Author Topic: Redbridge PCN, Code 31j Stopping in a box junction, Horns Road (A) / TFL, yellow box, near B&M  (Read 1090 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

zzzatang

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
The ask: I need help from experts on the appeal letter.
I know everyone is busy and hence the ask is stated first.

Context:
I received a PCN letter from Redbridge Council dated 15-Feb-2024. I want to appeal this PCN. This Yellow Box Junction (YBJ) is the council's big money spinner. I learned the hard way of Googling it after I got the PCN. There are some inherent design issues with it, as it stretches further than being in the path of crossing traffic.

Grounds for appeal: [ Based on my research- I am listing all possible reasons ]
1. Location is vague [ Screenshot https://app.box.com/s/dmfillj3195b3re75l48e26rx2sa8p6u and  https://app.box.com/s/6weoa0lz0yjs6ytp7fpfx0d0llilidry & PCN Letter https://app.box.com/s/gsce4yiynutxjls1pyclheokycp3hvrb ]

Where is Horns Road (A)? When I search for Horns Road (a) on the OpenStreetmaps website (screenshot attached), even after clicking for more results 2 times there is still no result on the first page of search results which brings up the alleged YBJ.
The location is blank on the Council's website https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/ParkingPCN when I go to the Pay My PCN page. (screenshot attached)

Potential appeal text: "The PCN does not state the location of the yellow box junction. This is a long road and I am unable to mount a defence if I don't know where the box is. Please see case reference 2160240742 for an example of a previous appeal allowed on such a point. "

2. Restricted View [ Screenshot https://app.box.com/s/i33lg5f7eli2tq13sm2cqmd1rm298aog ]
When nearing and entering the YBJ from Perrymans Farm Road and turning left on the Horns Road, The B&M building, the hedges and street furniture such as the railings prevent a clear view of the Horns Road traffic further ahead. Especially, considering the driver of a normal car (not SUV) is seated even below the height of the car roof-mounted camera of the Streetview recording car.

Text for an appeal:

I judged to the best of my ability that the exit side was clear and there was sufficient space for my vehicle to fit. However the attached image shows that the junction layout means visibility to the exit is obscured by a building.


3. Space taken by other car
I started moving to enter Horns Road cautiously when the Red Car came very aggressively to take the space that my car was going to occupy. You can see that it takes a lot of time before another car comes on top of the YBJ because it is not as aggressive as the red car. The angle of the video camera on the pole does not show this aspect of this incident and hence misses a big context issue.

Text for an appeal:

Paragraph 11, part 7 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 states that “a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.”. From the driver's viewpoint, when I started turning left and entered the box  there was space to receive my vehicle on the exit of the box, however it was taken by another vehicle


4. Enough Space - Aggressive early stopping by the Red car is a space-hogging issue  [ Screenshot https://app.box.com/s/8f7b60ko4h6udshbywbaunslukdbj640 ]
There is sufficient space for 3 cars in the area between the white stop line at the signal (which was green) and the start of the YJB. However, if the second car stops early then the third car, especially when taking a left turn from the Perrymans Farm Road gets stuck with one of the three wheels on the YJB. This satellite view of this YBJ from Google Maps illustrates this point. The angle of view of the Camera on the Pole installed by the council does not allow for this judgement

Text to appeal:
The box ahead was clear and my stop was not caused by "stationary vehicles" but rather by the unexpected actions (rash driving and aggressive braking) of a single vehicle (red car) ahead of me.


5. Space between my car and the Red car
I could have crept forward but because of rash driving by the red car driver, I kept a bit more distance from his car. This was my reaction to how he behaved. Also due to the turning radius of the car and the starting point being the extreme left side of the road, the car appears to be on the junction box. However, as per the legislation, there was space for one car at the time of entering the YBJ.

Text for an appeal:

Paragraph 11, part 7 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 states that stopping on a yellow box is only an offence when stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.  My vehicle was not stopped for this reason.


Another text for an appeal:

Paragraph 11, part 7 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 sates that stopping on a yellow box is only an offence when stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.  There was a gap in front of the box in front of my vehicle that was big enough to fit my vehicle. I chose not to enter it therefore I was not stopped due to the presence of "stationary vehicles". Please see case references 2220796242 and 2220698629 for similar examples allowed on appeal.


6. Over Sized YBJ 
As you can see in the Google Satellite View photo of the YJB in question, it stretches way beyond the area that would be needed by a car turning right from Perrymans Farm Road. I have attached another example screenshot of a YBJ in Barkingside where it doesn't stretch as far as the one in question does. [ Screenshot https://app.box.com/s/4p3gfmeo0wc2bgxupxwhsuv0nj6fv0u9 ]  I understand this is difficult to use in an appeal.

Text for appeal:

This box extends beyond the junction and the extended area serves no purpose. Schedule 7, Part 9, 11 (6) of the TSRGD 2016 sets out the permitted locations for yellow boxes and this states it must be "(a) at a junction between two or more roads"  The attached image shows that this box extends beyond the junction and is thus not "at" a junction. Please see case references 2170285940 as an example of a previous case won on this point in which the adjudicator stated: "A “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads. Markings which extends beyond the junction of two or more roads do not therefore mark out a box junction covered by the prohibition. I am in no way suggesting that the Authority has to be inch perfect but, in my view, extending the box junction by a car length or more beyond the actual junction is neither compliant nor substantially compliant with requirements.”


7. TWOC - Taken With Out Consent
This could be added to the list above. Though, I believe there is some disagreement among experts here on whether it would apply.



Attachments:
Video: https://youtu.be/d1Asb_LxDmI   I was unable to find a download button on the council website, got help from someone to screen capture

Redbridge council letter dated 15-Feb-2024: https://app.box.com/s/gsce4yiynutxjls1pyclheokycp3hvrb

Council PCN website has blank LOCATION Screenshot : https://app.box.com/s/dmfillj3195b3re75l48e26rx2sa8p6u

Bing StreetView Screenshot - restricted View for a driver turning left: https://app.box.com/s/i33lg5f7eli2tq13sm2cqmd1rm298aog

OpenStreetMap search results horns road (a) Screenshot : https://app.box.com/s/6weoa0lz0yjs6ytp7fpfx0d0llilidry

Google Satellite Photo showing 3 cars barely fitting due to middle car leaving excessive space : https://app.box.com/s/8f7b60ko4h6udshbywbaunslukdbj640

Screenshot Good YBJ Example in Barkingside : https://app.box.com/s/4p3gfmeo0wc2bgxupxwhsuv0nj6fv0u9
« Last Edit: February 17, 2024, 04:33:59 pm by zzzatang »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re 7:  may be so;  but, you can include it as they must consider it. Do you need my text re this?*

BTW, you received it on Monday 19th!  The deemed date of service.

*
The third ground on the PCN clearly limits to theft. I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2024, 03:03:34 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

zzzatang

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Now I have added the video to the original post. https://youtu.be/d1Asb_LxDmI

It would be great if you could share your views on what else I could add to the appeal and also opine on the points listed in my original post.


Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
I do not agree re the red car. It was their right of way. Also, the vague locus could be rebutted as there are other clear signs indicated.  Just being pragmatic.
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

zzzatang

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
re red car: During periods of heavy traffic, such as the one when I was near the yellow box junction, the usual practice is that one vehicle joins junction from each side. On that basis, I had visual contact with the driver of the white car and had let it pass first. I was expecting to join behind that car, however to my surprise the red car tailgated the white car at very high speed.



zzzatang

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
1. I have composed an appeals letter (here: https://app.box.com/s/ra0zxqpm2mvhb0mo94iij8g3k9rnialr ). It would be great if you could provide feedback on how to improve it or make it more legally accurate. Please feel free to download , make changes and upload your edited version - if you find it easier to do so.

2. Regarding the text highlighted in yellow in points 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, I am unsure whether to add this highlighted additional text information elaborating these points in the appeal letter. Please advise whether it is advisable to add this additional info.

3. Should I keep or remove point-8 that I have sourced from the appeal letter posted in this thread https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-pcn-entering-and-stopping-in-a-box-junction-high-road-goodmayes-31j/

4. Lastly, the PCN is dated 15-Feb-2024 and as @Hippocrates has kindly highlighted the date served would be 19-Feb-2024. My question is do I need to submit the appeal by 29-Feb-2024 to qualify for the reduced 65 GBP penalty payment if the appeal is rejected? or do I have 14 days from the deemed date of service to retain the reduced rate?


Here is the Google maps Streetview url: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AWMrornh8UJjy2GE6   [Just noticed I had not added this to my original post]
« Last Edit: February 29, 2024, 03:18:13 pm by zzzatang »

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
@zzzatang I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the road description given you can find it with a simple google search:



I think it would be much better if you simply counter the number of yellow boxes on the road (will require you to check on google maps) and then we can see if we can draw a parallel to the Shaftesbury Avenue case. I don't see that the location on the council website has any significance, either the statutory PCN gives you enough details or it doesn't.

I don't think the restricted view argument gets you anywhere, it seems to me that the image you rely on shows that the view is perfectly fine.

Points 3,4 and 5, with respect, look unarguable (that's the polite way of saying they're nonsense).

Point 6 is irrelevant as your car was at the junction.

Point 7 is arguable but I'm not sure many adjudicators accept it.

Point 8 is wrong in law and you should not pursue it because if you argue it at the tribunal, you'd be seeking to mislead the tribunal as to the law. A complete answer to the point is found in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, and we don't mislead the tribunal as that would be a criminal offence. Making false or misleading representations to the authority is also a criminal offence. The fact that such offences might seldom if ever be prosecuted is irrelevant.

You've asked me to set up a link with a counter which I'm happy to do, a link to what please?

I honestly think the first point is the best one but you really need to count how many box junctions there are on this road.
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 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.

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

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Received PM.  Point 8 argument has had success over the years at the Tribunal but is now more or less otiose.  I do not agree that anyone advancing this argument would be deliberately or otherwise attempting to mislead the Tribunal;  however, it doesn't work anymore and, in the last case won (October 2022) that same adjudicator now seems to have changed his mind. Indeed, it wasn't even argued at the hearing - rather the failure to consider it. But, he allowed it on that point anyway!

The TWOC ground should be included to test their response. If they make one. I have a live case in which they did not reply to it.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2024, 01:04:51 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

zzzatang

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
@zzzatang I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the road description given you can find it with a simple google search:

[img width=1099.9923095703125 height=890.9954223632812]https://i.imgur.com/tMX84PH.png[/img]

I think it would be much better if you simply counter the number of yellow boxes on the road (will require you to check on google maps) and then we can see if we can draw a parallel to the Shaftesbury Avenue case. I don't see that the location on the council website has any significance, either the statutory PCN gives you enough details or it doesn't.

I don't think the restricted view argument gets you anywhere, it seems to me that the image you rely on shows that the view is perfectly fine.

Points 3,4 and 5, with respect, look unarguable (that's the polite way of saying they're nonsense).

Point 6 is irrelevant as your car was at the junction.

Point 7 is arguable but I'm not sure many adjudicators accept it.

Point 8 is wrong in law and you should not pursue it because if you argue it at the tribunal, you'd be seeking to mislead the tribunal as to the law. A complete answer to the point is found in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, and we don't mislead the tribunal as that would be a criminal offence. Making false or misleading representations to the authority is also a criminal offence. The fact that such offences might seldom if ever be prosecuted is irrelevant.

You've asked me to set up a link with a counter which I'm happy to do, a link to what please?

I honestly think the first point is the best one but you really need to count how many box junctions there are on this road.

@cp8759 thanks for your response.

There is unfortunately only one Yellow Box Junction on Horns Road in Redbridge. I do agree having two or more YBJ would have been ideal grounds for appeal.

With regards to points:
#1 Location. The PCN only states "HORNS ROAD (A)" and not "Horns road, redbridge" as you have searched in Google Maps. If we are going to appeal on a technicality that the location is vague then this might become an important point to search what they have provided exactly. IMHO

#2 Restricted View: Turning left vs going straight into YBJ (as the camera is facing) are two different angles and do not provide the same amount of information. The long traffic pile up on the road after the signal is not visible as a person approaches the junction intending to turn left. I could see the green signal and no cars on the left, while a white car approached the junction on the right.

#3, 4, 5: I appreciate you think they are nonsense. However, most people enter a junction based on their judgement of space on the other side and they are unable to clearly exit for various reasons - including me. The key point is that the legislation states there should be enough space for a car when entering the junction, there is nothing wrong in stopping over the junction for any reason except for stationary vehicles.
Here are two images to consider [ Guests cannot view attachments ] and [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Looking at these images, I perceive there is space for 3 cars (especially if one is a small hatchback). My point is that the red car left too much space in front of it. Also since I was taking a left turn, there was more space in front of my car on the driver's side that would have fit my car if I was coming straight from the other side of the junction instead of taking a turn. It was also that I did not want to be too close to the red car just to clear the junction. The Google satellite image exactly shows the situation my car was in, with more space ahead of 2nd car and the third car taking a left turn. Maybe it could be that I need to elaborate on this further in the letter or rephrase these points!

#6 [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
The image attached with this message has markings to better illustrate the overhanging part of the YBJ which is not meaningfully required or ever used for any car going straight on the opposite road or taking a right. Hence the argument that the YBJ is bigger than what is needed.

#7 has been added based on advice given on this thread by @Hippocrates

#8 has been added from a previous thread here: 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-/
This ground for appeal has been cited multiple times on this forum for me to believe it is a genuine point. So, given my limited knowledge of law, I do not think I am misleading anyone on this.

In the same thread (cite above), if you look at the 5th message from you... the following is mentioned: "@wolvoman I will PM you a link to put in the representation, it will redirect to here but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well."

I was referring to this link counter for the evidence for #8

However, now it seems you no longer believe in #8 as a ground for an appeal, based on your response above.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2024, 01:23:42 pm by zzzatang »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re conflation argument:  this has worked in the distant past and submitted in good faith.  Indeed, I have won the large majority of cases on this point.  But:

1. The adjudicators who have allowed have changed their minds or

2. They have left.

Up to you. Personally, I would omit it.  The "or" is either dysfunctional or conjunctional.  Whatever, the law is a mess in terms of its expression and only Newham get it right by separating the two periods and making it clear.

I have even asked for a panel decision but this was refused too.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2024, 01:18:57 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

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
With regards to points:
#1 Location. The PCN only states "HORNS ROAD (A)" and not "Horns road, redbridge" as you have searched in Google Maps. If we are going to appeal on a technicality that the location is vague then this might become an important point to search what they have provided exactly. IMHO
But is says London Borough of Redbridge on the PCN, see https://maps.app.goo.gl/eUnJUUfdNp6pZrZB7

On top of this, there only appears to be one Horns Road in the UK, the only other suggested results is Horns Lane in Norwich but that's because Google accounts for the fact that you might have got Road and Lane mixed up.

#2 Restricted View: Turning left vs going straight into YBJ (as the camera is facing) are two different angles and do not provide the same amount of information. The long traffic pile up on the road after the signal is not visible as a person approaches the junction intending to turn left. I could see the green signal and no cars on the left, while a white car approached the junction on the right.
If you want to pursue this you need to find a better image, because the one you've provided does not support this argument at all.

#3, 4, 5: I appreciate you think they are nonsense. However, most people enter a junction based on their judgement of space on the other side...
And the way adjudicators have interpreted this law for decades is that if the driver makes an error of judgment and can't clear the junction, then they commit a contravention. Of course you don't have to accept my advice, you can run the argument at the tribunal but your chances of success are low indeed IMO.

#6 (Attachment Link)
The image attached with this message has markings to better illustrate the overhanging part of the YBJ which is not meaningfully required or ever used for any car going straight on the opposite road or taking a right. Hence the argument that the YBJ is bigger than what is needed.
I fear you've missed the point: even if the junction markings are bigger than needed, that is not a defence in law. So even if the adjudicator agrees, it won't make any difference.

#7 has been added based on advice given on this thread by @Hippocrates
Sure, and if it's arguable it's worth running, we just want to ensure you are aware of the risks.

#8 has been added from a previous thread here: 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-/
This ground for appeal has been cited multiple times on this forum for me to believe it is a genuine point. So, given my limited knowledge of law, I do not think I am misleading anyone on this.
I am telling you it is wrong in law, the law in question is here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/paragraph/5/enacted

Charge certificates
5(1)Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—

(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;

As Hippocrates says, this ground won't get you anywhere anyway.

In the same thread (cite above), if you look at the 5th message from you... the following is mentioned: "@wolvoman I will PM you a link to put in the representation, it will redirect to here but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well."

I was referring to this link counter for the evidence for #8

However, now it seems you no longer believe in #8 as a ground for an appeal, based on your response above.
No, I've read the thread and the link was for ground 7, I have set this up and will PM it to you in a minute.
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 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.

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

zzzatang

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re 7:  may be so;  but, you can include it as they must consider it. Do you need my text re this?*

BTW, you received it on Monday 19th!  The deemed date of service.


@Hippocrates, @cp8759 and others on the forum,

I need your help / advice about my next step / available options (if any). Given the Deemed date of Service is 19-Feb-2024, I believe I am within (or I was on Saturday 16-Mar-2024 at 11:39 pm) within the 28 days period from 19-Feb-2028 to make a representation online (or alternately pay the 130 GBP penalty charge should I choose to do so)

However, the council website does not allow me to appeal online or make online representations even though the PCN states this would be the option available to me. Also, please note that the council website on 16-Mar-2024 asks for the higher 195 GBP payment instead of 130 GBP even though 28 days from date of service have not passed yet. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Clearly given that the ((9 out of 10) post offices near me are closed on Sunday 17-Mar-2024 (with the exception of one as per Post office branch finder - which could be wrong data or provide limited service), Please advise whether I can post the appeal on Monday 18-Mar-2024 (when all Post Offices will be open) or it would be too late to meet the deadline?

What are my options, and am I calculating the dates and deadline incorrectly?

I used the council's complaints form on 17-Mar-2024 (about 12:34 am) that is available on their website to complaint about this lack of the appeals option available online to me and I have attached my PCN appeal letter along with relevant screenshots asking the complaints team to consider the appeal within the timeframe provided in the PCN. Though I am not sure if this would be accepted as a correct means of Appeal of my PCN. The complaint could only be filed 50 min later (which means the date has changed) as I needed time to update my appeal letter with the new set of issues faced and also to author the complaint on their website.

Is this lack of online appeals options and demand for higher payment before the 28 days from date of service a ground for appeal ?

PCN dated 15-Feb-2024 for quick reference: https://app.box.com/s/gsce4yiynutxjls1pyclheokycp3hvrb
« Last Edit: March 17, 2024, 01:23:17 am by zzzatang »

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4485
  • Karma: +106/-4
    • View Profile
@zzzatang various issues.

Firstly you've left everything to the last second, so this is entirely a self-inflicted dilemma.

Secondly you need a new screenshot where you use https://time.is to prove the time of the screenshot, as the time on your own computer can easily be manipulated.

Third,the deadline for representations is midnight on Sunday 17 March i.e. today, so in theory you're not out of time.

This leaves you with the very practical problem that there are no postal deliveries today, so even if you had sent the representations by first class post yesterday, they would still be received out of time.

At this point all you can do is send an email to parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk as follows:

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

I have attempted to make representations against PCN AF98203157 which was deemed served on 19 February 2024, and by my calculation the last day of the 28 day period is 17 March 2024 i.e. today. However the council website at https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/ParkingPCN/Review wrongly tells me that the only option is to pay the outstanding balance of £195.

I therefore challenge the PCN for two reasons: firstly the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, as the penalty cannot be increased to £195 before 18 March 2024. Secondly where the penalty charge notice provides for representations to be submitted on the council website, it is a procedural impropriety to prevent a motorist from submitting representations online before the end of the statutory 28 day period.

Yours faithfully

You'll need to add your full name and address, the autoreply you will receive says

Please note you cannot contest the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice by email, you may challenge the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice within 28 days of the PCN/Notice to Owner being served. To do this please go online to www.redbridge.gov.uk/parkingpcn, you will require the PCN number and vehicle registration.

Obviously you can't submit representations via the website, but there is no requirement for the council to accept representations at all and there is a risk they could play hardball and say representations by email are not made in the form and manner stated on the PCN. All you can do is hope that they are kind enough to issue a notice of rejection but frankly it's 50 / 50 at this point.

You should also post a copy by Royal Mail special delivery on Monday.

You definitely don't want to include any other arguments because you want it to be as easy as possible for them to issue a rejection.
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 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.

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

zzzatang

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 28
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
@zzzatang various issues.


Secondly you need a new screenshot where you use https://time.is to prove the time of the screenshot, as the time on your own computer can easily be manipulated.

Third,the deadline for representations is midnight on Sunday 17 March i.e. today, so in theory you're not out of time.

This leaves you with the very practical problem that there are no postal deliveries today, so even if you had sent the representations by first class post yesterday, they would still be received out of time.

At this point all you can do is send an email to parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk as follows:

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

I have attempted to make representations against PCN AF98203157 which was deemed served on 19 February 2024, and by my calculation the last day of the 28 day period is 17 March 2024 i.e. today. However the council website at https://my.redbridge.gov.uk/ParkingPCN/Review wrongly tells me that the only option is to pay the outstanding balance of £195.

I therefore challenge the PCN for two reasons: firstly the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, as the penalty cannot be increased to £195 before 18 March 2024. Secondly where the penalty charge notice provides for representations to be submitted on the council website, it is a procedural impropriety to prevent a motorist from submitting representations online before the end of the statutory 28 day period.

Yours faithfully

You'll need to add your full name and address, the autoreply you will receive says

Please note you cannot contest the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice by email, you may challenge the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice within 28 days of the PCN/Notice to Owner being served. To do this please go online to www.redbridge.gov.uk/parkingpcn, you will require the PCN number and vehicle registration.

Obviously you can't submit representations via the website, but there is no requirement for the council to accept representations at all and there is a risk they could play hardball and say representations by email are not made in the form and manner stated on the PCN. All you can do is hope that they are kind enough to issue a notice of rejection but frankly it's 50 / 50 at this point.

You should also post a copy by Royal Mail special delivery on Monday.

You definitely don't want to include any other arguments because you want it to be as easy as possible for them to issue a rejection.

@cp8759 , Firstly thanks for a quick and thorough response. It is much appreciated.

With regards to timestamps using https://time.is/ , please let me know if the following two screenshots are acceptable to be attached to the email that you have kindly suggested I send. 
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Also, should I attach the original screenshot taken on Saturday as well? lastly, is there any other council website screenshot you suggest that I should attach to the email?

Should I include printouts of these two screenshots in the letter I post via special delivery on Monday or I can just add box.com url's to the printed letter for the screenshots just like I have done for other screenshots in the original post above or should I do both ?  [apologies, I just want to know what is the minimum I should be doing]

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Karma: +16/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
I have just checked and it states this:

The outstanding balance is £195.00
You can view details to pay for your PCN.
The period when you could contest this PCN has expired.

Penalty Charge Notice: **********
Vehicle registration: ******
Contravention date: Saturday, 10 Feb 2024 15:01
Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
Street: HORNS ROAD (A)
Location:
Status: Charge Certificate Posted.

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

I would send the e mail today asap. and follow cp's advice. I have a case tomorrow in which they issued a premature Charge Certificate. Please stay calm!  They appear to be rather trigger-happy.  When you receive the C.C., post it up.  The date will be fascinating.  In tomorrow's case they issued the C.C. three days before they were allowed to do so, and two days after the appeal was registered. So, in my view, this also requires a firm complaint to the council tom challenge their parking department's competence.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2024, 10:47:54 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"

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