Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PCN 31 at Leytonstone E11
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
junedt
Video Evidence: http://www.viewmypcn.co.uk/Default.aspx?r=...c533ad46ef4d2e5

Hi all,

Trying to contest the above PCN. My dad, a private hire driver, was carrying a passenger, who he says kept giving him different directions. He was barely in the YBJ for 5 seconds. De minimas?

Had it not been for the oncoming car turning right, he would have been in the box junction for the same period as the black car in front, who they did not charge.



PASTMYBEST
video is not linked

See this thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=99599
junedt
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 16 Jun 2015 - 20:12) *
video is not linked

See this thread

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=99599

many thanks

Video link: http://www.viewmypcn.co.uk/Default.aspx?r=...c533ad46ef4d2e5

hope its working now
Glitch
You shouldn't enter the YBJ unless your exit is clear but only stationary for 5 seconds.
Not obstructing other traffic as clearly indicated by the car turning into Bush Road in front of the OP.
Why didn't the CCTV operator snag the car in front too? They stopped too for about 4 seconds.

Edit: Apologies just repeated all the points the OP made.
junedt
QUOTE (Glitch @ Tue, 16 Jun 2015 - 20:54) *
You shouldn't enter the YBJ unless your exit is clear but only stationary for 5 seconds.
Not obstructing other traffic as clearly indicated by the car turning into Bush Road in front of the OP.
Why didn't the CCTV operator snag the car in front too? They stopped too for about 4 seconds.

Edit: Apologies just repeated all the points the OP made.

No worries. I think they were about to charge the guy in front, given that the camera positioning pointed in his direction first, but he moved off just in time. Still, he committed the same offence. A lack of consistency there
Incandescent
With 5 seconds you are definitely in the "de minimis" region for an adjudication on a YBJ, but, of course, you have to go to the adjudicator to get this declared as such and thus lose the discount ! And, of course, the adjudicator may not agree it is de minimis.

However, having viewed the video, you were fully in the box for about 6 seconds, yet you could have "tootled" across very slowly and not got the PCN. They cannot issue a PCN for a moving vehicle ! Even so if it were me, I'd appeal it on [i]de minimis/i] but I'm a member of the Awkward Squad, so would be happy to risk the £130. You may not be so insouciant, and its your decision. The video does show that you caused no obstruction whatsoever, so a de minimis appeal can centre on minimal time stationary, plus no obstruction as shown by a car passing across in the other direction
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Tue, 16 Jun 2015 - 22:35) *
With 5 seconds you are definitely in the "de minimis" region for an adjudication on a YBJ, but, of course, you have to go to the adjudicator to get this declared as such and thus lose the discount ! And, of course, the adjudicator may not agree it is de minimis.

However, having viewed the video, you were fully in the box for about 6 seconds, yet you could have "tootled" across very slowly and not got the PCN. They cannot issue a PCN for a moving vehicle ! Even so if it were me, I'd appeal it on [i]de minimis/i] but I'm a member of the Awkward Squad, so would be happy to risk the £130. You may not be so insouciant, and its your decision. The video does show that you caused no obstruction whatsoever, so a de minimis appeal can centre on minimal time stationary, plus no obstruction as shown by a car passing across in the other direction


I would also be going with the time. At the time of contravention shown on the PCN you were not even in the frame. I know some do not agree with this, but it has won( see linked thread) and if it's going to PATAS throw the kitchen sink at them, more chances to mess up
astralite
I agree with PASTMYBEST and Incandescent. Personally, I would risk the discount and go on time as well as no obstruction, and de minimis.
There also seems something odd about the design of this box which does not align with the edges of the road (but that as a possible
ground would need more checking).
mr pickwick
On the 23 April 2015 this box was deemed by PATAS to have not been marked out as required in the authorisation from the Secretary of State. The box was changed about a week ago because of this decision. In my opinion every ticket issued up to the date it was changed must be void.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (mr pickwick @ Thu, 25 Jun 2015 - 21:18) *
On the 23 April 2015 this box was deemed by PATAS to have not been marked out as required in the authorisation from the Secretary of State. The box was changed about a week ago because of this decision. In my opinion every ticket issued up to the date it was changed must be void.



Can you give us a reference no
hcandersen
Can we see the whole PCN pl before we get immersed in case references. If you do not make reps within the - currently unknown- period, then no one is going to give a hoot what arguments you've got.

PCN, compliance, issue date, last date for making reps etc.
mr pickwick
PATAS NO. 2150105751
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (mr pickwick @ Thu, 25 Jun 2015 - 21:42) *
PATAS NO. 2150105751



TY
PASTMYBEST
HCA is as usual quite right please post up the whole of the pcn so we can see exactly what we are working with.Mr Pickwick's post is very helpful
astralite
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 25 Jun 2015 - 21:57) *
HCA is as usual quite right please post up the whole of the pcn so we can see exactly what we are working with.Mr Pickwick's post is very helpful


Basically, we need to know the date on which the PCN was issued. So the front page would be helpful. It looks from what has been seen so
far that the box was probably the same in shape and dimension as that in the 2150105751case. The car was in a different position but the
argument is surely that if a box junction does not comply with the authorisation then it is not compliant and therefore any PCN issued
in those circumstances is unenforceable.


2150105751: Adjudicator Mr Teper: ‘The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited
when in the High Road Leytonstone/Bush Road on 17 February 2015 at 13.31.

The Appellant's case is that the box junction has not been marked at this location in compliance with the authorisation from the Secretary
of State, …
I have considered the evidence and I find that the box junction at this location has not been marked as required in the authorisation from
the Secretary of State. It appears that it has been set forwards and beyond the junction.

I have accepted the Appellant's evidence which I find to be stronger than that of the Authority in relation to the road markings of this box
junction. I find that on a balance of probabilities that if the box junction had been correctly marked the Appellant's vehicle would have been
outside the box junction at the location as seen in the CCTV footage.

Further, I note that the Appellant requested the authorisation from the Authority and it was not provided until after he had obtained it from
the Department of Transport. The Department produced the authorisation but not the correct diagram. This was ultimately remedied by the
Authority; however I find that this should have been produced when requested by the Appellant and before he had submitted his Notice of
Appeal.
…’
(Text re Sheikh case omitted)

PASTMYBEST
Go with all three. At the time of the alleged contravention on the pcn, your car was not even in the frame so contravention did not occur
Any encroachment into the box both in time and in the causing of an obstruction were so minor that the Di Minimis principal at law should apply.

That the YBJ has been adjudged at PATAS to be non compliment with DfT authorization and as such should not be enforced. This one is still likely to be an open wound, but as we are informed by Mr Pickwick, the junction has recently been altered then in can reasonably be argued that the council accepted the PATAS decision

Confirmation that the junction has indeed been altered before submitting would be a good idea
Richy320
Can I ask a question to the more learned on here. I thought the offence was "entering a box junction when your exit is not clear." Having viewed the video a few times it seems to me that the exit was clear in the adjacent lane, just that the OP chose to stop to allow traffic to cross in front rather than switch lanes. If the exit was clear at all times, surely no offence has been committed, never mind de minimis?
PASTMYBEST
You are right and i think HCA made that as an appeal point but think he posted it to the wrong thread. i will dig it out.

HCA appologies if it was where it should have been but works just as well for this one


Why?

That decision turned on whether as a fact the vehicle was within the prohibited area. Normally the prohibited area and extent of markings are the same but it appears in that case that they were not. The adj found that the vehicle was not within the prohibited area because the markings had been placed incorrectly, which is not the same as finding that in any case with this YBJ the markings would be deemed so defective as to not give rise to a contravention.

If this OP and the quoted appellant were in the same actual place, then that's a different matter.

IMO, I would go with entering the YBJ with the intention of inching across without stopping, a manoeuvre which was possible as shown in the video, but instead the driver chose to stop momentarily to allow the vehicle travelling in the opposite direction to exit the YBJ without stopping. There was no impairment to traffic flow on the driver's side and improved flow on the other side for which charitable act the owner received a PCN.

You also suspect that where you stopped was not within the actual prohibited area prescribed and authorised by the DfT, PATAS case ***** refers, but at the moment this is a secondary issue.
Glitch
In this case the YBJ has already been shortened. You can just make out the the lines they burnt off. Go full screen at 26 seconds.

I believe HCA posted in the right thread where the YBJ hadn't been shortened and therefore could cite a previous PATAS appeal where the box was illegal and the driver was outside the "legal" box.

Happy to go and take photos if you need them.

PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Glitch @ Sat, 27 Jun 2015 - 21:08) *
In this case the YBJ has already been shortened. You can just make out the the lines they burnt off. Go full screen at 26 seconds.

I believe HCA posted in the right thread where the YBJ hadn't been shortened and therefore could cite a previous PATAS appeal where the box was illegal and the driver was outside the "legal" box.

Happy to go and take photos if you need them.



Jamram in the other thread stopped after going through the box overhanging the bit that has now been shortened.

The op in this thread stopped at the front of the box, and as i read HCA they did so to allow a car to turn right but could have continued slowly and not stopped. That IMO is a very make-able argument and should be made in concert with the other points.

As said if i have misunderstood HCA the appoligies
hcandersen
Correct.

Whether this was the reason, I don't know, but every aspect of the events suggests that had the driver stopped on purpose to allow the right turn then in my eyes this would have been responsible and safe driving, but then I took my test when we still had to give hand signals!

( I know hand signs are still common, but of a slightly different type)
i need help
Case Reference: 2120094882
Appellant: Prof Nicholas xxxxxxxxx
Authority: Transport for London
VRM: xxxxxxxx
PCN: GT33019373
Contravention Date: 06 Dec 2011
Contravention Time: 11:51
Contravention Location: Great Eastern Street/Curtain Road/Gatesborough Street
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Decision Date: 17 Sep 2012
Adjudicator: Edward Houghton
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: The Appellant did not appear at the adjourned hearing ( although he was present at the previous one) ; but he has forwarded detailed submissions which I have considered in conjunction with their similarly detailed predecessors. I have not found it necessary to look at the numerous cases referred to by the Appellant since no two cases are factually identical and one adjudicator's view of the law is not binding on another.

As the Appeal falls to be allowed on the facts it is unnecessary to deal with these submissions in the detail which they would otherwise merit . My views in bare summary are as follows. It is c indubitably the case from the drafting of Part II of Schedule 19 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. that what is prohibited in a box junction is not stopping simpliciter but stopping due to the presence of a stationary vehicle. It follows that if a vehicle stops for some other reason , for example to admire the view, the contravention is not made out no matter how antisocial the driving or the degree of obstruction. Similarly the vehicle ahead has itself to be stationary, not moving, A driver who causes his vehicle to enter the box and which subsequently has to stop as a result of the presence of a stationary vehicle is in contravention; and this gives rise to the proposition, enshrined in the Highway Code, and which is in my view correct, that a motorist should not enter the box unless and until there is clear space ready and waiting on the far side to receive his vehicle and with no vehicles between him and that space. Following this practice strictly ensures that the vehicle cannot have to stop in the junction in the prohibited circumstances. It is not at all uncommon for vehicles to enter a box junction in a line of moving traffic in the expectation that it will continue to move and enable the vehicle to clear the junction. However this is the very course of action the box junction is intended to prevent; and a motorist who takes this course does so at his peril since if the vehicle in front stops and blocks his exit he will be in contravention.

Some Adjudicators have taken the view that if there is a lane free on (normally) the inside , into which the vehicle could have driven no contravention occurs, on the basis that the vehicle did not have to stop but could have continued to move on in that other lane. This is not a view of the law I share. I prefer what I consider to be the common sense view that one must judge the position relative to the line of traffic the vehicle is in. It seems to me that it would be quite absurd if in every case where there were two lanes, one congested and one not, the drivers in the congested lane could enter and block the box junction with impunity provided the other lane remained clear.

Nevertheless taking this view does not preclude a "defence" based upon the fact that the vehicle did not have to come to a halt even in the direction in which it was proceeding. I have myself on occasion allowed appeals in cases where a vehicle pulls up within the junction where it has been perhaps over-cautious and could have cleared the junction had it driven on a little further forward.

On hearing the Appeal today I have looked at the CCTV evidence with care a number of times. Having doe so it seems to me that this is not really a case of a vehicle in one congested lane relying on clear space in the neighbouring lane but far more in the nature of a vehicle pulling up unnecessarily short of the exit. There is clear space virtually straight ahead of the vehicle in the direction in which it is originally going.. Although the case may on its facts be close to the borderline I am on balance not satisfied that the contravention is sufficiently proved and the Appeal is therefore allowed.
junedt
Hi Guys,

Unfortunately, I sent off the reply before receiving the replies from HCA onwards. I have received a letter of rejection today. I'm considering taking it to TAPAS. What are your thoughts?



PASTMYBEST
Love tapas, but your going to have to go with London tribunals now.

Can you post up your challenge so we can compare it to the rejection. Don't think they are to sure of their position as they have re-offered the discount. ( not usual for a YBJ)
junedt
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Fri, 17 Jul 2015 - 20:51) *
Love tapas, but your going to have to go with London tribunals now.

Can you post up your challenge so we can compare it to the rejection. Don't think they are to sure of their position as they have re-offered the discount. ( not usual for a YBJ)


Challenge below:

"I would like to appeal against the above PCN number based on the following reason: the contravention did not occur - de minimis.

Having watched the video evidence, I believe I was well within the principle of de minimis. My vehicle enters the box junction at 11:11:21, is stationary from 11:11:24 until 11:11:29, for five seconds and clears the junction by 11:11:33. Furthermore, had it not been for the oncoming car turning right, I would have been in the box junction for the same period as the black car in front of me, who you did not charge. The black car in front was stationary in the box junction for four seconds. My positioning was not obstructing other traffic as clearly indicated by the car turning into Bush Road in front of me. The intention of the legislation is to stop people blocking the junction. By abiding by this principle, I was stationary in the box junction for 2 seconds longer than the black car in front. Your failure to charge the car in front shows lack of consistency.

Please refer to past cases: Case Reference: 2140226090, 2140214193, 2140244445 where in light of the brief time the appellants car was in the box junction, the principle of de minimis was applied and on that basis, the Adjudicator ruled that no contravention occurred.

Based on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, I hope the penalty will be reconsidered and cancelled. If the PCN is not cancelled, i will have no hesitation in taking my appeal to the independent adjudicator."
PASTMYBEST
You have been tempted with a second bite of the cherry in the discount being re-offered. So you have to choose fight on or pay.

If you go to adjudication then your points will in essence be the same.

Di Minimis , both in tie and amount of encroachment into the box.

That you stopped for another reason other than stationary traffic, and that you could have kept on without stopping, but this would have obstructed traffic in the judgement that was made at the time unnecessarily

That at the time stated you where not even in the video so could not have been in contravention.

All of these are subjective views, although, the council because they keep the money look at it from a different point of view

I would also add in this TfL document to add a bit of credibility to the arguments

http://www.londontravelwatch.org.uk/docume...&field=file

This nor the patas examples are binding on an adjudicator but add strength to your case.
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.