Look at it again - the increased charge is in there (£240).
Yes but when? If after.............
I feel like you are giving a clue to some legislation we could use here.
At least I hope so.
I have been looking more closely at the PCN now that I have had a bit of time to do so, and trying to find advice on it but would very much appreciate the experts here confirming or telling me where I might be going wrong.
----------------
I should begin by explaining the late appeal for this PCN. The letter was sent to an outdated address. My current residency is elsewhere, and so I was unaware of the PCN until after the 28 day response period had passed. The mail was not forwarded onto me or even mentioned until much later, which is completely out of my control. I get no mail delivered to that address so I am not in the habit of asking for any. The PCN uses dates based on when the notice was written i.e. 14 and 28 days since, however, this does not account for delivery time, whether or not I might be away for the week on business or holiday and such. Let alone not living there at all. So notice probably should be more related to a confirmation of me becoming aware of it. Recorded or signed delivery or some such procedure. Mail getting lost is not exactly uncommon.
The document seems to conflate the meanings of writing/sending/creating the notice and when I am personally served the notice in such a way that I am aware of it and have received it. In the last section they mention 56 days from the date that they receive representations, showing that they understand the difference between something being sent, and something being brought to attention. But it is not precisely clear that receiving the service gets the same respect. So I am currently within the 14 days of being made aware and should be at least offered the lower payment.
This may come under reason to cancel the PCN as the council failed in its duty to ensure it was properly served to me, and so denying me a fair opportunity to challenge it. The late delivery prejudiced me.
The 'date of service' provision in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 2003 (LLAA 2003) does not apply to the payment periods specified by section 4(8 )(iii) and (iv) of the LLAA 2003, as it only applies to the authorities' discretion to disregard representations made after the 28 day period. So the payment period is conflated with the appeal period. The law says it is a two working day difference.
All of these things mean that it is unclear when the 14 or 28 days begin and end. Is it when the letter is written, posted, delivered up to two days later, or confirmed received? What if an appeal was made on day 13, but a rejection was received on day 15? Does that mean we have to pay the higher amount? Would the payment period reset after communication? All of this is unclear.
Regarding the incident itself I would also like to include additional explanation. I am usually extremely conscienscious of these types of things, e.g. ensuring my vehicle does not overhang yellow lines when my wheels are inside parking spaces etc, so it is shocking to me that I could have made this error. There is even limited parking in the area that I live, and though I, on a daily basis, see other drivers leave their cars on double yellow lines, causing obstructions and/or creating hazards all day without ever being ticketed, I always take the extra time to find a legal place to park.
I understand that the procedure for yellow boxes is to check that your exit is clear before you enter. In the situation I was in, I could see the road ahead. A queue ahead was in place due to traffic lights further up, however it was all still moving but as I approached the lights turned from green to red. From where I was, it seemed that there would be enough room on the opposite side of the yellow box once the traffic had finished crawling towards the red light given the number of cars and the space available on the reasonably long stretch of road. Everything was still moving as I entered. I believe it is generally advised to leave about a metre of space between cars in queues, and as can be seen in the image, the car directly in front of mine seems to be leaving a gap of at least two metres. With multiple cars ahead probably leaving larger than necessary gaps between vehicles, I ended up forced to overlap the box. Stationary vehicles stopped me from moving any further forward, and of course, reversing was not a safe option.
Additionally, the road also splits into two lanes around half way between the yellow box and the lights, so if even one vehicle had gone into the right hand lane, I would have had more than ample space without issue.
There is also a slip of parking spaces directly before the lights, and it is possible that a vehicle was allowed to slip into the queue from there as the traffic slowed down, thereby taking the space I would have occupied.
Reviewing the video, which provides 22 seconds of footage before the stop, we see a silver vehicle moving at some speed pass out of view. It is 6 seconds before the next blue vehicle moves out of view, seemingly speeding up after coming out of the junction. The next vehicle stops in view of the camera, but considering the speed of the previous two vehicles, you would assume there was a reasonable amount of space ahead of them, else they should have been slowing rather than accelerating.
Whatever the event, I ended up overlapping the box, with the front section of my car having exited successfully. However, no obstruction was caused, and vehicles were able to easily use the junction without issue, as evidenced by one doing so in the video. According to tfl the purpose of the box is to keep the junctions clear to avoid traffic jams, and allow free exit and entrance, especially for emergency vehicles. As long as traffic can still flow, and gridlock is prevented, the box junction is effective. Despite my overlap, the junction was not blocked at all.
This is combined with the box itself being somewhat faded and the road ahead being curved and on a hill, potentially affecting the judgement of space available.
While it is safest for the exit to be entirely clear when a vehicle enters the junction, the fact that it is not does not prove a contravention. Other variables can apply and compromise the exit. It also goes without saying that while driving, we usually have to make decisions quite quickly
It could also be argued that the yellow box is too large for the junction. Other similar junctions with wide curved pavements to do not extend the box any further than necessary to provide access to the junction. e.g. image attached
The video evidence does not show how long the vehicle was stopped for. It comes to a halt at 22 seconds, and the video ends at 28 seconds without showing the vehicle begin moving again. So only 6 seconds of being stationary are proved. It may have not been much longer before moving on again, even though no obstruction was caused to begin with. The stop was trivial and inconsequential.
I am sure that this will not be relevant to the appeals process but I might also mention that I am simply not in a position to afford this fine. I was made redundant and following that I returned to higher education in order to improve my qualifications and not be made redundant from my industry again. So my current living situation is on a student budget.
So I would like the PCN cancelled for any of the following reasons:
Not correctly delivered. Therefore unenforcable.
Unclear and contradictory legislation regarding appeal and payment periods. Therefore unenforcable.
Vehicles preventing exit by occupying my space.
De minimis contravention. Box was almost cleared and stopped only for a few seconds. No obstruction was caused at all.
Visibility of the end yellow box being somewhat unclear.
Yellow box being too large for the junction.
Incomplete video.
