Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: bigred247 on June 14, 2023, 11:11:59 pm
-
Just posting the response from the adjudicator here for the benefit of all:
Adjudicator's Decision
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.
The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are enclosed.
The adjudicator directs London Borough of Redbridge to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
If any penalty or fees have already been paid, the Enforcement Authority must now issue a refund without
delay. Enquiries regarding payment of the refund should be made to the Enforcement Authority.
Adjudicator's Reasons
The appellant appeared before me today via telephone. The contravention alleged in these
proceedings was that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. Upon the
appellant making a submission on the point: the council's online footage of the incident, which I
viewed, opened with the vehicle already inside the box. It did not therefore show its entry to it and I
was not satisfied that being so that the contravention had been proved.
-
This is excellent news, very well done.
-
Excellent news. This aspect was clear from the very start (in spite of a few other comments implying that this might be a difficult one to win ;) ).
-
@cp8759
@MrChips
I just spoke with the adjudicator and he agreed with @MrChips’ first point concerning the “The council's evidence doesn't actually show your point of entry into the box” and has agreed to accept the appeal and will be cancelling the PCN. Just waiting for a confirmation in writing now. @cp8759 the in-person hearing most definitely made a difference :)
Thank you both very much for your assistance with this.
-
I get involved in a lot of yellow box cases and your best shot here is to argue the four points I originally outlined, namely (in order of strength):
1) The council's evidence doesn't actually show your point of entry into the box, and that's when the offence actually occurs as per the way the regulations are drafted. There is a key case on the London Tribunals website which covers this precise point. This is your strongest ground and the one you should argue hardest for. If you want me to direct you to the key case so you can refer to it at the hearing let me know. EDIT - here it is https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc
2) Less strong but still worth arguing is the vague location argument. This has won before but is likely to depend on which adjudicator you get. Again let me know if you want me to dig out a previous case where this has won. EDIT - see this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149002&st=0
3) De minimis - in my view unlikely to win but worth mentioning as your stop is pretty brief.
4) Turning right exemption. This shouldn't win as the exemption only applies when you are forced to wait in the box for a gap in oncoming traffic - there is no oncoming traffic here. But you never know - you don't ask you don't get!
Thanks again for the summary and the case notes. I'll stick to the points mentioned above and will post the outcome here for the benefit of all.
-
@bigred247 the tribunal lets you postpone a case by up to 28 days, no questions asked, so you could have given us almost a month to look at this. Instead you bought yourself less than a week?
At this point there's nothing I can say other than to suggest you argue your case as best you can based on what members have said.
And next time, give yourself enough time to prepare your case properly rather than only giving yourself 3 or 4 days.
Apologies. Point noted. Will ask for a later hearing in future to allow for more advice here.
-
I get involved in a lot of yellow box cases and your best shot here is to argue the four points I originally outlined, namely (in order of strength):
1) The council's evidence doesn't actually show your point of entry into the box, and that's when the offence actually occurs as per the way the regulations are drafted. There is a key case on the London Tribunals website which covers this precise point. This is your strongest ground and the one you should argue hardest for. If you want me to direct you to the key case so you can refer to it at the hearing let me know. EDIT - here it is https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc
2) Less strong but still worth arguing is the vague location argument. This has won before but is likely to depend on which adjudicator you get. Again let me know if you want me to dig out a previous case where this has won. EDIT - see this thread http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149002&st=0
3) De minimis - in my view unlikely to win but worth mentioning as your stop is pretty brief.
4) Turning right exemption. This shouldn't win as the exemption only applies when you are forced to wait in the box for a gap in oncoming traffic - there is no oncoming traffic here. But you never know - you don't ask you don't get!
-
@bigred247 the tribunal lets you postpone a case by up to 28 days, no questions asked, so you could have given us almost a month to look at this. Instead you bought yourself less than a week?
At this point there's nothing I can say other than to suggest you argue your case as best you can based on what members have said.
And next time, give yourself enough time to prepare your case properly rather than only giving yourself 3 or 4 days.
-
Any advice?
-
Thank you all for the feedback. I was travelling abroad so I apologise for the late response.
I have already spoken with London Tribunals and have requested a hearing via phone call for Tuesday 15th August @ 10 am (next week). I suspect I may get asked some questions during the hearing. I've never requested a hearing in person before, so any advice on how to handle this?
Thanks.
-
Any advice?
Call the tribunal first thing on Monday and, if the case hasn't been decided already, change it to a personal hearing.
Postal decisions are to be avoided at all costs, for the reasons made obvious here (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149680).
-
Why can't we run the "video doesn't show point of entry" argument?
Plus vague locus as per the representations I drafted originally?
-
It's stretching it and TBH, De Minimis may be the better way to go but arguably, you did not stop for stationary vehicles.
You were creeping across, intending to carry on straight, behind the grey vehicle so as to clear the box.
But the black vehicle to your left did not give way so forced you to stop...and was not a stationary vehicle at that point.
The point being that you did not have to stop due to stationary vehicles but due to a moving one.
TBH, I suspect an adjudicator would disregard or reason that the queue you were trying to join was stationary and forcing your way in, relying on the goodwill of others counted.
But council could muck up their answer or ignore?
Well worth the argument as it leads into the de minimis in any event
-
But council could muck up their answer or ignore?
Bigred247 is already at the tribunal stage.
-
It's stretching it and TBH, De Minimis may be the better way to go but arguably, you did not stop for stationary vehicles.
You were creeping across, intending to carry on straight, behind the grey vehicle so as to clear the box.
But the black vehicle to your left did not give way so forced you to stop...and was not a stationary vehicle at that point.
The point being that you did not have to stop due to stationary vehicles but due to a moving one.
TBH, I suspect an adjudicator would disregard or reason that the queue you were trying to join was stationary and forcing your way in, relying on the goodwill of others counted.
But council could muck up their answer or ignore?
-
de minimis seems the best shot
-
I'm sorry to say that looking at the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYBVC6QoiMY
I can't see any arguable grounds. Someone else might think of something though.
-
Hey folks,
Per suggestion, I am adding updates to this PCN on this forum.
I have received a letter from Redbridge council and they wish to contest this PCN and have supplied there supporting evidence. Please note due to an issue with CamScanner, the received letter had to be split into 2 separate PDF files. The links are below:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tfDyxy1HZo1kPw6RBE8CSAXpIqXJAD95/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eUzUcPgvvIi0UCef_dSombq1_FTmXjfw/view?usp=sharing
Any advice?
Thanks.
-
Seems pepipoo is back up and running so suggest you revert back to that thread...
Just FYI we're encouraging people to stick to ftla, for the reasons explained here: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=150302&view=findpost&p=1783532
-
@MrChips. That is right concerning the description of the events that took place. I'm glad to hear to the original forum is back up :) Speak there.
-
Seems pepipoo is back up and running so suggest you revert back to that thread...
-
It was probably me that drafted something for you - I tend to get involved in most of the yellow box cases. I'll try and recreate it if so, but if pepipoo is no longer accessible I guess I'll have to start from scratch?
Is this the one where you entered the box to turn right and stopped only for a couple of seconds?
If so there were three strands:
1) Video didn't show you entering the box
2) De minimis
3) Turning right
Does that sound right?
Looking at your PCN, there's also a fourth argument - the location just states "Barley Lane" but Barley Lane is 1.5 miles long with more than one box junction along it. You therefore have a case that the PCN doesn't adequately state the contravention it is accusing you of.
PS - logging onto your PCN just now, it looks like the discount hasn't expired (councils tend to give you a few days extension) so suggest submitting something asap. I'm busy at work this afternoon but I might be able to do something tomorrow morning.
-
If you've missed the discount you might as well give yourself the full 28 days (from the date of service) to make representations, your deadline is midnight on 29 June.
-
@cp8759 As always, thank you for your valuable insight. I fear you may be right. And, I've now missed the discount, as I was pulled into some late-night work and time flew past.
Seeing as I have missed the deadline for the discount, no harm in getting some more feedback/input here I suppose?
Another chap mentioned the "de-minimis" argument on the OP. He wrote a draft challenge appeal letter and wanted it to be reviewed by others, but I can't recall the detail and arguments.
-
I didn't see this thread on the old forum but the only thing that springs to mind is de-minimis, as it's quite a short stop. On the other hand you did obstruct the lane so I'm not sure I'd take this one to adjudication.
You might want to get a representation in quite sharpish to preserve the discount.
-
hey folks,
re: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=150254
I received the attached PCN through the post. One of the chaps on the old forum posted a draft for representations but i do not recall the points that were made and nor can i access the cached page.
Any advice concerning this PCN?
[attachment deleted by admin]