Free Traffic Legal Advice

Two things: -

1. Road markings are clear enough for an adjudicator. They may not be in rain and/or darkness, of course.

2. Video shows you stopped only partially in the box, but I think too far in to make a de minimis argument.

Sorry I'm only looking at this past midnight !  However, I can't see anything to submit reps on, to be honest, although the PCN may contain errors, but I'm not up-to-speed on the Act at the top of the PCN. This and its regulations defines what must be in a PCN

There are wording errors on the pcn but I am away cycling and cannot explain their technical nature before tomorrow when I am back at my desk. If this thread had been started earlier I could have responded earlier - this is guidance for all, not the OP in this case. Experts have full and busy lives

Had a look at the video.

One aspect you can also include in any representations/appeal is that the video starts with your vehicle already within the box.  The offence occurs at the point of entry, not the point of stopping, and there are numerous tribunal decisions (including one that is highlighted as a 'key case' by London Tribunals itself) where appeals are upheld due to the video footage not containing the key moment of entry.

Yours is a bit borderline as an adjudicator may decide that the footage seems to be close enough to the point of entry that they can reasonably infer traffic conditions at the point of entry, but it's definitely something to highlight in addition to Mr Mustard's point.

For free help please email the complete Pcn, unredacted, to mrmustard@zoho.com

There was a delay whilst the adjudicator considered the arguments I raised at the hearing on 4 January but the decision is now out.

2230525729

The Appellant did not attend the hearing but was represented by Mr Dishman who made submissions based on his skeleton argument.

I am unable to accept his submission that on the fact this is a case where the principle of de minimis (i.e. legal insignificance) should be applied. I do not consider that either in terms of time or distance the amount and period of stopping was small as to amount to effectively nothing at all.

Mr Dishman submits that the PCN is non-compliant. There is an inherent difficulty in the way the legislation is drafted which requires the Council to ste that if the PCN is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with Date of the Notice an increased charge may be payable; but it is also provided that the Council may disregard ay representations received after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served. This crates a period of limbo during which the Council can in theory increase the charge but is still required to consider representations. It seems to me there is no form of words which can adequately reconcile this inconsistency but it does seem to me that whatever form of words is used should not at any point inform the motorist of something that is positively incorrect. It is not correct to tell motorists that they have 28 days from the date of the notice to make representations when in fact that have 28 days from the date of service’ nor in my view can the PCN be said to be substantially compliant if it gives incorrect and inconsistent information on that particular important point.

I therefore agree with Mr Dishman that this PCN with the requirements of s4 of the Act . It follows that no penalty may be demanded on the basis of it.

Many thanks to MrMustard!