Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, I have received a PCN from Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames for 31J: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement).  I would like to add today 30th May is the first letter received however they claim one was originally issued on the 24th April to which i haven't responded but can categorically state this was never received so am unsure where i stand regarding that.

I shall admit that yes I did stop in the box, for less than 6 seconds to let a motorcyclist out the side street and was not stopping the flow of traffic or anything as could have easily proceeded without letting this individual out. 

Any advice as to how to proceed challenging this?

Details are linked below.

Photos: https://imgur.com/a/65trczZ
Video: https://imgur.com/a/IfVnES1
Google map location: 51.40070328023877, -0.2653368759639359


Obviously I am sore about this mainly because I think the box is massive. I also think the council should get better cameras (can't see reg on video but yes there is a photo with sensitivity turned to max ...) but don't tell them.

I would appreciate if someone can advise if this is worth pursuing. Many thanks in advance.

You should definitely take them to London Tribunals as suggested by sfm. The council are behaving disgracefully, (par the course with this council !). The description "immoral charlatans" comes to mind.

Dear RBK

1. There was no contravention as per the law.

2. The locus is vague as there are several junctions.

3.  The box is too big as already ruled by one adjudicator whose decision you have not appealed.

Considering the above, please cancel. Should you not agree to do so, I am prepared to take the matter to the Tribunal and, if successful, make a claim for costs in addition.

***

I achieved costs against them for a different in Nina Sabbagh v Kingston.  Case reference 2230339804.  This was one where I also complained to the council and their response dug themselves an even bigger hole.

*****

ETA Register of Appeals

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable

Case Details

Case reference 2230339804

Appellant Nina Sabbagh

Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

VRM PJ11 HZZ

Decision Cost award allowed

PCN Details

PCN QT07663375

Contravention date 23 May 2023

Contravention time 08:27:00

Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD

Penalty amount GBP 130.00

Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction

Referral date

Decision Date 15 Aug 2023

Adjudicator By Order of the Chief Adjudicator

Appeal decision Appeal allowed

Direction EA to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice

Reasons The Enforcement Authority has informed me that they will not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) mentioned above.


The Chief Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering your evidence or any details of the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement Authority.

Authority Response

Cost Details

Application by Appellant

Decision date 25 Sep 2023

Adjudicator Carl Teper

Decision Cost award allowed

Direction -

Reasons

The Appellant has attended for her costs application and is represented by Mr P Morgan.


Under the Regulations it is provided that an Adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses but may, subject to hearing representations from a party, make such an order against the other party if he is of the opinion that the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that their conduct in making and pursuing this appeal was wholly unreasonable.


The Regulations restricts any award to "the costs and expenses incurred by that other party in connection with the proceedings". "The proceedings" commence at the point when a Notice of Rejection has been served and the recipient of the Notice submits a Notice of Appeal. It does not include compensation for loss of wages or injury to feeling or embarrassment.


I have considered the evidence in this case as produced by the Appellant, her written and oral submissions and the response to the costs application, which is contained in a letter dated 20 September 2023 from the Authority's Service Director.


The contravention allegedly occurred on 23 May 2023, the Appellant made informal representations which were rejected on 8 June 2023. The Appellant decided to appeal and this allowed the Authority another opportunity to review the issuing of the PCN and the second officer took an opposing view to that of the initial reviewer


I have decided, on a balance of probabilities, to accept the Appellant's claim, and I find that the conduct of the Authority has been wholly unreasonable.


The reason for this is that whilst the second officer who took the opposing view of the Appellant's case was correct, I find that the initial officer's view that her vehicle '...had slowed down in order to allow others to enter the road as opposed to those vehicles entering the road & stopping you from proceeding.' should have resulted in the PCN being cancelled at the first stage. I find it wholly unreasonable that this case had to proceed to a second stage and the Appellant required to take time to prepare for an appeal before the Tribunal.


Quite simply if the Appellant's vehicle '...had slowed down in order to allow others to enter the road..' that would mean that the Appellant's vehicle would not have been stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.


The Regulations cited do not contain any provisions as to the rate to be awarded when an order for costs is made. However, Adjudicators take as their guidance the Civil Procedure Rules as applied to Small Claims in the County Court. These allow for an award of £19.00 per hour for a litigant in person (i.e. one not represented by a lawyer) in respect of preparation for and attendance at any hearing, together with reasonable expenses actually incurred. I therefore apply that rate to the Appellant's claim.


The Appellant has requested costs in the sum of £57.00 for 3 hours preparation, which I do find unreasonable in the circumstances of this case.


Accordingly, I direct the Authority to pay to the Appellant the above sum of £57.00, forthwith.

You should definitely take them to London Tribunals as suggested by sfm. The council are behaving disgracefully, (par the course with this council !). The description "immoral charlatans" comes to mind.

+1. Please don't get me started on their parking manager(s)! I called publicly for the previous one's resignation. She moved to Croydon.

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/tommy-poirot-to-expose-all-london-councils'-bus-lane-enforcement/msg3970/#msg3970

@mrmustard Please can you remind us of the said case re the size of box?

Hi

You are right what i have received is a charge certificate.

As mentioned in my first post they claim they sent a letter to me on the 24th April however this was never received, they are unable to provide any proof it was delivered but stated on the phone "that's not their issue they have proof it was posted". 

If i go on the website it gives me an option to appeal the PCN still but not sure whether this is too late or not.

Any advice appreciated.

I have just spoken with David at RBK.

Ask him to be so kind as to take the trouble to confirm his advice by e-mail....

In which case ask for a copy of the recording. It is your right to make a Subject Access Request for it. You will have to prove your identity and address

https://www.kingston.gov.uk/council-democracy/subject-access-requests

I would add a note saying that if they confirm by return that the pcn is cancelled they can file your request unaswered.