Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Council Parking Tickets
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
aayush
Hope you are well

Sorry to trouble you

But as you can see from the attached got other ticket

Let me advise you of the reason I had just had blood test and was rushing to get home to take a call from an Job Agency as I am at present looking for a job but the call never came thus have


And was new to the area and if I can make representations under. as if I have to make this payment I will hit me hard as only getting JSA ,

Can you assist me in putting to gather an appeal,

Again sorry to trouble you

Await your response
Click to view attachment
londonicon
Post up all sides of the PCN
southpaw82
Nothing attached...
aayush
hi all just attached the letter
southpaw82
Can you scan and upload all of it please. Every page (and preferably the right way up).
axeman
QUOTE (aayush @ Sat, 15 Jun 2013 - 14:22) *
hi all just attached the letter


Do as Southpaw82 says, it's important to show all sides and all pages, Councils can make mistakes.
aayush
have upload the front the correct way up but not able to download the other to pages as it advised not enough space to down load on thwe b page
aayush
hi iif any want all 3 pages I can email it to you as the web not have space for this size

hi iif any want all 3 pages I can email it to you as the web not have space for this size
southpaw82
Click here
aayush
Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment


Dear all please see the attached sorry for the delay

Regards
aayush
aayush
hi I have done all as asked can i please get a response
Hippocrates
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
aayush
Thank you
SchoolRunMum
QUOTE (aayush @ Sun, 16 Jun 2013 - 15:31) *
Thank you


As I recall from your other thread (about the fake PCN you are appealing to POPLA) English isn't your first language so make sure you do type something where the above letter says 'INSERT HERE WHAT HAPPENED IN YOUR OWN WORDS.'

Do not just send it like that of course! Please show us your draft once you have added what happened where shown.
aayush

This the response about to be sent

Dear Sirs ,

1. The PCN BT68721893

(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 signaled 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.

I was retuning home after having blood test as requested by my GP as I was awaiting a call from an agency as am Looking for a job and as this charge will upset my budget as I am Only on JSA allowance .

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

Sanjay Sethi
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.