Author Topic: Redbridge - George Lane 31J Stopping in a box junction when prohibited  (Read 529 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Glitch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Redbridge have uploaded their evidence.

It's the same video that starts with me in the middle of the box. No evidence of entering the box.

The following statement in the pack from them is as a minimum, disingenuous and most likely a downright lie!

 
Quote
GROUNDS FOR CONTESTING THE APPEAL
 I am confident that the convention has occurred, as you will see from the CCTV footage the
 vehicle enters whilst the appellants exit is not clear
. The Highway Code advises "You MUST NOT
 enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear"
The appellant is traveling in a lane that is full to its capacity before the yellow box, the appellant
 could not exit this, he is then reversing in the yellow box which is a very dangerous practice, the
 appellant should not have entered and waited.
 I can confirm that the findings are that; the driver should have anticipated/ waited and assessed
 the situation, before entering the yellow box and only entered if their exit was clear and only if the
 vehicle cleared the yellow box. As the vehicle did not fully exit the yellow box the PCN remains
 valid. lt has also been confirmed that the vehicle was stopped/ stationary within the yellow box
 whilst not permitted.
 The appeal has been considered; however, the Council is not prepared to cancel the charge, I
 would therefore respectfully request that this appeal be refused 

1. There is no evidence of the state of the exit at the time I enter the box.
2. There is a clear exit on the left hand side.
3. Having seen the broken down vehicle in the LH lane I slowed down to assess the situation after which two vehicles come out of the side road, one of which I decide to allow out and the other proceeds to block my exit. I'm pretty sure there was a vehicle or two behind the broken down vehicle which moved over to the right.
4. I reversed a small amount very slowly and carefully to allow traffic to flow but had to stop due the vehicle behind me.

Glitch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile

Does the lack of a full video deny me the opportunity to prove the contravention did not occur?

Do I still have to put forward my explanation and we wander off into balance of probability?

Or is the burden of proof with Redbridge to prove the contravention rather then me pitch my explanation of events?

Glitch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
I plan to upload this as my 'evidence' today.

I am familiar with this box junction and with all box junctions I am very cautious. I follow Rule 174 of the Highway code, i.e., You MUST NOT ENTER the box until your exit road or lane is clear.
On this occasion I recall ensuring I had a clear exit before I enter the box. My exit was impeded by circumstances beyond my control, some but not all of which are captured in the limited Redbridge video evidence.

It is my understanding that the Videalert-RDS CCTV camera used at this junction is unattended and automatically captures images of a stationery vehicle and the system subsequently produces the evidence for review.

The CCTV Operator (Nahid Adnan) in his witness statement believes that the captured footage confirms the contravention of ‘entering and stopping whilst prohibited’. I believe he has only been able to review the automatically produced video that they have provided to me on their website and the very same video in their evidence pack and that he did not witness the alleged contravention in real-time.

The Parking Technician (Shaz Aziz) writes in the Council’s Summary of Representation that they are confident the contravention has occurred, they state:
 ‘as you will see from the CCTV footage the vehicle enters whilst the appellants exit is not clear.’
 
The assertions of the CCTV Operator and the Parking Technician are not evident in the Redbridge video footage. If there is an extended version of the video it has not been provided.

The “prohibition” is that of  “causing a vehicle to enter..” followed by the consequence. It is the entering into the box junction which constitutes the contravention, once the vehicle has had to stop. 

The video evidence does not cover the entry to the box, or me coming to a halt. The key evidence is missing. I cannot understand how the CCTV Operator or the Parking Technician can be ‘confident’ and assert the contravention occurred if they don’t have evidence of the state of the traffic as I decide to enter the box.

I needed to be in the left hand lane at the lights up ahead. On entry the exit was clear but I recall at least one car up ahead moving from the left hand lane to the right hand lane. It then became apparent to me that there was a stricken vehicle in the left hand lane and these vehicles are moving to avoid the stricken vehicle. Whilst carefully assessing the situation two cars have approached from the left.
 
The driver of the blue car has taken my hesitation as an invitation to proceed, the orange car also proceeds to leave the side road and on seeing the broken down car decides to stop and block the exit from the box.

I reversed very slowly and carefully to avoid blocking the junction. My intent was to reverse out of the box but a car behind arrives and blocks my exit.

I have not impeded the flow of traffic in any direction as evidenced in the CCTV video and decided it was safer to stop until the traffic ahead has cleared.

The video evidence does not prove the contravention and does not match the words used by Redbridge. On these grounds I ask for the appeal to be allowed.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4876
  • Karma: +113/-4
    • View Profile
Or is the burden of proof with Redbridge to prove the contravention rather then me pitch my explanation of events?
@Glitch most people get this wrong: the correct position is that the council has to prove its case. Until it does so, you don't have to say or prove anything.

When is your hearing due? You don't want to rush things.

I think what you've written is far, far too long. All you really need to say is that the video does not show your vehicle entering the box junction, so there is no evidence of any contravention occurring at the time alleged, or at all.
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 nor 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.

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

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
The golden rule about making statements is: the less you write, the less on which you can be cross-examined.
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Glitch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Or is the burden of proof with Redbridge to prove the contravention rather then me pitch my explanation of events?
@Glitch most people get this wrong: the correct position is that the council has to prove its case. Until it does so, you don't have to say or prove anything.

When is your hearing due? You don't want to rush things.

I think what you've written is far, far too long. All you really need to say is that the video does not show your vehicle entering the box junction, so there is no evidence of any contravention occurring at the time alleged, or at all.

@cp8759 Thanks for replying and clarifying. thankfully I haven't uploaded it.

Personal hearing next week. 4th June.

Do I need to upload a statement at all?

Glitch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
The golden rule about making statements is: the less you write, the less on which you can be cross-examined.

@Hippocrates
Makes sense. Without knowing how best to play it I did a brain dump in that statement trying to play through how the hearing would go but I have been concerned about falling into an Adjudicator trap! Thankfully I haven't uploaded it.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4876
  • Karma: +113/-4
    • View Profile
Personal hearing next week. 4th June.

Do I need to upload a statement at all?
You don't have to provide any statement, all you need to make is a legal submission along the lines of reply 18 above.
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 nor 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.

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

Glitch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
My heart sank when I saw it was Belinda Pearce. Third time in four appearances I've had her.

However, she was very cheerful and pleasant  this time.
I didn't need to say anything. She threw it out for lack of evidence.

I made the point that Redbridge think they've seen me entering the box and say that in the NoR, CCTV witness statement and council summary. They also think that we can clearly see it.

Disingenuous bar stewards.

Winner Winner x 1 View List

Glitch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks as always for the sound advice.

Is there enough in this to claim costs? - a token 1p, just to make the point that Redbridge should never have taken this to Tribunal.


Quote
Adjudicator's Reasons

The Appellant attended a Personal Appeal Hearing before me today, 4th June 2024, to explain his
contention personally.

1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicleentered and stopped on a location subject to
an operative restriction denoted by yellow cross-hatching, such demarcation indicating a prohibition
against a vehicle remaining stationary within the defined area due to the presence of stationary
vehicles.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the challenges
as indicated in his written representations, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the
Hearing.

I am grateful to the Appellant for his thorough research and the manner of presentation of his
contention.  ;D

3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to the operative
restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge
Notice together with photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing
the said vehicle in situ and the applicable carriageway markings notifying motorists of the prohibition.

4. The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined (repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation
in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
At the commencement of the footage the said vehicle is already positioned on the cross-hatching;
despite the Enforcement Authority's references in its Notice of Rejection ("the driver would have been
aware when entering the box junction that they would not be able to exit") and Case Summary ("you
will see from the CCTV footage the vehicle enters whilst the appellants exit is not clear") there is no
evidence before me of the said vehicle entering the cross-hatched area.
In light of the nature of the restriction, which is echoed in the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice
("alleged traffic contravention:- Enterinq and stoppinq in a box junction when prohibited") the evidence
crucial to determination as to the occurrence of a contravention or otherwise i.e. the situation at the
said vehicle's point of entry, is absent.

5. I am concerned that either:-

i) the Enforcement Authority was privy to evidence which it has omitted to furnish to the Tribunal
and/or
ii) the Enforcement Authority has failed to duly consider the evidence available to it.

6. I am not satisfied by the evidence in this Case; I do not find a contravention proved.

The evidential burden does not pass to an Appellant unless and until that evidential burden is
discharged satisfactorily by the Enforcement Authority.

Evidentially I cannot find that the alleged contravention occurred.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2024, 08:37:47 am by Glitch »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
I must have just missed you as I walked past the said lady as I was going to the Tribunal down Furnival Street about 1.20 p.m. I would say yes.*

*5. I am concerned that either:-

i) the Enforcement Authority was privy to evidence which it has omitted to furnish to the Tribunal
and/or
ii) the Enforcement Authority has failed to duly consider the evidence available to it.



I am happy to draft an application for you and would appreciate the whole evidence pack if you agree. £19 per hour post receipt of the NOR. Be a good opportunity to meet at last too.  ;) Though you would not need to attend in person.  14 days to file an application.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2024, 02:20:03 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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile

Disingenuous bar stewards.

That's my phrase: Stewards of the Bar. ;D
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Glitch

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
@Hippocrates lets go for it!

I'll DM you the details to view the evidence pack.

PCN should never have been issued.
NoR is lies
CCTV Operator Witness Statement is lies
Parking Technician's Council Summary is lies

3 named people have lied despite being so called 'professionals'.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Game on. μολὼν λαβέ.
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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1261
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Dear Sirs

Following the decision of Adjudicator...............I make this application for costs in a timely manner as I consider the council's pursuit of this case to be wholly unreasonable from the outset.

Grounds

1. My formal representations  were legally and incontrovertibly correct.
2. The council's failure to accept them demonstrates not only incompetence in terms of their knowledge of the law pertaining to yellow box junctions, but also their wholly unreasonable conduct which forced me to take the matter to adjudication at this honourable Tribunal..
3. The Adjudicator accepted my submissions and was critical of, and concerned by, the council's evidence as expressed in paragraphs 4 to 6.

In light of the above, I ask for a personal hearing to determine my application which I believe is entirely reasonable under the  prevailing circumstances. I attach my Witness Statement and claim costs accordingly i.e. from the receipt of the Notice of Rejection.

Yours faithfully
« Last Edit: June 05, 2024, 11:47:10 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"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰ