I don't know about the attendance issue.
My heart sank when I saw it was Belinda Pearce. Third time in four appearances I've had her.She's not refused an appeal of mine for many years now.
Spot on!
What do I need to do with this?
Disingenuous bar stewards.
Adjudicator's Reasons
The Appellant attended a Personal Appeal Hearing before me today, 4th June 2024, to explain his
contention personally.
1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicleentered and stopped on a location subject to
an operative restriction denoted by yellow cross-hatching, such demarcation indicating a prohibition
against a vehicle remaining stationary within the defined area due to the presence of stationary
vehicles.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the challenges
as indicated in his written representations, which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the
Hearing.
I am grateful to the Appellant for his thorough research and the manner of presentation of his
contention. ;D
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to the operative
restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge
Notice together with photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing
the said vehicle in situ and the applicable carriageway markings notifying motorists of the prohibition.
4. The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined (repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation
in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
At the commencement of the footage the said vehicle is already positioned on the cross-hatching;
despite the Enforcement Authority's references in its Notice of Rejection ("the driver would have been
aware when entering the box junction that they would not be able to exit") and Case Summary ("you
will see from the CCTV footage the vehicle enters whilst the appellants exit is not clear") there is no
evidence before me of the said vehicle entering the cross-hatched area.
In light of the nature of the restriction, which is echoed in the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice
("alleged traffic contravention:- Enterinq and stoppinq in a box junction when prohibited") the evidence
crucial to determination as to the occurrence of a contravention or otherwise i.e. the situation at the
said vehicle's point of entry, is absent.
5. I am concerned that either:-
i) the Enforcement Authority was privy to evidence which it has omitted to furnish to the Tribunal
and/or
ii) the Enforcement Authority has failed to duly consider the evidence available to it.
6. I am not satisfied by the evidence in this Case; I do not find a contravention proved.
The evidential burden does not pass to an Appellant unless and until that evidential burden is
discharged satisfactorily by the Enforcement Authority.
Evidentially I cannot find that the alleged contravention occurred.
Personal hearing next week. 4th June.You don't have to provide any statement, all you need to make is a legal submission along the lines of reply 18 above.
Do I need to upload a statement at all?
The golden rule about making statements is: the less you write, the less on which you can be cross-examined.
Or is the burden of proof with Redbridge to prove the contravention rather then me pitch my explanation of events?@Glitch most people get this wrong: the correct position is that the council has to prove its case. Until it does so, you don't have to say or prove anything.
When is your hearing due? You don't want to rush things.
I think what you've written is far, far too long. All you really need to say is that the video does not show your vehicle entering the box junction, so there is no evidence of any contravention occurring at the time alleged, or at all.
Or is the burden of proof with Redbridge to prove the contravention rather then me pitch my explanation of events?@Glitch most people get this wrong: the correct position is that the council has to prove its case. Until it does so, you don't have to say or prove anything.
GROUNDS FOR CONTESTING THE APPEAL
I am confident that the convention has occurred, as you will see from the CCTV footage the
vehicle enters whilst the appellants exit is not clear. The Highway Code advises "You MUST NOT
enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear"
The appellant is traveling in a lane that is full to its capacity before the yellow box, the appellant
could not exit this, he is then reversing in the yellow box which is a very dangerous practice, the
appellant should not have entered and waited.
I can confirm that the findings are that; the driver should have anticipated/ waited and assessed
the situation, before entering the yellow box and only entered if their exit was clear and only if the
vehicle cleared the yellow box. As the vehicle did not fully exit the yellow box the PCN remains
valid. lt has also been confirmed that the vehicle was stopped/ stationary within the yellow box
whilst not permitted.
The appeal has been considered; however, the Council is not prepared to cancel the charge, I
would therefore respectfully request that this appeal be refused
I assume I just say I rely on my formal repesentations and wait to see what Redbridge submit as evidence?
Thanks Mr Chips.You've got it !
I guess there's a clue in the contravention wording - ENTERING and stopping in a box junction when prohibited.