Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: bigred247 on March 07, 2024, 10:40:44 am
-
It means he feels an application for a costs order against the council might be successful, he will no doubt be in touch privately to explain further.
-
@Hippocrates
For plebs like me, what do you mean by a "Costs application is in order I feel"?
Thanks.
-
Just read. Costs application is in order I feel.
-
Just received the below from the Adjudicators. They have dropped the case. @cp8759 @Hippocrates @Incandescent and all, thank you very much for your help with this :)
Dear xxxxx xxxxxxx
xxxxx xxxxxxx
-v-
London Borough of Redbridge
(the Enforcement Authority)
Vehicle Registration Number: LD63ZFM
Penalty Charge Notice(s): AF98229853
The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest your appeal against the
Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated above.
The Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering the evidence or any details of
the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated
above and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority.
If you have appealed against any other Penalty Charge Notice(s) not listed above, then your appeal
against those Penalty Charge Notices will proceed, as previously notified.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you have any queries about this.
Case Management Team
-
Madrigal: "Now is the month maying, when merry lads are playing, fa la la etc. Each with his bonny lass, upon the greeny grass, fa la la la............."
-
Game on. I will e mail you shortly. That NOR is completely misguided, to say the least.
-
@bigred247 the rejection looks like a load of BS to me, they accept they have no evidence of your entry into the box so they have no evidence of a contravention.
I think you should appeal as you have better than even odds of succeeding, your best bet is if you have someone represent you. I'm normally swamped with appeals so I ask for a nominal fee, while I understand Hippocrates only asks for his train fare to the hearing centre so if he has capacity you might want to go with him.
BS=Bolleaux in my Celtic vocabulary! PM sent.
@Hippocrates thank you for offering to take this up. This would be greatly appreciated. I have PMd you and sent you an email. Will you setup/activate the appeal on the tribunal website or do you need me to do this?
-
@bigred247 the rejection looks like a load of BS to me, they accept they have no evidence of your entry into the box so they have no evidence of a contravention.
I think you should appeal as you have better than even odds of succeeding, your best bet is if you have someone represent you. I'm normally swamped with appeals so I ask for a nominal fee, while I understand Hippocrates only asks for his train fare to the hearing centre so if he has capacity you might want to go with him.
BS=Bolleaux in my Celtic vocabulary! PM sent.
-
I am more than happy to do this one foc=free of charge! Case won yesterday:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240040646
Appellant
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM BL130NX
PCN Details
PCN QT08478867
Contravention date 12 Nov 2023
Contravention time 17:28:00
Contravention location Richmond Rd (Junction with Sopwith Way D5)
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 25 Mar 2024
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mr Morgan attended. Ms **** attended by telephone.
It is a contravention if a person causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
The evidence does not show the appellant’s vehicle “enter” the box junction.
The footage starts with the vehicle already on the box junction.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
****************
Please do not join The Mugged Club!
Same issue as above and as below!
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-/msg11058/#msg11058
-
@bigred247 the rejection looks like a load of BS to me, they accept they have no evidence of your entry into the box so they have no evidence of a contravention.
I think you should appeal as you have better than even odds of succeeding, your best bet is if you have someone represent you. I'm normally swamped with appeals so I ask for a nominal fee, while I understand Hippocrates only asks for his train fare to the hearing centre so if he has capacity you might want to go with him.
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WJI-N7Wl5Cj8yzjxsRFS9CMg1N0bVbBs/view?usp=sharing
This is a blatant attempt at mugging. We won a case yesterday v Kingston for exactly the same reason which they (Redbridge) are unreasonably dodging! They seem to be making it up as they go along.
Yes, it is indeed Tribunal time. Take your pick: cp or me. ;D
I will post up the Kingston decision when I get it. The hearing took about 4 minutes and 29 seconds. ;)
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-/msg18253/#msg18253
-
@cp8759
I just received a rejection letter from Redbridge Council. The first page is a little blurry and I will attempt to update it later today. In the rejection letter, they go on to say “We have rejected your representations because your vehicle was seen entering and stopping a box junction” and they later say “Whilst the CCTV footage does not show your vehicle entering the Box Junction, it does show your vehicle stopped in a Box Junction”. Is this not a self-contradiction?
In this case, would I go tribunal relying upon my initial representation?
Rejection of Representation
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WJI-N7Wl5Cj8yzjxsRFS9CMg1N0bVbBs/view?usp=sharing
-
@bigred247 the PCN is at the discount rate which suggests they're issued a rejection and reoffered the discount, have you received anything?
-
I would as Mr Chips and I are singing the same tune. The draft I did is currently being used in another live case. Also:
Manju Lukhman v London Borough of Redbridge Case No. 2230099245
I have however recorded the appeal as allowed on the basis of insufficient
evidence. The clip shows the appellant stopped within the box but it does
not show the appellant car at the point of entry and actually entering it. It is
important in the correct assessment of an appeal of this nature that the
adjudicator can assess what traffic flow and conditions are present at the
actual time the car enters the box and in this case the shortage of the clip
prevents this.
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Royal Borough of Greenwich 2230539604
In this case the CCTV footage that I have been provided with, and
uploaded onto the Tribunal computer system by the Authority,
commences with the Appellant's vehicle already in the box junction at
08:14:26.
It is crucial in determining any box junction contravention that the
Adjudicator is able to see the actual entry of a motorist's vehicle into the
box junction and the state of the exit.
Without such evidence a proper and fair determination is not possible.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
********
Courtesy of cp's brilliant repository.
-
The contravention did not occur because the video does not show the whole situation at the point of entry, which is the crucial legal issue. It shows the vehicle after it had entered. In this regard, I rely upon the following extract from the key case of Place Invaders Ltd. v Transport for London: The terms of the prohibition refer to causing the vehicle to enter the box. The evidence produced by Transport for London in support of its case does not, however, show the entry of the vehicle into the box; it commences later, when the vehicle is already stopped in the box. It seems to me that in order properly to consider whether the contravention has occurred the video recording needs to show the entry of the vehicle into the box since that is the start of the events that will or will not lead to there being a contravention. In the absence of this evidence, bearing in mind that the burden is on Transport for London to prove the contravention, I cannot find that it has discharged this burden of proof. I accordingly allow this appeal.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc
@Hippocrates
Thank you very much for the feedback. I had a very similar case last year and the adjudicator pretty much said the very same thing and the case went in my favour (reference below) which MrChips helped to draft. So should I draft an appeal solely based on your quote above and see how the council responds? Most likely, it'll go to the adjudicator
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-31j-pcn-stopping-at-box-junction/msg3244/#msg3244
-
Do I have any grounds for appeal here?
Quite possibly. The video does not show you at the point of entering the box. Was there a clear space for you on the other side before the white car sneaked-in in front of you ?
I believe that to be the case form recollection.
-
The contravention did not occur because the video does not show the whole situation at the point of entry, which is the crucial legal issue. It shows the vehicle after it had entered. In this regard, I rely upon the following extract from the key case of Place Invaders Ltd. v Transport for London: The terms of the prohibition refer to causing the vehicle to enter the box. The evidence produced by Transport for London in support of its case does not, however, show the entry of the vehicle into the box; it commences later, when the vehicle is already stopped in the box. It seems to me that in order properly to consider whether the contravention has occurred the video recording needs to show the entry of the vehicle into the box since that is the start of the events that will or will not lead to there being a contravention. In the absence of this evidence, bearing in mind that the burden is on Transport for London to prove the contravention, I cannot find that it has discharged this burden of proof. I accordingly allow this appeal.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc
-
Do I have any grounds for appeal here?
Quite possibly. The video does not show you at the point of entering the box. Was there a clear space for you on the other side before the white car sneaked-in in front of you ?
-
Hi All,
I've received a PCN for a 31J - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement). The date of notice was 26th February 2024 so I only have 3 days to respond for the discount period. Apologies for the short notice as this letter somehow got misplaced and I only found it yesterday.
Do I have any grounds for appeal here?
Link to PCN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HqRj5oKnumkQBrsiyQos5C6Hk60KM-5z/view?usp=shar
Video footage
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1svdd3JLgR__XZifnUCQH97HSSPPmIxZe/view?usp=sharing
Images
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1swv6TzhvWKKpRVU7FHbS4iys0F1_7TJs/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sx0SrmFkAzuSDT_ntbo8jnMoucuTRedM/view?usp=sharing