemented. In particular the decisions regarding the location of the bus stop adjacent to this junction. In my case it was the positioning of two buses stopped at a bus stop only intended for one bus to stop at a time that impeded my progress down the clear carriageway beyond. I therefore question whether this YBJ meets the guidelines for suitability as outline in section 12.8 (V) which states:

the carriageway beyond the junction should be free from obstruction (this may necessitate the imposition of waiting or loading restrictions, or the adjustment of bus stops on the lengths concerned)

In addition diagram 1044 in the same document shows that the corners of the YBJ should meet the kerb line If this is not possible then perhaps a cutaway can be used as per the text in section 12.4:

Up to 10% of the length of the side at any corner may be cut away as shown in the diagram to accommodate corner kerbs

Nether of these methods were correctly implemented at this junction, as can be clearly seen from the video of the incident. After my vehicle moves away, the YBJ can be seen to fall considerably short of covering the entire junction and the markings do not comply with the guidance as set out by the department for transport. Can you illustrate how this YBJ complies with the guidance and whether you have any special authorisation from the DfT.
In view of the above, I respectfully ask that the PCN be cancelled forthwith and considerations be made regarding the continued suitability of this YBJ.

Yours faithfully

Ben Fisher
EDW
Who told you to write all that garbage? It wont help.

This is what counts and should win

Wembley Hill Road is according to Google maps 0.5 miles long therefore the location on the pcn is too vague to describe the allegation.

Where is 'Royal Route CCTV' - can't see it on any maps.

There was space between the car and the bus, therefore the car did not stop due to a stationery vehicle.
Hippocrates
NOR states charge will increase. Wrong in law.

Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice

3Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—

(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—

(i)the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and

(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,

and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.

Will/may cases

2110072817, 2100649871, 2110415753, 2120021652, 2130049862, 2120448511, 212058885A, 2130236316

Benjybobs
Thanks Hippocrates, I'm not sure on my success if I'm basing my whole appeal on one word in the rejection letter, is that a common point that these apeals are won on? You quoted some cases there, did they win in this manner?

Is there any hope in the timings of the rejection? Or the fact they seemed to have back dated it?

You think it was all garbage? I should send you some of the reports I write at work, you'd love them! biggrin.gif

Seriously though, thanks for the input, anything is useful. I suspect that now I've already made the representations that the points you mentioned are probably too little too late for them now. Unless you know of appeals being won on grounds such as this?
EDW
The NoR mentions Royal Route, which is the wrong street, so you cant lose.

End of story.

Benjybobs
Thanks EDW, but i was pulling out of Royal Route onto Wembley Hill Road, thats where the junction in question is.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=brent&...ingdom&z=17

it doesnt show a box junction in the google earth image but its certainly there now, I suspect every junction, turning, side road, drive way and car park entrance in Brent will probably have one by now, and a host of pricey CCTV to ensure the traffic flows well, afterall thats whats important.

Is there anything in this date thing, noone seems to have been able to comment, am i barking up the wrong tree there?
EDW
http://goo.gl/maps/h2nxn

maps are different never seen that before.
Benjybobs
Looks different, but when you zoom in they become the same. I think I'm going to have to suck it up, unless there is anything in the dates????? is the NoR date the one that counts, or is it the date they put on the letter to imply they did it sooner?
Benjybobs
Found this:

They stated the NoR is the 06/08/13, I made representations on the 17?06/13 this is 57 days, the limit is 56. Should I appeal to PATAS, or simply write back to the cancel and ask them to cancel it?

Duty of enforcement authority to which representations are made

5.—(1) The enforcement authority may disregard any representations which are received by it after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the relevant notice to owner was served.

(2) Where representations are made to an enforcement authority by virtue of regulation 4(1) and in accordance with regulation 4(2), it shall subject to paragraph (1) be the duty of the enforcement authority—
(a)to consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b)within the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which the representations were served on it, to serve on that person notice of its decision as to whether or not it accepts that—
(i)one or more of the grounds specified in regulation 4(4) applies; or
(ii)there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the notice to owner should be cancelled and any sum paid in respect of it should be refunded.

(3) Where the enforcement authority accepts that a ground specified in regulation 4(4) applies or that there are such compelling reasons it shall—
(a)cancel the notice to owner; and
(b)state in the notice served under paragraph (2)(b) that the notice to owner has been cancelled and at the same time refund any sum paid in relation to the notice.

(4) The cancellation of a notice to owner under this regulation shall not be taken to prevent the enforcement authority from serving, in accordance with the General Regulations, a fresh notice to owner on another person.

(5) If the enforcement authority fails to comply with paragraph (2)(b) within the period of 56 days there specified, it shall be deemed for the purposes of these Regulations to have accepted—
(a)that such of the grounds referred to in paragraph (2)(b)(i) as were relied upon in the representations apply; or
(b)in a case where paragraph (2)(b)(ii) is relied upon, that there are compelling reasons of the kind referred to in that paragraph, and paragraph (3) shall apply accordingly.

From http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3482/part/2/made
Incandescent
You are in for the full PCN amount, so having had an out-of-time NoR, you should appeal to PATAS stating the NoR is out-of-time, (57 days after the representation), therefore cannot be enforced and the representations should have been accepted and the PCN cancelled. I don't suppose any harm will be done pointing their error out to them, but you need to register an appeal now.

It is not directly relevant, but representations for parking offences must be responded to within the same period, but the Statutory Guidance states: -

QUOTE
Consideration of representations
11.28 The enforcement authority must142 consider representations and any
supporting evidence against a Notice to Owner, regulation 10 PCN or
immobilisation or removal, and serve notice of its decision on the
person making the representations within 56 days of the service of
the representations whether or not it accepts that the ground in question
has been established. The 56 day period in the regulations should be
seen as the maximum period and authorities should aim to decide
representations as quickly as possible. The Secretary of State
considers that all decision notices should be served within 21 days.


There is no guidance related to moving traffic offences, maybe there should be, although the way councils ignore the parking guidance one wonders if it would be worth it.
Hippocrates
Sorry, this argument re limit for serving a NOR is a red herring.
Benjybobs

My bad, here is the proper legislation hopefully this may prove useful to anyone in a similar boat as it wasn't obvious to me when I searched.:

2008 legislation:

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008

QUOTE
Right to make representations2(1)A relevant person shall, at the relevant time be informed by notice in writing, by or on behalf of the relevant authority, of his right to make representations under this paragraph and his right of appeal under paragraph 3 below.


yadadada
and here it is:

QUOTE
(5)It shall be the duty of the relevant authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which they receive the representations—
(a)to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b)to serve on that person a notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground in question has been established.


and

QUOTE
(8) Where a relevant authority fail to comply with sub-paragraph (5) above before the end of the period of 56 days there mentioned—
(a)they shall be deemed to have accepted that the ground in question has been established and to have served notice to that effect under sub-paragraph (5)(b) above; and
(b)sub-paragraph (6) above shall have effect as if it required any refund to be made immediately after the end of that period.


I think this is it, a technicality maybe, but I guess its what its all about. I'll send something in and update you all presently, thanks for the help especially Hippocrates, its also great that the legislation is available online, I doubt I would have gone down the library to hunt through the documents.

note, the 2003 legislation states no time limit at all.

TFL legislation

states

QUOTE
Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice

3Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—

(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—

(i)the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and

(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,

and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.




«THÖMÅS®©™»
From my point of view:...

It appears that the council goon operating the camera was looking for a target and saw the OP's nice shiny NEW black car with a 2013 plate and decided to try and make some money for him to get a new car of similar make and model cos he has a jalopy in the back yard and not a nice shiny new one like the OP!

It seems from my point of view that the goon saw a target and took it expecting the "threat-o-grams" to intimidate the OP in to paying... Little did he know!

@ OP: I hope you win this. This is nothing more than a racket designed to scam Joe Public and make commission out of doing so.
EDW
QUOTE (Benjybobs @ Fri, 9 Aug 2013 - 23:51) *
Thanks EDW, but i was pulling out of Royal Route onto Wembley Hill Road, thats where the junction in question is.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=brent&...ingdom&z=17

it doesnt show a box junction in the google earth image but its certainly there now, I suspect every junction, turning, side road, drive way and car park entrance in Brent will probably have one by now, and a host of pricey CCTV to ensure the traffic flows well, afterall thats whats important.

Is there anything in this date thing, noone seems to have been able to comment, am i barking up the wrong tree there?




there is space between car and bus so the car did not HAVE to stop, it chose to stop, so no offence.


Case Reference: 2100599944
Appellant: Mr Dudley Fleming
Authority: Transport for London
VRM: YC57CVR
PCN: GT30890742
Contravention Date: 30 Sep 2010
Contravention Time: 13:13
Contravention Location: Peckham High St / Peckham Bus Station
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Decision Date: 06 Jan 2011
Adjudicator: Hugh Cooper
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: Mr Fleming appeared before me today for the personal hearing of his appeal.

He gave evidence in the same terms as his earlier representations to the Enforcement Authority and his Notice of Appeal. He does not dispute that his car stopped in this box junction at the time alleged by the Authority. However he argues that the layout of this junction, with another set of traffic lights beyond it whose sequence cannot be predicted by a driver approaching this junction, made it impossible for him to know that the vehicles immediately ahead of his would stop just beyond the limits of the box junction, in response to which he brought his own car to a halt within the markings of the junction. However, having viewed the video footage of the incident provided by the Authority, I have formed the view that the contravention did not occur.

Mr Fleming's car undoubtedly did enter the box junction and come to a halt within it. It is also the case that the vehicle immediately ahead of his in the outside lane was stationary, and that hence he could not have continued through the junction in that lane.

The contravention in this case is defined in Part II of Schedule 19 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, the material parts of which read,

7(1)...the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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 [my emphasis]

The issue therefore in this case is not whether Mr Fleming's car did stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles, but whether it had to do so. In my view it did not. By chance on this occasion the inside lane remained clear, and it was therefore open to him at the point when he entered the junction, and even after his car had come to a stop (just) to move to the left into the empty inside lane and leave the junction.

If one considers the mischief that this box junction is aimed at, i.e. to keep a passage clear for vehicles entering or leaving the bus station which might otherwise be blocked by traffic backing up from the traffic lights further down Peckham High Street, had such a vehicle approached the junction to enter or leave the bus station at the point when Mr Fleming's car was stationary in the box, he would have been able immediately to carry out what might be described as a "knight's move" into the inside lane, thus clearing the junction of any obstruction.


I would of course advise Mr Fleming in future to avoid even entering a box junction unless he can clearly see that there is a space big enough to accommodate his car immediately beyond the junction, but I am not satisfied that on this occasion the contravention as alleged occurred.

I therefore allow this appeal.
Benjybobs
Very interesting EDW, thanks for that, I think I'll be slinging that into my appeal for good measure too, as I could have gone round those buses and continued along the road!
Hippocrates
QUOTE (Benjybobs @ Sat, 10 Aug 2013 - 23:47) *
My bad, here is the proper legislation hopefully this may prove useful to anyone in a similar boat as it wasn't obvious to me when I searched.:

2008 legislation:

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008

QUOTE
Right to make representations2(1)A relevant person shall, at the relevant time be informed by notice in writing, by or on behalf of the relevant authority, of his right to make representations under this paragraph and his right of appeal under paragraph 3 below.


yadadada
and here it is:

QUOTE
(5)It shall be the duty of the relevant authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which they receive the representations—
(a)to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b)to serve on that person a notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground in question has been established.


and

QUOTE
(8) Where a relevant authority fail to comply with sub-paragraph (5) above before the end of the period of 56 days there mentioned—
(a)they shall be deemed to have accepted that the ground in question has been established and to have served notice to that effect under sub-paragraph (5)(b) above; and
(b)sub-paragraph (6) above shall have effect as if it required any refund to be made immediately after the end of that period.


I think this is it, a technicality maybe, but I guess its what its all about. I'll send something in and update you all presently, thanks for the help especially Hippocrates, its also great that the legislation is available online, I doubt I would have gone down the library to hunt through the documents.

note, the 2003 legislation states no time limit at all.

TFL legislation

states

QUOTE
Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice

3Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—

(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—

(i)the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and

(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,

and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.



This is the only legislation which applies: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted
alloageorge
have to say that video shows you attempting to move up parallel with the bus.
as you started to pass the bus you decided rather than sit in the hatched area
that a better alternative was to reverse back into the box junction and straighten up.
i cant see you deserved the pcn and hope adjudicator agrees.
Benjybobs
Hippocrates, can I ask a potentially stupid question? Why doesnt the 2008 act apply? Can the authority pick and choose which parts to adhere to? the 2008 states at the beginning:

QUOTE
An Act to confer further powers upon local authorities in London and upon Transport for London; and for related purposes.


section 7 is for:

QUOTE
Limitation on service of notice to owner: road traffic contraventions


I don't understand why this extra add on in 2008 doesnt apply ? the 2003 seems itself was an add on to:

QUOTE
(9)In relation to the promotion of the Bill for this Act the Westminster City Council have complied with the requirements of section 239 of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70) and the other London borough councils have complied with the requirements of section 87 of the Local Government Act 1985 (c. 51):
(10)In relation to the promotion of the Bill for this Act Transport for London have complied with the requirements of section 167 of and Schedule 13 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29):


So in a nutshell why does the 2003 apply but not the 2008, when they seem to be additions to the same act? isnt the most modern the one that has to be used?
Benjybobs
Okay, an update. I've finally found time to write an appeal. after reading through the cases Hippocrates sent relating to the use of "will increase" in the NoR, I feel I have a good case as a precedent has been set. I also stuck in some stuff about the time delay. I know this seemed controversial but I don't see why the 2008 act shouldn't supersede the 2003 act of the same name. I don't think councils can choose which version of a legislation they like best.

Anyway, will see where I get with it and update accordingly. Below is the second part of my appeal, I left the beginning out, as I basically resubmitted the representations, and all that has already been posted above.

QUOTE
Additional Representations


1. Response to Representations not Complete

Section 1, of my representations to Brent is titled: Serving of penalty charge notices in a timely fashion.
I reasonably requested details of when the requests for information were made to the DVLA. I received no more than a written statement from Brent stating they issued the original PCN to the owner of the vehicle. In this case Hitachi (as it is a lease vehicle) on the 29/04/2013. It was then a further 38 days before they re-issued the PCN to me. Brent did not account for this delay in a satisfactory manner, or provide any documentary evidence to explain this delay as reasonably requested. I therefore feel they have failed to comply with their own guidelines, and with the legislation in issuing the PCN and in responding appropriately in the NoR.

2. Serving of Notice of Rejection (NoR) in a timely fashion.

In addition to the delays stated above, I also have experienced unacceptable delays in the response from Brent to my representations. I was accused of committing the “offence” on the 24/04/13. The PCN was issued to me on the 06/06/13 (43 days later). I then made representations on the 17/06/13 (11days later) (please find attached email receipt from Brent) and I received an NoR on the 07/08/2013, with a stated date of the 06/08/2013. (57 days after the representations were made).
Further to this, the notice of rejection had been backdated to the 02/08/2013. I suggest this was done to make it appear as though it had been written earlier. There is however a watermark line of text below the Brent logo to show that the letter was actually created on the 06/08/2013, which is also in line with the date stated on the appeal form as the official NoR date.

I understand from having studied the documents “Code of Practice on Civil Parking and Traffic Enforcement” from the Brent Council’s website that paragraph 192 states:

“192) There is no statutory time limit for authorities to deal with representations against an NtO, but authorities should respond speedily in order to provide a good service, to obtain due payment as quickly as possible or to avoid the risk of prejudicing any appeal. Authorities should therefore aim to answer representations within the same time scale allowed for general correspondence (often 10 working days) and should certainly look at a target of answering them within a maximum of 20 working days”.
In addition this document on Brent’s own website:

http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/policylob...eofpractice.htm

Titled: “Code of Practice for Operation of CCTV Enforcement Cameras in the [Enforcement Authority]”, states that there are no fewer than twelve pieces of legislation governing the use of CCTV for issuing PCN’s. Amongst them are:
“London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003” which has since been superseded by “London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008” which in schedule 2 also states:

“(5)It shall be the duty of the relevant authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the day on which they receive the representations—
(a)to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b) to serve on that person a notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground in question has been established.”
I feel they have not replied in line with their own guidance, but regardless of this, the legislation firmly dictates a time limit of 56 days to respond to a representation.
In support of this there seems to be a precedent set in other similar legislation for issuing PCN’s for parking infringements within the same guidance for London Councils which also states the same 56 days:

“The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007”
Which states:

(2) Subject to paragraph (1), it shall be the duty of the enforcement authority, if representations are made to it in accordance with regulation 8(4), before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which it receives the representations—
(a)to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and
(b)to serve on that person notice of its decision as to whether or not it accepts that— “
“(6) Where an authority fails to comply with paragraph (2) before the end of the period of 56 days mentioned there—
(a)it shall be deemed to have accepted the representations and to have served notice to that effect under paragraph (2)(b);

Also:

“London Local Authorities Act 2000”
States in section 7

“(3)It shall be the duty of a council to whom representations are duly made under this section, before the end of the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which they receive the representations”
This 56 days limit also appears in almost all legislation dealing with the issuing of PCN’s and subsequent representations in or outside of London (within the UK) except for “London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003” which has been since updated by the 2008 act by the same name where the correction of 56 days has been altered.
I further suggest that Brent were aware of this time limit and attempted to appear to be within it by altering the date on the letter head when sending the NoR. I do accept however that the NoR date is issued on the 06/08/2013 as stated on the notice of appeal form enclosed with that letter

3 NoR Fails to Comply With the Legislation

The Notice of Rejection does not comply with the requirements of the legislation, specifically the final part of the NoR under the heading: “If you do nothing”
“the charge will increase”. This is wrong in law. The legislation states:

“Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice

3Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—

(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—

(i)the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and

(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,

and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate”

The cases quoted below were accepted on this basis alone by PATAS, and I feel this sets a precedent.
cases

2110072817, 2100649871, 2110415753, 2120021652, 2130049862, 2120448511, 212058885A, 2130236316.
I have attached a copy of the NoR as it was sent to me, and a copy of the receipt for receiving my representations.
In view of the above, I respectfully ask that the appeal be accepted and the PCN be cancelled forthwith.

Yours faithfully
Benjybobs
Well, its took some time but finally I got a result I'm happy with. As you can see I have won my appeal. Slightly hollow victory in that Brent simply pulled out of proceedings instead of losing, but its great news for me.

thanks to everyone for your help, particually Hippocrates as I suspect it was the precedent set by the cases you pointed out to me that might have swung it. Anyway, good luck to everyone else currently battling, and I've certainly been taking more care not to get caught out again.

SchoolRunMum
Well done; the Council dropping the case is still a victory for you of course!
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.