Author Topic: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge  (Read 171 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

bigred247

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« on: March 07, 2024, 10:40:44 am »
Hi All,

I've received a PCN for a 31J - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement). The date of notice was 26th February 2024 so I only have 3 days to respond for the discount period. Apologies for the short notice as this letter somehow got misplaced and I only found it yesterday.

Do I have any grounds for appeal here?

Link to PCN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HqRj5oKnumkQBrsiyQos5C6Hk60KM-5z/view?usp=shar

Video footage
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1svdd3JLgR__XZifnUCQH97HSSPPmIxZe/view?usp=sharing

Images
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1swv6TzhvWKKpRVU7FHbS4iys0F1_7TJs/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sx0SrmFkAzuSDT_ntbo8jnMoucuTRedM/view?usp=sharing


« Last Edit: March 07, 2024, 10:55:12 am by bigred247 »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1364
  • Karma: +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2024, 10:55:19 am »
Quote
Do I have any grounds for appeal here?
Quite possibly. The video does not show you at the point of entering the box. Was there a clear space for you on the other side before the white car sneaked-in in front of you ?
Like Like x 1 View List

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2024, 11:45:32 am »
The contravention did not occur because the video does not show the whole situation at the point of entry, which is the crucial legal issue.  It shows the vehicle after it had entered.  In this regard, I rely upon the following extract from the key case of Place Invaders Ltd. v Transport for London: The terms of the prohibition refer to causing the vehicle to enter the box. The evidence produced by Transport for London in support of its case does not, however, show the entry of the vehicle into the box; it commences later, when the vehicle is already stopped in the box. It seems to me that in order properly to consider whether the contravention has occurred the video recording needs to show the entry of the vehicle into the box since that is the start of the events that will or will not lead to there being a contravention. In the absence of this evidence, bearing in mind that the burden is on Transport for London to prove the contravention, I cannot find that it has discharged this burden of proof. I accordingly allow this appeal.

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"
Like Like x 1 Agree Agree x 1 View List

bigred247

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2024, 09:26:31 pm »
Quote
Do I have any grounds for appeal here?
Quite possibly. The video does not show you at the point of entering the box. Was there a clear space for you on the other side before the white car sneaked-in in front of you ?

I believe that to be the case form recollection.

bigred247

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2024, 09:34:40 pm »
The contravention did not occur because the video does not show the whole situation at the point of entry, which is the crucial legal issue.  It shows the vehicle after it had entered.  In this regard, I rely upon the following extract from the key case of Place Invaders Ltd. v Transport for London: The terms of the prohibition refer to causing the vehicle to enter the box. The evidence produced by Transport for London in support of its case does not, however, show the entry of the vehicle into the box; it commences later, when the vehicle is already stopped in the box. It seems to me that in order properly to consider whether the contravention has occurred the video recording needs to show the entry of the vehicle into the box since that is the start of the events that will or will not lead to there being a contravention. In the absence of this evidence, bearing in mind that the burden is on Transport for London to prove the contravention, I cannot find that it has discharged this burden of proof. I accordingly allow this appeal.

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc

@Hippocrates
Thank you very much for the feedback. I had a very similar case last year and the adjudicator pretty much said the very same thing and the case went in my favour (reference below) which MrChips helped to draft. So should I draft an appeal solely based on your quote above and see how the council responds? Most likely, it'll go to the adjudicator

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-31j-pcn-stopping-at-box-junction/msg3244/#msg3244

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #5 on: March 08, 2024, 09:56:31 am »
I would as Mr Chips and I are singing the same tune. The draft I did is currently being used in another live case.  Also:

Manju Lukhman v London Borough of Redbridge Case No. 2230099245
 
I have however recorded the appeal as allowed on the basis of insufficient
evidence. The clip shows the appellant stopped within the box but it does
not show the appellant car at the point of entry and actually entering it. It is
important in the correct assessment of an appeal of this nature that the
adjudicator can assess what traffic flow and conditions are present at the
actual time the car enters the box and in this case the shortage of the clip
prevents this.
 
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Royal Borough of Greenwich 2230539604
 
In this case the CCTV footage that I have been provided with, and
uploaded onto the Tribunal computer system by the Authority,
commences with the Appellant's vehicle already in the box junction at
08:14:26.
It is crucial in determining any box junction contravention that the
Adjudicator is able to see the actual entry of a motorist's vehicle into the
box junction and the state of the exit.
Without such evidence a proper and fair determination is not possible.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.

********

Courtesy of cp's brilliant repository.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2024, 10:07:33 am by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"
Like Like x 1 View List

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
  • Karma: +88/-3
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2024, 10:05:20 pm »
@bigred247 the PCN is at the discount rate which suggests they're issued a rejection and reoffered the discount, have you received anything?
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I am not a lawyer.

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

bigred247

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2024, 05:32:07 am »
@cp8759

I just received a rejection letter from Redbridge Council. The first page is a little blurry and I will attempt to update it later today. In the rejection letter, they go on to say “We have rejected your representations because your vehicle was seen entering and stopping a box junction” and they later say “Whilst the CCTV footage does not show your vehicle entering the Box Junction, it does show your vehicle stopped in a Box  Junction”. Is this not a self-contradiction?


In this case, would I go tribunal relying upon my initial representation?


Rejection of Representation
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WJI-N7Wl5Cj8yzjxsRFS9CMg1N0bVbBs/view?usp=sharing

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #8 on: March 26, 2024, 08:32:13 am »
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WJI-N7Wl5Cj8yzjxsRFS9CMg1N0bVbBs/view?usp=sharing

This is a blatant attempt at mugging.  We won a case yesterday v Kingston for exactly the same reason which they (Redbridge) are unreasonably dodging!  They seem to be making it up as they go along.

Yes, it is indeed Tribunal time. Take your pick: cp or me.  ;D

I will post  up the Kingston decision when I get it. The hearing took about 4 minutes and 29 seconds. ;)

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/kingston-borough-council-31j-stopping-in-a-box-junction-(richmond-road-junction-/msg18253/#msg18253
« Last Edit: March 26, 2024, 08:37:20 am by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"
Love Love x 1 View List

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3630
  • Karma: +88/-3
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #9 on: March 26, 2024, 10:49:11 pm »
@bigred247 the rejection looks like a load of BS to me, they accept they have no evidence of your entry into the box so they have no evidence of a contravention.

I think you should appeal as you have better than even odds of succeeding, your best bet is if you have someone represent you. I'm normally swamped with appeals so I ask for a nominal fee, while I understand Hippocrates only asks for his train fare to the hearing centre so if he has capacity you might want to go with him.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". I am not a lawyer.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Love Love x 1 View List

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #10 on: March 27, 2024, 10:06:58 pm »
I am more than happy to do this one foc=free of charge! Case won yesterday:

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 2240040646
Appellant
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM BL130NX
PCN Details
PCN QT08478867
Contravention date 12 Nov 2023
Contravention time 17:28:00
Contravention location Richmond Rd (Junction with Sopwith Way D5)
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 25 Mar 2024
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
Mr Morgan attended. Ms **** attended by telephone.

It is a contravention if a person causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

The evidence does not show the appellant’s vehicle “enter” the box junction.

The footage starts with the vehicle already on the box junction.

I will therefore allow the appeal.

****************

Please do not join The Mugged Club!

Same issue as above and as below!

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/kingston-borough-council-31j-stopping-in-a-box-junction-(richmond-road-junction-/msg11058/#msg11058


« Last Edit: March 27, 2024, 10:09:54 pm by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #11 on: March 27, 2024, 10:54:12 pm »
@bigred247 the rejection looks like a load of BS to me, they accept they have no evidence of your entry into the box so they have no evidence of a contravention.

I think you should appeal as you have better than even odds of succeeding, your best bet is if you have someone represent you. I'm normally swamped with appeals so I ask for a nominal fee, while I understand Hippocrates only asks for his train fare to the hearing centre so if he has capacity you might want to go with him.

BS=Bolleaux in my Celtic vocabulary!  PM sent.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2024, 09:48:15 am by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"
Love Love x 1 View List

bigred247

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #12 on: March 30, 2024, 12:22:33 am »
@bigred247 the rejection looks like a load of BS to me, they accept they have no evidence of your entry into the box so they have no evidence of a contravention.

I think you should appeal as you have better than even odds of succeeding, your best bet is if you have someone represent you. I'm normally swamped with appeals so I ask for a nominal fee, while I understand Hippocrates only asks for his train fare to the hearing centre so if he has capacity you might want to go with him.

BS=Bolleaux in my Celtic vocabulary!  PM sent.

@Hippocrates thank you for offering to take this up. This would be greatly appreciated. I have PMd you and sent you an email. Will you setup/activate the appeal on the tribunal website or do you need me to do this?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #13 on: March 30, 2024, 09:33:44 am »
Game on.  I will e mail you shortly. That NOR is completely misguided, to say the least.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"
Love Love x 1 View List

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 992
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: PCN 31J - London Borough Redbridge
« Reply #14 on: April 03, 2024, 05:09:33 pm »
Madrigal: "Now is the month maying, when merry lads are playing,  fa la la etc. Each with his bonny lass, upon the greeny grass, fa la la la............."
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"
Funny Funny x 1 View List