Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Hashim on May 08, 2024, 11:23:28 am
-
Dear Cp9859.
Thank you for your email.
Having considered all my options I have decided to pay the PCN.
Thank you all so much for looking into this for me.
Regards
Hashim
-
@Hashim realistically it's pretty close to 50 / 50, but I have sent you a PM in case you'd like me to run the appeal for you.
-
So do we think we have enough to sway the adjudicator in my favour...
-
Quite amazing that they are referencing the 2002 TSRGD in their Notice of rejection when the latest TSRGD is 2016. Really shows they have no clue. In addition they don't quote from it but rather paraphrase incorrectly.
-
If we can make a representation to the adjudicator then I am willing to take the risk.
What's our next move?
-
So, I think this one boils down to your attitude to risk Hashim.
I'm not familiar with the arguments raised by cp8759 so can't put a probability of success on those I'm afraid. In respect of your original argument about the evidence not being conclusive due to the camera angle and distance, I'd say you have a bit less than 50% chance. It's one of those which will depend on which adjudicator you get and what mood they are in.
The fact TFL's Notice of Rejection doesn't seem to acknowledge or address the singular point your representations are based on boosts your chances up to 50% I think - perhaps even slightly beyond this. I like the fact they 'confirm' you moved 'unnecessarily' [i.e. such that a stationary vehicle didn't give you space to exit] into the box junction based on 'investigation'. It's precisely this extra evidence you asked for in your representations and I would be strongly tempted if you take it to tribunal to request they include the details and audit trail of their investigation which confirms there was insufficient space for the benefit of the adjudicator (and yourself).
If the technical points put forward by cp8759 boost this even further, I'd be tempted to take it all the way.
But it's not my money - can you afford to lose the additional £80 if the discount option is lost and you are unsuccessful at tribunal? Would 50:50 odds be sufficient for you or would you want near certainty before you risk the additional £80?
-
Based on your expertise, do you think that there is a legal case for the adjudicator to overturn the NoR based on the wordings and the lack of clarity regarding payment which you have pointed out.
Thanks
-
@Hashim well I've posted the notice of rejection properly, I think you have an arguable failure to consider because they wrongly state that you claimed to be stationary for 13 seconds, while that is quite the opposite of what your representations asserted.
Transport for London does not demand the full penalty if they are notified of the appeal before the discount expires, but it takes a week or so for the tribunal to log and appeal and send a notification to the parties, so you might have missed the boat for a risk-free appeal.
On the other hand the notice of rejection has been held to be defective because nowhere does it state whether £80 is the full sum or the discounted sum.
Hashim, you need to decide whether you wish to carry on.
@MrChips do you have a view on this one?
-
Here's the NoR posted correctly:
(https://i.imgur.com/2OeNQsd.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/qwrfd3f.png)
-
Dear Cp8759
I have sent you the PDF of the NOR to your email.
@ Mr Chips.
No they did not send a paper copy it was a PDF on an email. It does have a date (13th June) but it got written over when i used the Imgur.com to upload it.
We have 14 days from the date of the letter to pay the reduced fee.
Appreciate your patience
Thanks
Hashim
-
@Hashim I've sent you an email, if you reply attaching the notice of rejection I'll post it properly for you.
-
Sorry Hashim, that was me editing/correcting what I previously wrote telling you to post your documents because on my phone I couldn't see that you'd already done it!
I've now edited it again as what you've posted doesn't seem a complete NOR. It's normally on headed paper with a date and multiple sides.
-
The problem ts that you have not posted all sides of the NoR, redacting only your name & address, but cut the pages down. Please re-post.
-
Mr Chips.
Sorry but I didn't understand your comment on "nothing to see here".
Thanks
Hashim
-
Did they not send you a paper copy in the post? The one you've attached doesn't even have a date on! How would you be expected to know what timescales you need to work to?!
-
Yes.
(https://i.imgur.com/yGa6yHg.jpeg)
-
Ok I think I worked it out...
https://imgur.com/a/F1IisXd
Please let me know if you can access this
Thanks
Hashim
-
I am unable to upload any files as its exceeded the limit.
Have a read of the guidance here
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
Hi
I am unable to upload any files as its exceeded the limit.
Please help as I am approaching the cut off date.
Thanks
-
@Hashim as above we need to see all sides of all pages of the notice of rejection, not a transcript. Whether you have a viable appeal will turn entirely on the NoR so we really need to see it.
-
Hi Hashim. Are you able to post up the actual rejection letter rather than a transcript please? Leave everything visible other than your name and address. Include all pages (other than the forms for appealing to the tribunal).
It's no surprise you've been rejected as it's extremely rare for the authority to accept, but the reply includes some nonsense and doesn't actually address the substance of your representations, i.e. that the evidence isn't clear enough as to how much space there was to the car in front and therefore whether you had to stop or could actually have moved out of the box if minded to do so.
You never disputed stopping in the box junction so why they spend most of the rejection explaining that you stopped and for how long is beyond me.
Once the NOR is posted up we can discuss what to do next.
-
Received a Notice of Rejection today:
Notice of Rejection
Thank you for your representation received regarding the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
In your representation you state that you that around half a cars length was within the box junction markings and remains
stationary for 13 seconds. You also state that due to the distance, reliably assess the distance between your car and the
vehicle in front. You also state that evidence provided is insufficient to demonstrate whether a contravention occurred.
We issued the PCN because your vehicle was observed by a CCTV Enforcement Camera, stationary within a yellow box
junction at the above location on the date of contravention. Upon investigation we can confirm that your vehicle moved
unnecessarily into the box junction. The CCTV evidence clearly shows your vehicle entering the box junction. Your vehicle
stopped in the box junction from 16:30:30 until 16:30:33 then 16:30:37 until 16:30:38 then 16:30:44 until 16:30:57, and was
stationary for a total of 17 seconds. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and as amended 2011,
regulation 29(2) states that a vehicle is not permitted to remain stationary within a Yellow Box Junction. Therefore, in order
to comply with regulation 29(2) a driver must not allow their vehicle to enter and stop in the box junction for any reason
other than the exception given in Schedule 19, 7(2) which allows stopping in the box junction for the purpose of turning
right. In this instance, your vehicle was not observed attempting to turn right. We are also able to confirm that this box
junction has been authorised for use by the Department for Transport and is therefore a legally compliant box junction. In
light of this and upon viewing the CCTV footage, we are satisfied that a contravention occurred. We are therefore unwilling
to cancel this Penalty Charge Notice and or reject.
It is the legal responsibility of every road user and business operator to identify all the traffic laws that must be complied
with, and to then comply. The relief of congestion and the improvement of traffic flows are of strategic importance to
London. The red routes are by definition roads that are particularly sensitive to the disruptive effect of illegal stopping. As
the Highway Authority with the responsibility for the performance of the red route network, TfL places a very high priority on
achieving full compliance with the restrictions and expects every road user to plan and operate their road use fully within the
law at all times.
Anything else we can do or should i submit on this one.
Thanks
Hashim
-
Thank you sir for this. I shall wait till tomorrow and then submit the representation.
Hashim
-
Hashim, here's my draft. I decided not to include the box position argument as I think it's not going to be a winner, and takes focus away from the argument I think has more chance of success (but even this I think is probably below 50%, but still has a chance).
Dear TFL
Re PCN XXXXXXXXXX
I recently received the above referenced PCN in respect of stopping in a box junction. Having reviewed the video evidence you provided, I would like to submit representations on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
My car first enters the box junction at 16:30:17 on the clock shown at the top left of the video. It initially comes to rest, very briefly, at around 16:30:30 on the same clock, and during this time (approximately one to two seconds) the car in front continues to be in (slight) motion (i.e. it is not stationary and so no box junction contravention can occur even if my car does stop).
Having moved off again, my car then comes to rest again at around 16:30:45 with what seems to be around half a cars length within the box junction markings and remains stationary until the end of the footage some 13 seconds later. Crucially during this time the car is at the far end of the junction, some distance from the video camera. Due to the distance, the camera angle, and because there is a lamp post partially obstructing the view, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to reliably assess the distance between my car and the stationary car in front.
A box junction contravention involves causing 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. It is well established that stopping with part of a car within a box junction when this is not necessitated by a stationary vehicle blocking the exit (for example when there is sufficient room to fully exit the box junction) is not a contravention. As such, in this instance, the evidence provided is insufficient to demonstrate whether a contravention occurred.
On that basis, unless you have additional footage you can provide which shows the position at the front of the box junction more clearly, I look forward to the cancellation of the PCN.
Kind regards,
If you can leave it 24 hours, you may get some additional comments/improvements from others.
-
Thanks, hoping to draft something tonight/tomorrow morning.
-
@MrChips @Hashim the deadline for representations is midnight on 30 May.
-
Thanks
would really appreciate this...
-
Hi Hashim. You can challenge this online via TFL website. I'm happy to pull together an initial draft for you over the weekend.
-
Can someone please help me with the video link...
I will need to make a representation by Monday. Also I have been sent a paper copy to write the representation. Can't I make a representation online?
Thanks
-
Can someone help me formulate a defence please based on the evidence..
Thanks
-
Can you help me formulate a defence regarding the 2 strategies that you have mentioned, especially the second one as i am not too savvy with IT to link a video as you have suggested.
What about my defence for the extended junction box-could i include that as part of my defence too..
-
The position of the box junction is arguable, but it is a tough one to win, as where is is placed is at the junction between the two merging roads travelling in the direction your car was going. Where the junction starts and ends is a little subjective and I think an adjudicator is unlikely to say where it is placed in this case it not at a junction of two roads - see what others think.
Thanks to cp8759 for putting the video on Youtube, I've now had a chance to view it on my laptop screen. By my reckoning, the first time your car and the car in front are both stopped simultaneously is at 1min43 into the video and you both remain in the same position until it ceases. See pic below for respective car positions at this point.
(https://i.imgur.com/ycl0YJn.png)
From the camera position and distance it's very difficult to be sure how much space is between your car and the car in front. You look to have about half a car length in the box junction. Could an adjudicator be sure there wasn't sufficient room in front to move into?
-
What about the length of the junction box going beyond the junction of 2 roads. I found this:
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.”
Together with the fact that the camera does not show whether there is any obstruction in traffic beyond what can be seen.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-6ZH_d7apo
@Hashim this might be one for the strategy of last resort (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/city-of-edinburgh-02-parked-in-a-restricted-street-lochrin-buildings-gilmour-pla/msg7413/#msg7413), is there any mitigation that can be advanced?
-
I'm viewing this on my phone so only a small screen but for me the end where your wife stopped is so far in the distance, and the view blocked by a tall lamppost, it's unclear for what reason she had to stop. TFL are required to prove (on balance of probabilities) that she had to stop due to stationary vehicles - so does the video adequately demonstrate that the vehicle in front is completely stationary, and that there wasn't enough space in front of her for your wife to move forward and clear the box?
Perhaps it does on a bigger screen...
-
What about the over stretched junction box on that side compared to the opposite side which serves no purpose as it does not restrict traffic flow..
-
I'm afraid the video does seem to show a contravention. They are now using two cameras, one a detail view of numberplats and an overview camera showing the vehicles entering the yellow box. You have to go to 1m 22 secs into the video to see your car enter the box then stop for rather too long to be de minimis
-
Tried with this..
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I could not upload the mkv file so i converted it to a PNG file, didn't realise it was a still frame, can you suggest what file gives a whole video rather than just still images please.
-
We need to see the video, not just a frame from it.
-
Please see attached the video evidence..
Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just contacted Tfl to request the video evidence. They have put it on hold for 14 days from today. Will update once received.
Quite right it is £80. Didn't read it properly...
They put the PCN on hold for a fixed 14 days. If you haven't received the DVD after about 10 days, check with TfL it has been sent out. Don't just wait and wait, because the mail can get delayed, but the 14 days will end and the enforcement process start-up again even if you haven't received the DVD.
-
Just contacted Tfl to request the video evidence. They have put it on hold for 14 days from today. Will update once received.
Quite right it is £80. Didn't read it properly...
-
We need to see the video to determine if the contravention actually occurred. So please request the video from TFL as per the advice above from John U.K.
The penalty charge is £160, however discounted by 50% if paid within 14 days beginning with the date of the notice. That's why the TFL website says £80 outstanding.
-
Please see attached the remaining parts of the PCN.
And the screenshot showing £80 charge..
Thanks
Hashim
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
How do I proceed with this.
Please post the other 3 sides of the PCN.
Telephone TfL and ask for the video to be sent to you, and the PCN to be placed on hold whil;e you wait for the DVD.
Also on the paper PCN the amount is different to the one shown on the website..
Please post a screenshot of the website.
-
Good morning
Received a PCN for contravention 31.
From the pictures.
I was right at the end of the junction box but the car in front stopped even though he/she had room to move forward.
Video evidence is NOT on the website only photographic evidence.
How do I proceed with this. Also on the paper PCN the amount is different to the one shown on the website..
[attachment deleted by admin]