Author Topic: Waltham Forest, Code 31 Entering and Stopping in a Box Junction when Prohibited, Hoe St (E17) / Selbourne Rd (E17) CCTV  (Read 945 times)

0 Members and 55 Guests are viewing this topic.

Looking for some help (on the behalf of a friend) with the following PCN for stopping in a box

junction.


As you can see from the images and video / CCTV the vehicle stops partially in the yellow box junction

to allow oncoming traffic to turn right as the road ahead is blocked.


Is there a way of contesting and overturning this PCN please?



@cp8759 - when you get a moment please take a look, thank you.



Google Maps Location Link


IMAGES








Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Looking at the video, it is plain to see that the contravention did not occur. The contravention is only made out if the motorist enters the box, then has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Your friend should therefore submit representations on this basis. They will, naturally, refuse them, at which point he will have to decide whether to rely on our advice and take them to London Tribunals, or just cough-up

I agree no contravention. yet another example of the council making the rules up to suit themselves rather than what the law says.
Quote from: andy_foster
Mick, you are a very, very bad man

Thank you @Incandescent @mickR for your replies.

So when you say...

"The contravention is only made out if the motorist enters the box, then has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles."

Why is that the case? Is that because the whole vehicle didn't stop in the box junction? Ahead of the box junction there are stationary vehicles. Think I am missing the point?

no. the law says you must not cause you vehivle to stop in the box "due to stationary vehicles"
in your instance there werent any and you had room to exit the box the other side, therefore no contravention occurred.
FYI there is no provision in that law that prevents you stopping in the box for any other reason ie having a picnic.
different legislation would cover that.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2025, 03:25:10 pm by mickR »
Quote from: andy_foster
Mick, you are a very, very bad man

Thank you, so for my representation what should I put together / write to the Council?

Simply no contravention occurred as per your explanation? Is there anything I can reference where this comes from is it highway code rule or similar?

Thank you, so for my representation what should I put together / write to the Council?

Simply no contravention occurred as per your explanation? Is there anything I can reference where this comes from is it highway code rule or similar?
The The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) Statutory Instrument 2016/362
Page 168 See Box Junctions
https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf

DRAFT PCN CHALLENGE if you can feedback any improvements or errors. Thanks.


Dear Waltham Forest Council,

After reviewing the images and video evidence provided for this PCN the contravention (31 - entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited) did not occur.

The contravention is only enforceable if the motorist enters the box, then has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

This was not the case for the alleged contravention. There weren’t any stationary vehicles ahead of me to cause me to stop in the box.

There was room to exit the other side therefore no contravention occurred.

Please see The The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) Statutory Instrument 2016/362
Page 168 Box Junctions where this is referenced from.

I have attached a screenshot of the page in question as an attachment to this representation.

Link to document also provided here:

https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf

The contravention did not occur and therefore the PCN cancelled.

Regards

@willdudeuk draft reps:

Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest,

This representation is for the personal attention of Lorraine Maynard: Please read these representations very carefully indeed, if you reject them with a templated rejection that does not address the issues I am quite properly raising at this stage then I may in due course have to apply for an order for costs against the council.

The substance of my representation is as follows: the statutory prohibition only applies where a vehicle is forced to stop by the presence of stationary vehicles, from the video it is obvious that this did not happen: at the time when the vehicle stopped, the vehicle ahead was moving. Indeed if you look at the video carefully you will see that while there is slow-moving traffic in the box and beyond the box, no vehicles ahead of my own are actually stationary at any point until after my vehicle starts moving again, therefore my vehicle was never forced to stop by the presence of stationary vehicles.

If the usual drivel rejection is received, in due course Lorraine Maynard will receive an email with my bank account details where I would like my costs to be paid, as recently happened in the case of Ali Hassan v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2240447665, 18 November 2024). Of course I hope you will choose not to waste public funds in this way and will simply take the opportunity to cancel the PCN at this stage.

Yours faithfully,


Ok this really is a sledgehammer approach, but frankly I don't have time to mess about with this nonsense and would much rather avoid having to go to the tribunal if I possibly can. You don't need to give them links or copies of the legislation, they're meant to know the legislation that they're enforcing.

Once the representations are submitted take a screenshot of the confirmation page, make sure the screenshot is date/timestamped.
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

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

Thank you @cp8759. Let's see what happens. Appreciate your help and support.


OP, can we pl sort out whose who here and use correct descriptions!

Looking for some help (on the behalf of a friend)

Thank you, so for my representation what should I put together


Is the registered keeper you or someone else? If not you, then do you have written authority from the RK (which has been presented to the council) to act on their behalf? If not, then everything gets signed by them. We've recently seen examples(sadly irretrievable) where the OP acted as if they were the keeper which led to rejected reps and missed deadlines.

This process has 'owner liability'(the RK), the driver is not a party to proceedings.

The PCN is dreadful and if correct procedures are followed and deadlines met could not fail at adjudication.

Hi @H C Andersen,


The registered keeper is someone else, not me.


I've given them the information via this forum post to enable them to challenge the PCN and therefore it

is all in there name and details provided align with the V5C.


Apologies for not being clear, it was a bit of a rush to get this challenge in before the 14 day

discounts period expired.

The discount expires on 16th! (14 days beginning on date of the notice(3 Jan))


@cp8759

Please see the reply to my representation from Waltham Forest Council.

As suspected they have rejected the notice of representation.

Looks like next steps are to appeal / go to the London tribunals.




« Last Edit: January 27, 2025, 05:42:28 pm by willdudeuk »