Author Topic: Brent, Code:31, Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited, yellow box,Acton Lane/Mordaunt Road  (Read 935 times)

0 Members and 31 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hello,

My husband received this PCN a week ago. My husband believes that he is not at fault. We have tried to find someone to help us with the challenge. Since we could not find anyone, we are turning to you.



I hope I have added the video as well:



This is the street view link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/cy4sfpxHWAci6csj6

Thanks.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2024, 12:22:23 am by cp8759 »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Thanks for posting all the information.

I can't see any problems with the PCN letter, nor anything in the video which might help with a challenge. The van enters the box and then gets stuck behind the stationary bus.

For what reason does your husband think he is not at fault?

Quote
My husband believes that he is not at fault.
Why does your husband believe he is not at fault, because, (sorry to have to say it), the video seems to show a clear contravention ?

That's not to say there is no appeal argument, but we need to hear from your husband concerning the circumstances at the time. The camera is mounted high up so doesn't show the situation from a driver point-of-view It is always best to submit representations rather than cough-up straightaway. but there does need to be a reasonable argument, however skeletal.

He thinks he is not at fault because the traffic is moving fine when entering the yellow box. Suddenly, the van in front of the bus pulls to the side causing traffic. As a result of that, my husband gets stuck on the yellow box. How could he predict that the van in front of the bus would choose to pull over?
I hope I have explained it right.

He thinks he is not at fault because the traffic is moving fine when entering the yellow box. Suddenly, the van in front of the bus pulls to the side causing traffic. As a result of that, my husband gets stuck on the yellow box. How could he predict that the van in front of the bus would choose to pull over?
I hope I have explained it right.
I see what you mean, and he has my sympathy ! As you say, all was moving well when he entered the box, and that is a key event, because the van stopping out-of-course could not be foreseen. So wait a bit to see what others say, although don't miss any deadline dates on the PCN. Don't just cough-up as we always recommend submitting some representations before deciding whether to pay or go to LT.

It is tough on your husband and such circumstances would catch very many out.

Unfortunately, the nature of box junctions is that drivers aren't meant to go inside unless they have a vacant exit already available. As such they enter at their own risk that traffic ahead will come to a halt, even unexpectedly.

If it was a valid defence to say 'I didn't expect the traffic to stop' then box junctions would effectively be unenforceable so, personally, I don't think that will help. Let's see if anyone can come up with something more concrete.


I don't see any unforeseeable event in the video, the van might in front of the bus might be pulling over or taking a left turn, it hardly matters.

The arguments I can see are:

1) De-minimis, the van behind the bus only stops for 5 / 6 seconds, but this is really the upper-limit for a de-minimis defence and won't be accepted by most adjudicators

2) Paperwork errors. The PCN makes a reference to the date of service right next to the payment periods, which is arguably ambiguous and confusing.

3) The website argument explained in the cases at rows 587 to 603 here.



The third point should only be raised at the tribunal stage, but given its success rate it's definitely worth running given Brent's website doesn't list any statutory grounds of appeal at all.

As a starting point please post all the remaining pages of the PCN so that we can check for further issues.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

« Last Edit: July 03, 2024, 05:47:45 pm by cp8759 »

Draft reps:

Dear London Borough of Brent,

In the first instance I contend the PCN should be cancelled because any contravention can be properly described as de-minimis, the stopping time being around 5 seconds or so.

Furthermore I dispute the validity of the PCN because the payment deadlines are ambiguous and unclear. The PCN asserts that I have 28 days from the date of the notice to make payment, but this is follow by text indicating that the date of service is considered to be 2 working days from the date of the notice. If the payment period is 28 days from the date of the notice then the date of service would be irrelevant, so is appears that the PCN should assert the payment period is 28 days from the date of service of the notice. On the other hand if the payment period is 28 days from the date of the notice, then it would make no sense to indicate how the date of service is to be calculated, as the date of service would be irrelevant. The same ambiguity and uncertainty applies to the 14 day discount period.

In the circumstances the PCN is ambiguous and confusing as to what the payment period is, so the PCN should be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,


Send this online via https://brent.tarantoportal.com/ and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

I have followed your advice and have submitted the representation, with a screenshot of the confirmation.

I will keep you posted.

Thanks a million!
Like Like x 1 View List

Hi guys,
We came back from our holiday yesterday and found this in the post:








I don't have much time left. I think the deadline is tomorrow, so could you advise me asap?

Thanks
« Last Edit: September 02, 2024, 06:49:09 pm by daisy »

Deadline to pay discount is not tomorrow. NOR fails to mention power of adj. to extend time. I would go with cp's advice above.

My apologies.
« Last Edit: September 02, 2024, 09:35:50 pm by Hippocrates »
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r
Like Like x 1 View List

I am sorry, but I am counting 14 days as it says in the letter "beginning with the date of this rejection" so I can pay the reduced rate. Is that not right?

You may wish to repost page 1 of the rejection, redacting your name & address.