Free Traffic Legal Advice

Their PCNs and website are pants. Drop me a PM if you wish to assist you. I have two cases on 20th and have already won one on the same issues.

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation
17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240327073
Appellant Kuttykrishnan Ramswaroop
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM LB60LLU
PCN Details
PCN HG61195227
Contravention date 29 May 2024
Contravention time 18:26:00
Contravention location Main Road / Upper Brentwood Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented by
Mr Morgan, who attended in person but the Enforcement Authority did
not attend and were not represented.
Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction marking
conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to
enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the
box marking due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 on the
basis of information provided by a camera or other device. There
appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as
shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the
Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that the Penalty Charge Notice is not
compliant as regards the ground for making original representations
to the Enforcement Authority.
Paragraph 1(4) in Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and
Transport for London Act 2003 provides that the grounds are:
(a) that the recipient (i) never was the owner of the vehicle in
question; (ii) had ceased to be its owner before the date on which
the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or (iii)
became its owner after that date;
(b) that there was no (i) contravention of a prescribed order; or
(ii) failure to comply with an indication; or (iii) contravention of
the lorry ban order, under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section
4 as the case may be;
(c) that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place
the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the
vehicle without the consent of the owner;
(d) that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and (i) the vehicle in
question was at the material time hired from that firm under a
vehicle hiring agreement; and (ii) the person hiring it had signed a
statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any
penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the
currency of the hiring agreement; or
(e) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the
circumstances of the case.
The grounds for representations stated on the Penalty Charge Notice
are:
* The alleged contravention did not occur
* You
– were never the owner of the vehicle in question
– had cease to be the owner owner before the date on which the
alleged contravention occurred, or
– became its owner after that date;
* The vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in place in
question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the
the owner’s consent
* That you are a vehicle-hire firm and –
– the vehicle in question was on hire under a vehicle hiring
agreement at the time of the contravention, and
– the person hiring the vehicle had signed a statement of liability
in respect of any penalty charge notice served during the period of
the hiring agreement;
* The penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the
circumstances of the case.
* The traffic order (except where it is an order made under Schedule
9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) which is alleged to have
been contravened is invalid.
The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the
strict requirements of Paragraph 11(1).
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

Hi, I've just sent an email. Please do let me know if it hasn't come through. Thanks

2240500622: "I do not consider that Parliament had intended that the mis-statement of the grounds nullify the instant PCN."

Review refused.

Or in other words, "bu**er off"

No decision of an adjudicator is binding on another adjudicator.

The decision will be uploaded in due course I expect.

Oh well, perhaps my finest hour is yet to come.