Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN31 - Help please
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
buckleyboo
Hi All,

1st time post but basically got a PCN for Yellow Box Junction stopping however, the evidence clearly shows I entered the box junction with
a clear exit and another vehicle decided to change lane into mine with no indication and left my rear in the box junction
I have attached photos and plan to challenge but am looking for advice in regards to wording and or if I am correct in my opinion of the

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment
Click to view attachment
DancingDad
If that's you in the black cab and they are relying on the first photo, there is no contravention.
The paraphrasing the actual wording of the contravention it is to enter the box and stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

While legitimate expectation can be argued (an probably won) as the other vehicle cut you up, it is clear that you could have pulled forward another couple of foot and cleared the box. But chose not to.
This is not stopping because of a stationary vehicle, it is stopping short because you chose to. The stationary vehicle is no more relevant then if you had stopped in an empty box.

You do need to see the video to make sure they aren't relying on another stop. If they are, the first argument of legitimate expectation has been won before.

Please post the PCN with personal details removed. All sides please.

buckleyboo
Thanks for your reply. PCN as below

Click to view attachment


Thanks for your reply. PCN as below

Click to view attachment
DancingDad
Not the clearest of PCN pictures. And is that all of it ??

Seeing the PCN leads me to suspect that Westminster are using your second picture... when you are entering the box, as the key moment when you stopped ?? Where did your pictures come from ? Online from Westminster?
Not the first as assumed. And also means that what the silver cab did is irrelevent.

Which really means that you do need to see the video and what I wrote in my first post may be and possibly is irrelevent.

Usually on Transport for London PCNs there is directions for viewing the video. Not seeing any on yours? But you do need to find out as it is a moving contravention and what traffic is doing as you approach and enter the box is important. A still picture of you in the box proves nothing.

I'm seeing two possibilities for the contravention. First is that you were cut up, forced to stop and did so without closing the gap. Second is that as approaching, you realised that you would not clear the box and stopped with front wheels in it. Quite possibly would have been able to clear the box but stopped for the lights. And really need to see the video to work out which is which.
Bluntly, there may be a solid challenge, there may not be.

IMO a useful review for how adjudicators look at box junction contraventions is this one
http://keycases.parkingandtrafficappeals.g...n%20v%20TfL.doc

You'll see the elements I've refered to in there.
buckleyboo
I have a video now - I don't know how to get it to you as it wont upload

If there is a way of doing this please let me know.
DancingDad
Tell us first.

When did you stop in the box and which still shows it ?
buckleyboo
I stopped in the box once at the point the other cab jumped in front of me as shown in still 3 (the top one as above), upon entering the box as per the original still on the PCN my exit was clear
DancingDad
So just to be absolutely clear the still that they put on the pcn is of you moving into the box?
And that prior to that you had not been stopped with front wheels in box?

Also, as an adjudicator may ask, was the left turn from your lane legitimate/normal
buckleyboo
yes they first picked me up entering the box the later still shows the stoppage and yes the Left is legal and usual for that junction
Hippocrates
Consider this as a representation:

Dear Sirs

Ref: PCN ......................... VRM...............................

I make these representations against the said PCN as follows:

1. The PCN is a nullity because it fails to establish the grounds of the alleged contravention by not including the exact location of the same. I seek support from Case No: 2120507905.

2. The PCN is wholly nonsensical by its statement : If payment is received after 14 days but before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service you must either:

1) Pay the Penalty Charge before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice(see payment slip for ways to pay)

Therefore, this instructs me to pay twice.

OR

2) Challenge the Penalty Charge Notice by completing and returning the 'REPRESENTATIONS FORM' overleaf.


This instructs me to pay once and make representations.

3. The PCN limits to just one ground by its statement:- if you believe one of the grounds applies.................

As per 2 above this is a clear mis-statement of the law as Schedule 1 allows "one or other of the grounds". The PCN also creates a confusion and ambiguity in this regard which must be resolved in the favour of the disadvantaged party. I seek support from Cases: 2120030405 and 2130012319.

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

4. Add your circumstances here.


In view of the above I require you to cancel the said PCN forthwith. Should you not feel able to do so, I shall escalate the matter to PATAS.


QUOTE (buckleyboo @ Mon, 10 Mar 2014 - 22:56) *
I have a video now - I don't know how to get it to you as it wont upload

If there is a way of doing this please let me know.



U tube?
DancingDad
Nicely done Hippo cool.gif And in this case fully agree to throw in all the technical possible.

I'd also suggest additionals:-

The Contravention did not occur.
It is well established that any PCN must include sufficient details of the alleged contravention for the recipient to clearly understand the same.
Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited arguably achieves this but, as is normal practice, there has been a still photo from the video added that purports to show the circumstances and the contravention. On the contrary, the still chosen shows the point where I entered the box junction, moving, not stopped and with ample room on the far side of the box to allow myself to fully cross and clear the box junction.
As the still chosen by Westminster not only fails to indicate the contravention but seemingly provides ample evidence that no contravention occurred, the PCN fails to provide the requisite information and must be cancelled.

The contravention did not occur.
As established in the still photo on the PCN and others on Westminster's website as well as the video of the alleged contravention, at the point of entry into the box junction, I had clear view of sufficient space at the exit to allow crossing and not to be stopped by the presence of stationary vehicles either within the marked box or immediately after. In this respect I had a legitimate expectation that I could enter the box with little or no risk that I would be in contravention of the box junction regulations by doing so.
After I entered the marked box, the light coloured taxi, previously behind and to the left, continued straight, preventing my lawful left turn, and taking the available space. I could not have predicted this, any stop after this point was not because of stationary vehicle or faulty judgement on my part but because of circumstances that I could not have reasonably predicted.
In this ground I am supported by the consolidated reviews of Gillingham –v- L.B. of Newham (2130193949), Essoo –v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767) and Khan –v- Transport for London (2130261437), particularly the Adjudicator's comments regarding Essoo v LB Enfield and subsequent overturning of the original hearing where the result was in LB Enfield's favour.

The Contravention did not occur.
With regard to the part on the video that shows the point of exit, after the available space had been taken by the aggresive driving of the light coloured cab, I would seem to have stopped with the rear wheels of my taxi within the marked box. However it also shows easily sufficient space for me to have cleared the marked box.
Stopping at this point was not due to stationary vehicles but rather a desire to stay as far away from the lunatic driving of the light cab as possible. As I stopped by choice driven by self defence, not because of stationary vehicles, there is no contravention.
Hippocrates
Cool.
buckleyboo
Thank you all - I will use all the advice and post the decision smile.gif
DancingDad
QUOTE (buckleyboo @ Tue, 11 Mar 2014 - 17:02) *
Thank you all - I will use all the advice and post the decision smile.gif


Double check that the video matches my description of events. If it doesn't, we may need to rethink where needed and you'll need to describe what the variations are.

If, when, Westminster reject, come back to us so we can fine tune for PATAS appeal.

WE cannot guarantee results but this is as good a case to win as any I've seen on box junctions based on what you've told us.
Hippocrates
There is also the section 7 v 8 argument, but that is ultra technical....................
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.