Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: minkd11 on February 20, 2024, 10:30:04 pm
-
Hi OP - I think today is the 28th and final day since your Notice of Rejection was served. Are you minded to appeal to the tribunal? If so, today's the last day you can do that as of right (late appeals are subject to the adjudicator's discretion and may be turned down).
Can you confirm what you would like to do (and/or if you've already submitted an appeal).
-
@minkd11 I think there is a viable appeal here, but it's not a sure thing. Whatever you do, don't go for a tribunal hearing on a Thursday.
I'm not sure if Hippocrates is minded to represent you but I have some capacity at the moment.
-
Thanks.
-
It is what Mr Chips drafted, plus I added this part, which you had suggested:
I also make a collateral challenge that the PCN is unenforceable because the second sentence in the paragraph under the photos - the one in parenthesis - mentions the date of service which contradicts the previous sentence concerning payment from the date of the notice. This creates confusion and ambiguity.
-
Please show exactly what representations were made.
-
Hello everyone. I received a letter in the post and unfortunately the appeal was rejected.
I have attached the letter
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The point is to test their response - or lack of, as the case may be.
-
At the time of the contravention..the person who was in charge of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without my consent - if the vehicle had been stolen...
This is not a limiting condition IMO, it's simply an example of a situation in which a vehicle might have been in another person's control i.e. stolen. The adjudication decision which is often cited to support this argument with exactly the same wording in play also included a specific reference by the authority in their NOR and IMO it was this in conjunction with the wording which caused the adjudicator to allow the appeal.
IMO, it's a weak appeal point.
IMO, a stronger one relates to the contravention itself and the criteria which the law applies:
Did the driver cause the vehicle to enter the YBJ; Yes.
Did the vehicle stop within the YBJ; Yes.
Were there any stationary vehicles immediately ahead of this vehicle, whether in the box or outside, when it stopped; NO.
Did moving vehicles ahead of the vehicle stop subsequent to the vehicle stopping; YES.
Is the contravention concerned in any way with what a vehicle does after stopping; no, unless the stop is so momentary as to bring it within the scope of de minimis.
-
Further, I argue that the PCN issued is unenforceable due to a misinterpretation of the "vehicle use without consent" clause. The current grounds limits this clause to theft cases only, as evidenced by the requirement for a police report or insurance claim. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not recognise other valid scenarios of unauthorised use, such as when a vehicle is used without the owner's consent by a friend or relative, in which case reporting to the police may not be relevant. The PCN's reliance on this incorrect understanding of “used without consent” makes it invalid in situations where the vehicle's use falls outside the strict definition of theft. Therefore, making this PCN unenforceable.
OR
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.
I would add this now so that they have to consider.
-
Hi, this is the other page
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
https://i.ibb.co/5L8bc1p/perrin2.jpg
This is from last year. TWOC ground.
-
If that is the entirety of the PCN, do you have any further points to include?
It can't be because the page with the grounds is missing.
-
If that is the entirety of the PCN, do you have any further points to include?
-
She should make an addendum so they must consider.
-
The OP messaged me yesterday, she believes that was the entirety of the PCN but isn't a position to double check until the weekend. Given the discount expired yesterday she had to submit based on what she had (including your additional paragraph). If any further wording issues come to light they can be included in the subsequent appeal.
-
I advised you to wait. What did you write and where is the rest of the PCN please.
-
Thank you for all your help! I have submitted the appeal and will let you know the outcome! :)
-
I would add:
I also make a collateral challenge that the PCN is unenforceable because the second sentence in the paragraph under the photos - the one in parenthesis - mentions the date of service which contradicts the previous sentence concerning payment from the date of the notice. This creates confusion and ambiguity.
Hold fire: where is the rest of the PCN as it may have another issue? It really is important to use the scattergun approach as they must consider.
-
Suggested representations (need to be emailed to Brent today). There is a 99% chance Brent will reject these representations, in which case your options will be to either pay £65 or go to the tribunal where the PCN is either cancelled or you have to pay £130. Personally I think your odds are better than 50% at tribunal but I can't give any guarantees as it's a subjective decision.
Dear London Borough of Brent
Re PCN BT21227033
I received the above PCN recently relating to stopping in a box junction and wish to submit representations on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
A contravention with respect to a box junction occurs if a driver causes a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop [my emphasis] within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Having viewed the video evidence supplied, I contend that the circumstances of my stop in the box junction are not consistent with a contravention having occurred.
Just beyond the box junction, the road changes from two lanes to one due to, first, a disabled parking bay on the left, and then, immediately beyond that, a pedestrian crossing. On the approach to the box junction, there is a white 'filter right' arrow painted on the carriageway instructing drivers to aim for the right hand lane. As such the natural manoeuvre for a driver crossing the box junction in the left hand lane is to direct their vehicle towards the exit in the right hand lane. This is particularly true in the circumstances shown in the video as a red car seeks to park up behind the disabled bay, thereby additionally filtering all traffic to the right at the exit of the box junction.
The video clearly shows this exit to the box junction was always clear and, as such, at no time was I forced to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles - which is a necessary condition for a contravention to occur. Had I been minded to, or perhaps more assertive and less willing to give way, I could have moved forward and completely cleared the box by simply pulling up behind the white car on the other side of the box. That I didn't do this seems to be because I initially hesitated, conscious that the lanes were merging and there was another car slightly behind me and to my right. The cars in the side road then took this as a cue that I was giving way and began to move across my path. While there was sufficient space to accommodate my vehicle beyond the box, due to the level of traffic ahead I decided there was little benefit in moving forward at this point and let four cars out of the side road. However, these vehicles were never stationary and so are not in the scope of the box junction contravention. Once traffic beyond the junction started to ease and there was a sufficient gap in the flow of traffic emerging from the side road I then moved forward and out of the box junction.
On this basis I encourage you to review the video evidence and, having done so, I trust you will see fit to cancel the PCN.
Kind regards,
-
OK.I suspect the council won't give way, so it will be up to the adjudicator, whether he penalises courtesy or not.
Lets hope it's not "Never let a good deed go unpunished"
-
The red car pulls over to the kerb and seems to park at the side of the road (checking map perhaps?). At that point, any normal driver approaching from behind would not wait indefinitely behind it but assume they need to overtake and aim for the outside lane which is vacant and available for the OP throughout.
The road beyond the junction is full of parked cars anyway so the OP would have been moving to the right hand lane as she crossed the junction anyway.
On balance I don't think the OP entered in such a way that she had to stop because of that red vehicle. Looks to me that she chose to stop. I think had she been minded to (and perhaps more assertive), she could have gone straight across and taken that vacant space.
-
Hmm, I do have my doubts on whether this is a valid appeal argument, because the red car in front of the OP's car moves forward and stops in the space beyond the YBJ. The OP's car moves off after it, but stops to let cars cross from the side road, but would have had to stopped anyway because there was no exit space. A gamble at adjudication, I think.
-
Hopefully this link to the video works
https://youtu.be/LQbNPOflaTk
I've been liaising with this member since she posted her case on the Facebook page.
In my opinion, the car didn't have to stop within the box due to stationary vehicles. The road moves from two lanes to one after the box junction. There was always space on the other side of the box junction to accommodate a vehicle and she seems to stop to see if the car in the other lane will take the space, not because she has to. Thereafter the cars in the side road seize their opportunity to move across the box junction. None of these block in the OP due to being stationary. Therefore, I don't think a contravention is made out. Keen for others' thoughts though.
The box also seems to extend unnecessarily beyond the side road, but probably not so much an adjudicator would find fault with it.
OP tomorrow is the last day of the discount so depending on other responses, I'll help you draft some representations. But, to manage your expectations, it's extremely rare for a council to accept even the most compelling of representations, they prefer to game the system and reject all arguments forcing you to either settle at the discounted rate or take your chance at the tribunal by which time the discount has expired. But if you get your reps in by tomorrow, most councils reoffer the discount at the point they issue the notice of rejection.
-
I entered a yellow box and decided to stop to allow cars out from the side road, onto the main road. I could have carried on driving as the road has 2 lanes, but you can see from the video that it would have been a bit tricky. I am unable to upload the video to this post, but please follow this link: https://brent.tarantoportal.com/PCN/
You can enter the PCN number: BT21227033 Reg: A21YVA. My car is the black SUV behind the maroon car in the left lane. I would like to know if I should/can appeal this, and if so, how to present the appeal. The matter is a little time sensitive so I would greatly appreciate all the help I can get! Many thanks in advance :)
[attachment deleted by admin]