-
I am not quite convinced that their conduct was wholly unreasonable - a high threshold to meet. But, what the hell?
-
A big Thank you to @Hippocrates , @cp8759 and this forum for all your help and guidance to get my appeal accepted.
Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions or queries about this PCN.
-
The appellant attended the hearing today via telephone. Mr Morgan appeared before me to make submissions on their behalf in accordance with those set out in writing. Upon the point being raised by Mr Morgan. The PCN was issued on 15/02/24. A charge certificate was issued on 15/03/24. The council was empowered to issue a charge certificate 28 days from date of service of the PCN. It however had done so within 28 days of its date of issue in breach of the Regulations and to the potential prejudice to the appellant in the conduct of their appeal. I was satisfied for those reasons that enforcement may not be pursued.
-
Won on the premature issue of the Charge Certificate. :D ;D :)
-
OP has a firm grasp. I only use cases if necessary though. ;)
-
Andrew Malpass v London Borough of Bromley (2240008359, 7 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XdV0Z3MNrFFdUnrv04G_WngsMj-jSgKu/view)
Following the precedent set in the Andrew Malpass v London Borough of Bromley case, I contend that the PCN issued to me is defective due to the following inconsistencies:
Contravention Location: The PCN incorrectly specifies the location as "HORNS ROAD (A)". There is no designated area with this name. The accurate location is simply "HORNS ROAD". The inclusion of "(A)" appears to be an internal reference used solely by the Council and has no bearing on the actual location.
Notice of Representation (NOR) Date Discrepancy: A discrepancy exists between the date listed on the NOR (page 1) – 03-April-2024 – and the date indicated in the "office only section" of the London Tribunals documentation – 02-April-2024. This inconsistency renders the NOR defective.
Furthermore, the reduction of the appeals period constitutes a significant defect, as previously discussed. In my case, the wording within the NOR not only shortens the allotted time for submitting representations, but the issuing authority demonstrably reduced the actual time allowed by two days. Additionally, the council increased the penalty amount before the legal timeframe for representations had expired.
It is crucial to distinguish my case from the examples provided by cp8759. In those cases, the PCN itself contained an incorrect appeals period. While the PCN itself appears accurate in my case, the Council's implementation of the deadlines is demonstrably inconsistent with the information presented on the PCN. The truncation of the appeals period was solely implemented by the Council's actions.
-
@Hippocrates surely this should be a piece of cake, just point out paragraph 5(2)(a) of London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/paragraph/5/enacted)
The cases I would cite are the following:
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Bexley (2230446994, 13 December 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L2OEpQJlQHv5exeaMgYnXYBlDLNRiD7N/view)
Andrew Malpass v London Borough of Bromley (2240008359, 7 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XdV0Z3MNrFFdUnrv04G_WngsMj-jSgKu/view)
-
@cp8759 do you have any cases in support please? Hearing is 11th.
https://app.box.com/s/ijc56ggswtshxwrlqx9k62r4lsb367jx
NOR: 14th March deadline.
Case summary: 13th March deadline. Take Your Pick: Take the money or open the box.
Another main issue: no discount offered.
This case has definitely impacted upon my counting skills.
-
@zzzatang as Hippocrates has taken the lead on this thread, I suggest you let him take over the conduct of the case. He'll be able to reschedule the case to a more convenient date so that submissions don't have to be rushed etc.
-
So, does anybody have any other ideas how to fight this please?
Well, has an appeal been filed?
If yes, has the council contested?
Yes the appeal with London Tribunals was filed in April. The hearing is scheduled early next week (2nd week of Jun 2024).
The council has submitted their defence. (i.e. they are contesting it)
I am happy to provide specific sections of the evidence pack submitted by the council, though it is mostly a compilation of data already posted on this thread.
Please, I would rather do this privately, which I have done anyway.
-
So, does anybody have any other ideas how to fight this please?
Well, has an appeal been filed?
If yes, has the council contested?
Yes the appeal with London Tribunals was filed in April. The hearing is scheduled early next week (2nd week of Jun 2024).
The council has submitted their defence. (i.e. they are contesting it)
I am happy to provide specific sections of the evidence pack submitted by the council, though it is mostly a compilation of data already posted on this thread.
-
So, does anybody have any other ideas how to fight this please?
Well, has an appeal been filed?
If yes, has the council contested?
-
A shorter (and less intimidating :) ) link to the judgment
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1959/1.html
This may have to be the last rabbit.
-
All submitted in a most reasonable manner: it is arguable that. ;)
-
A shorter (and less intimidating :) ) link to the judgment
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1959/1.html
-
NOR
Please note: - your representation was received after the Charge Certificate has been issued, however, the secretary of state allows all local authorities to use their discretion when accepting a late representation, we have on this occasion made the decision to use our discretion and we accepted your late representation. By accepting your late representation did not invalidate the legislative process of a Penalty Charge Notice.
My thoughts
1. All the legislation pertaining to decriminalised traffic enforcement is based around a sequence of actions. Each action must be completed within a specified time limit otherwise there are consequences. Any variation to one of these time limits has a knock-on effect to the subsequent action and it effectively destroys the overall framework of the legislation.
2. Prejudice is irrelevant etc.
3. Vague locus: cases plus
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1959/1.html
Please feel free to chip in.
-
So, does anybody have any other ideas how to fight this please?
-
Ok. I am still here.
-
The NOR statements about the dates are total bolleaux. I will e mail you nowish. Game on I believe.
-
I have now received the NOR from the council.
NOR: https://app.box.com/s/ijc56ggswtshxwrlqx9k62r4lsb367jx
I noticed that the NOR letter is dated 03-Apr-2024. However, the "for Office use only" section of the London Tribunals form (last page of the NOR file) has a NOR date of 02-Apr-2024. Should this also be raised as an issue?
I have also attached a screenshot of the council's PCN page, it now shows 130 GBP as the due amount and shows the status as "Representation Rejected". Previously it was asking me to pay 195 GBP and had the status "Charge Certificate Posted".
[attach=1]
I believe the next step would be to file the online appeal at https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/
Any other suggestions, please?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks. Sorry, I misunderstood. So, this means they are at least giving it due care and attention. ::)
-
Please send me their response.
I have not received any response yet. I will definitely share the response with you once I get any.
-
Please send me their response.
-
I have heard nothing back.
According to the council’s most recent email communication, they only emailed me and did not include you (Hippocrates) in their response - even though you are representing me on this case. This suggests that they may continue this pattern in the future.
I believe it’s essential to keep everyone informed about any updates.
As of now, I haven’t received any correspondence via mail or email from the council. Considering the extended bank holiday weekend, their response may be delayed! 📬🕒
-
I have heard nothing back.
-
I received the following response from the council in last 15 minutes:
From: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 09:51
Subject: RE: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days period
To: me
Good Morning,
Thank you for your representation, unfortunately this was received after the Charge Certificate has been issued, however, the secretary of state allows all local authorities to use their discretions when accepting a late representations, we have on this occasion made the decision to use our discretion and we will accept your late representation. By accepting your late representation does not invalidate the legislative process of a Penalty Charge Notice.
Regards,
Shals
Business Administrator
Parking Management
London Borough of Redbridge
I believe now I have to wait for their decision on my allegedly "late" representation.
You should do nothing until you get a notice of acceptance or a notice of rejection from the council. As it has been confirmed your representations will be considered, it would be unlawful for the council to issue an order for recovery or take any other step aside from issuing a NoA or NoR.
There's no point in arguing whether the representations are late or not, or asking for the charge certificate to be cancelled: assuming they reject the next step will be to appeal to the tribunal where everything will be cancelled anyway.
-
The crux of the matter is, very simply, you issued a Charge Certificate prematurely. As you know, this also happened in this case : 224007474A. Clearly, it is arguable that there appears to be a systemic problem, at least, in this regard.
In conclusion, this is not a matter in which discretion forms any part as Mr ****'s formal representations were made in time even though, of course, the website did not allow him to do so. Therefore, *** was obliged to send them via your e mail address as advised by me and others. And he did so in time.
Please, therefore, cancel the Charge Certificate forthwith and consider the representations as provided @ para. 1(7) of
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted
-
The left hand does not know what the righthand is doing. I will PM you my details with my e mail address.
-
Do you want me to break the circle? If so, I will PM you now my details for authorisation.
The 15thof the month appears to be their favourite day to serve a C.C.. This happened in the other case! 15th February rather than 18th!
@Hippocrates I think I should not respond to this latest email and just wait for few days to get council's response (acceptance or NOR) since they have confirmed that they are considering my (late) representation. Though if you think it would be more expedient then I can authorise you now as well.
-
Do you want me to break the circle? If so, I will PM you now my details for authorisation.
The 15thof the month appears to be their favourite day to serve a C.C.. This happened in the other case! 15th February rather than 18th!
-
The Charge Certificate just got delivered today with 15-March-2024 as date of issue.
CC Page-1: https://app.box.com/s/xbu25fvuth8v6cutrykafw5hy86vr4ui
CC Page-2: https://app.box.com/s/n96dot6bwoepj1f2xmc6ls8bys9tbfin
@Hippocrates below is the email I sent to the council (essentially the same message as per your draft, however bit more rephrased ):
From: me
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 11:35
Subject: Re: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days period
To: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Dear Shals,
I acknowledge receipt of your message and duly note its contents.
I can do no better than state that my representations were clearly made within the time allowed in the Statutory framework. Please refer to the dates involved. The inability to submit the appeal online due to the council's issuance of the Charge Certificate before the 28-day period ended, unfortunately, necessitated this email exchange.
For clarity, I would appreciate it if you could confirm the following: Is there a dispute regarding the start and end date of the 28-day representation period for PCN AF98203157?
I rehearse: PCN AF98203157 was deemed served on 19 February 2024, and, by my calculation, the last day of the 28-day period is 17 March 2024. It is Wednesbury unreasonable to state otherwise. Please cancel the Charge Certificate forthwith.
While I am still finalizing the appointment of a representative, they are well-versed in the relevant legislation.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Full name
Full address
I think we are going round in circles, below is the response from the council to my most recent email (quoted above):
From: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 14:35
Subject: RE: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days period
To: me
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
Please not the Penalty Charge Notice was posted on 15th February 2024 therefore the 28 day period has now elapsed and the representation is now late.
Regards,
Shals
Business Administrator
Parking Management
London Borough of Redbridge
@Hippocrates I think I should not respond to this latest email and just wait for few days to get council's response (acceptance or NOR) since they have confirmed that they are considering my (late) representation. Though if you think it would be more expedient then I can authorise you now as well.
-
That's fine. Do nothing. Do not pay. If they do not cancel just wait for the Order for Recovery. Or better still, you can authorise me now and I will get this sorted. If you agree, I will PM you my details. They know me. :o
-
The Charge Certificate just got delivered today with 15-March-2024 as date of issue.
CC Page-1: https://app.box.com/s/xbu25fvuth8v6cutrykafw5hy86vr4ui
CC Page-2: https://app.box.com/s/n96dot6bwoepj1f2xmc6ls8bys9tbfin
@Hippocrates below is the email I sent to the council (essentially the same message as per your draft, however bit more rephrased ):
From: me
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 11:35
Subject: Re: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days period
To: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Dear Shals,
I acknowledge receipt of your message and duly note its contents.
I can do no better than state that my representations were clearly made within the time allowed in the Statutory framework. Please refer to the dates involved. The inability to submit the appeal online due to the council's issuance of the Charge Certificate before the 28-day period ended, unfortunately, necessitated this email exchange.
For clarity, I would appreciate it if you could confirm the following: Is there a dispute regarding the start and end date of the 28-day representation period for PCN AF98203157?
I rehearse: PCN AF98203157 was deemed served on 19 February 2024, and, by my calculation, the last day of the 28-day period is 17 March 2024. It is Wednesbury unreasonable to state otherwise. Please cancel the Charge Certificate forthwith.
While I am still finalizing the appointment of a representative, they are well-versed in the relevant legislation.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Full name
Full address
-
Is this a nutshell??
A right cracker!
-
In a case won yesterday, they issued a premature C.C. 4 days before they were allowed to do so. Clearly, there is something wrong.
-
In a nutshell:
From the PCN
'If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of
a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice[the PCN]an increased charge of £195 may be payable'
And,
'You may make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which this notice was served.'
So far, so good.
However,
Making representations is limited to 2 specified methods i.e. by post or online.
In practical terms, reps would need to be posted no later than Wed. 13th if presumed legal service was to be effected within the 28-day period.*
But, the online option was available until 23.59 Sun. 17th.
Except it wasn't.
In addition, payment was to be made by specified methods, two of which, telephone and internet, were available 24/7.
The council gambled that the penalty wouldn't be paid on 15th, 16th or 17th and issued a CC on 15th for service on 19th i.e. after the expiry of the 28-day period and ensured reps would not be made either by closing down the online 24/7 option prematurely.
Doh!
This ranks alongside other Redbridge rather singular approaches to the law and IMO would see them lose at adjudication.
*- re postal payments and reps, there is no reference to 'Service by post' in the PCN so how would the recipient know about the '2 working day' presumption?
Is this a nutshell??
-
From: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 09:51
Subject: RE: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days period
To: me
Good Morning,
Thank you for your representation, unfortunately this was received after the Charge Certificate has been issued, however, the secretary of state allows all local authorities to use their discretions when accepting a late representations, we have on this occasion made the decision to use our discretion and we will accept your late representation. By accepting your late representation does not invalidate the legislative process of a Penalty Charge Notice.
Regards,
Shals
Business Administrator
Parking Management
London Borough of Redbridge
Dear Shals
I acknowledge receipt of your message and duly note its contents.
I can do no better than state that my representations were clearly made within the time allowed as per the Statutory framework if you would care to note the dates involved. With respect, it is your issue of the Charge Certificate which has necessitated this exchange. Finally, I can assure you that my representative (who has not been officially appointed yet) is also fully conversant with the legislative process.
I rehearse: PCN AF98203157 was deemed served on 19 February 2024, and by my calculation the last day of the 28 day period is 17 March 2024. It is Wednesbury unreasonable to state otherwise.
It would be eminently sensible for you to accept that I am correct vis a vis the timings issue and I look forward to your reply. Please cancel the Charge Certificate forthwith.
Yours sincerely
-
Nom worries. Please show the play you wrote. ;)
This morning, I sent the following email to the council :
From: me
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 7:55 AM
To: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Subject: Re: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days period
Dear London Borough of Redbridge,
FAO: Shals and Gurpreet K.
Thank you for your responses.
The PCN was served on 19 February 2024.
According to the Statutory Framework, to which you have not adhered, I attempted to make formal representations on Sunday 17-Mar-2024, which is the last day as legally prescribed on which to do so.
Please cancel the Charge Certificate that was issued on 15-Mar-2024 and provide me with a valid response of acceptance or NOR so that I can take the matter to the Tribunal for independent adjudication.
Please note that I have kept a screenshot of all the evidence with regard to this abuse of process and will be represented at any hearing should you wish this matter to progress to this stage.
Yours sincerely,
Full Name
Full Address
I received the following response from the council in last 15 minutes:
From: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 at 09:51
Subject: RE: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days period
To: me
Good Morning,
Thank you for your representation, unfortunately this was received after the Charge Certificate has been issued, however, the secretary of state allows all local authorities to use their discretions when accepting a late representations, we have on this occasion made the decision to use our discretion and we will accept your late representation. By accepting your late representation does not invalidate the legislative process of a Penalty Charge Notice.
Regards,
Shals
Business Administrator
Parking Management
London Borough of Redbridge
I believe now I have to wait for their decision on my allegedly "late" representation. Should I be disputing that it was not a Late Representation ? :-\
They have not responded to the my request to cancel the CC as well.
-
Nom worries. Please show the play you wrote. ;)
-
I am blunt but not vexatious. Up to you. They have departed from the law. End of. You can choose your own words. The message should be the same.
(I won a case against them today in which they served a C.C.) In my view, they are quixotic and incompetent. You can use your own tone! Come on, the C.C. has caused you stress?
I have edited it accordingly.
Yes, you are 100% right, the issuance of CC has understandably induced stress and anxiety. The council's deviation from the law has further aggravated the situation. Your original draft effectively captured my emotions.
However, I felt the need to adopt a more measured tone for two reasons.
1. The individuals handling my complaint, although employed by the council, were not directly responsible for signing off on the flawed system.
2. Writing in a slightly less harsh tone may increase the likelihood of my appeal being accepted, even if the improvement is marginal.
Thanks for the edits, I have used the edited version, almost as is.
-
I'd just go back to them confirming the PCN was served on 19 February 2024.
Please see my edited version!
Thank you @Hippocrates and @cp8759
I have sent the following email this morning: [It incorporates your feedback]
Dear London Borough of Redbridge,
FAO: Shals and Gur**** K.
Thank you for your responses.
The PCN was served on 19 February 2024.
According to the Statutory Framework, to which you have not adhered, I attempted to make formal representations on Sunday 17-Mar-2024, which is the last day as legally prescribed on which to do so.
Please cancel the Charge Certificate that was issued on 15-Mar-2024 and provide me with a valid response of acceptance or NOR so that I can take the matter to the Tribunal for independent adjudication.
Please note that I have kept a screenshot of all the evidence with regard to this abuse of process and will be represented at any hearing should you wish this matter to progress to this stage.
Yours sincerely,
Full Name
Full Address
I will update you once I get a response from the council. Again, thanks for all your help, its much appreciated
-
I have received the following response from the council this morning asking for further info:
From: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 08:47
Subject: RE: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days period
To: me
Good Morning,
Thank you for your email.
Please could you advise if the Penalty Charge Notice was received?
Regards,
Shals
Business Administrator
Parking Management
London Borough of Redbridge
I am not sure why they are asking for me to confirm whether the PCN was received. Is there something more than what meets the eye ?
I'd just go back to them confirming the PCN was served on 19 February 2024.
-
@Hippocrates Thanks for your offer to represent. If it goes to that stage, I would really appreciate if you could represent me, please.
However, I just want to confirm whether the draft response you proposed (Today at 06:49:41 pm) should be sent verbatim, as it is a bit more stern and direct in its use of words / language. ??? :-\
Please see my edited version!
-
I am blunt but not vexatious. Up to you. They have departed from the law. End of. You can choose your own words. The message should be the same.
(I won a case against them today in which they served a C.C.) In my view, they are quixotic and incompetent. You can use your own tone! Come on, the C.C. has caused you stress?
I have edited it accordingly.
-
@Hippocrates Thanks for your offer to represent. If it goes to that stage, I would really appreciate if you could represent me, please.
However, I just want to confirm whether the draft response you proposed (Today at 06:49:41 pm) should be sent verbatim, as it is a bit more stern and direct in its use of words / language. ??? :-\
-
Dear Redbirdge
FAO: Shals and Gurp**** K****
Thank you for your response.
According to the Statutory Framework, to which you have not adhered, I attempted to make formal representations last night which is the last day as legally prescribed on which to do so.
Please cancel the Charge Certificate and provide me with a valid response of acceptance or NOR so that I can take the matter to the Tribunal for independent adjudication.
I have kept a screenshot of all the evidence with regard to this abuse of process and will be represented at any hearing should you wish this matter to progress to this stage.
Yours sincerely
Name
Registered keeper
Address
***********
I am happy to represent you by the way
-
@Hippocrates / @cp8759 , please advise whether I should respond to this email I received in response to the complaint I filed on council's website (this is separate from the email I sent to parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk on cp8759's advice):
From: Highways Parking & Transportation <icw.highways@redbridge.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 15:19
Subject: Enquiry (ref: 21477746)
To: me
Date: 18 March 2024
Dear P** ***
Your case reference: 21477746
In response to your enquiry received on 17 March 2024 regarding PCN AF98203157.
I have liaised with the Parking team who have looked into your enquiry.
Our Parking records show that a Penalty Charge Notice was issued on the 15th February 2024 for entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited on the 10th February 2024 at Horns Road.
As no payment was received for the notice, after the 28 days for payment had expired and no further correspondence were received, the Parking then issued a Charge Certificate on the 15th March 2024, informing you that the debt remained outstanding, increasing the amount to £195.00 as a 50% surcharge had been added.
The notice is now at the stage where a Charge Certificate has been issued. Once a Charge Certificate has been issued and/or subsequent notices, these are payment only notices. We are able to accept a late representation for the issue of the Notice, there is no guarantee that if the notice is rejected that the discounted amount will be awarded (as a Charge Certificate has been issued). However the 50% surcharge will be removed.
You can submit your appeal via email to parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk
You will need to supply the PCN number and the VRM so that we can submit your representation on your behalf.
I trust the above is of assistance.
Yours sincerely
Gurp**** K****
Resolution Officer
London Borough of Redbridge
In the above email they have confirmed that the CC was issued on 15-Mar-2028. I have not received the CC in the post yet.
Does this new information change anything?
Should I just respond to the email received from parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk earlier today with the following:
Dear London Borough of Redbridge,
I received the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) with the reference number AF98203157.
I reviewed the screenshots I attached in my email yesterday, dated 16-Mar-2024 and 17-Mar-2024. I noticed that the status of this PCN is now "Charge Certificate Posted." Additionally, the resolution officer informed me today that the council issued a Charge Certificate on 15-March-2024 in response to my complaint about this PCN.
Given this new information, I kindly request that you cancel the Charge Certificate issued for this PCN. In my case, it cannot be issued before 18-Mar-2024.
Yours sincerely,
Full Name
Full Address
-
Be up front with them and ask them to cancel the C.C. And keep a record of everything of course.
-
I sent the following email yesterday (90% of text was as proposed by cp8759 on this thread):
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2024 5:00 PM
To: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Subject: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days periodDear 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 and that the period when I could contest this PCN has expired. (Timestamped Screenshots attached)
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,
Full name
Full address ( Three screehshots were attached to the email: two with Time.is timestamp of Sun 17-Mar-2024 that I shared earlier and one with timestamp of Sat 16-Mar-2024 )
I have received the following response from the council this morning asking for further info:
From: Parking and Traffic Enforcement <parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 at 08:47
Subject: RE: Representations against PCN AF98203157 not allowed online before 28 days period
To: me
Good Morning,
Thank you for your email.
Please could you advise if the Penalty Charge Notice was received?
Regards,
Shals
Business Administrator
Parking Management
London Borough of Redbridge
I am not sure why they are asking for me to confirm whether the PCN was received. Is there something more than what meets the eye ?
@Hippocrates , apologies I missed your message about requesting the CC be cancelled in the original email. Should I add this request in the response to there email today?
-
In my view, the former should suffice. Please show exactly the play you wrote.
-
I have sent the email today to parkingandtrafficenforcement@redbridge.gov.uk and I also managed to send a special delivery (due to be delivered on Tue 1pm) post earlier today by finding a post office branch open on a Sunday.
Thanks for your help
-
Send the e mail presto. In my view, the premature issue of the charge certificate by the council has necessitated your only option which is to use their e mail address as one route. I would also require them to cancel the C.C.
-
@zzzatang well sorry I don't wish to labour the point, but you've already failed to do the minimum. The minimum would have been a 1 line representation made in time saying "the contravention did not occur", but we are where we are.
Yes there's no harm in attaching all three screenshots and I'd put print-outs in the letter going by post as well.
-
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.
-
@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.
[attach=1] [attach=2]
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]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
@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.
-
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. [attach=1]
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
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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 [attach=1] and [attach=2]
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 [attach=1]
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.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
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.
-
@zzzatang I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the road description given you can find it with a simple google search:
(https://i.imgur.com/tMX84PH.png)
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.
-
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]
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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