Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

Doing this to help a friend out. See below PCN.

Aside the fact that they entered the YBJ only once the car in front had cleared it and suddenly stopped, causing them to stop in the box, I'm thinking of appealing based on the wording of the PCN (having found out about this from researching on here)
One succesful appeal from 2 weeks ago, I believe represented by @Hippocrates, is case 2250426286.

Am I right in saying that this PCN contains the same confusing/conflicting wording re. "date of notice" vs "date served"  and that this would be strong grounds for appeal? (Considering Barnet will most likely reject and it will go to tribunal)

The LLA & TfL Act 2003 is flawed and has stumped quite a few councils because of this flaw. The Act allows 28 days from date of notice to pay-up, or 28 days from date of service of notice, to submit representations (appeal). So if you submit reps on Day 29 from date of notice, you are overdue paying, yet still in time for submitting reps !! Stupid isn't it.

So does that mean I have a compelling argument?

Please post the wecode so we can look at the video, sometimes there isn't a contravention

The video needs to be posted here on the forum. Not everyone will go looking for it OP,s need to take some responsibility

Barnet have made it harder to save the cctv to your own computer. I had to use an extension to my browser in order to capture the video, you used to be able to right click and save, not so easy nowadays. I used MPMux

Anyway, having watched the cctv



I think the best argument is that the driver did not stop due to stationary vehicles but just because he/she chose to (to light his/her pipe, read the newspaper, consult a map, admire the view or some other reason, one doesn't need to explain why) and accordingly no contravention has occurred. There was room to exit had the driver chosen to.

I would write one line in the representation 'The car did not stop due to a stationary vehicle but at the free will of the driver and accordingly no contravention can have occurred and besides, there was room to exit the box.'

Given the changeover of contractor more challenges may be allowed for the moment.

1. A box junction can be placed between two or more roads. This box junction extends beyond the junction and is therefore not compliant.

2. The PCN is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of


https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.

Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable” adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.