Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Glitch on July 26, 2023, 03:11:30 pm
-
Relevant High Court / Court of Appeal / House of Lords decisions are listed on the PCN spreadsheet here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit#gid=1838290127&range=A1
That being said, the adjudicator might be said to be naive in taking the authority's assertions of consideration at face value, but we can't say it's a decision she was not entitled to take.
-
Lessons learnt from this one.
You need a big slice of luck.
In my limited experience of appearing at a handful of Tribunals I find the Adjudicators are adversarial and definitely lean toward the EA's side when it comes to balance of probability. They look at the video and if you've stopped in the box you are banged to rights and it's very hard work to persuade them otherwise. EA's need to be incredibly incompetent for them to lose an appeal.
Vague Location is very flimsy if there is only one YBJ on the named road. They'll say you've worked it out so what's the problem?
YBJ extending beyond the junction might work in some cases but not at this location. Find a legally compelling definition of a junction!
Use previous decisions but unless there is an overwhelming number there's slim chance it will influence another Adjudicator.
The right turn rule does not apply at a T junction. It needs oncoming traffic for someone to cause you to stop. This comes up in many cases and they nearly always fail. The law is a little vague (IMO) but it's not worth the gamble.
Even a dismissive, nonsense NoR is allowed. If it says the EA has 'carefully considered' the representations, then they are believed.
Citing High Court decisions is tough without some extra expertise and the ability to argue why it should stick.
There's always the possibility that I failed to present the appeal well and there's always room for improvement but if you read the reps and the NoR I can't see how anyone would believe it was carefully considered.
It's a busy, badly laid out box compounded by drivers who don't know the rules. 3-4 appeals per month for this box shows it's a problem.
-
Appeal refused :-\
Case Ref: 2230385313
The NoR is a joke. She believes that Redbridge 'carefully considered' the representation ::)
The GSV didn't help as it was out of date although I didn't use that in the appeal, only the reps.
-
Not sure how that went. Teresa Brennan was adjudicator. Not easy to deal with but hopefully I got the message across. She hadn't read the evidence in enough detail. Main thing was to look at our Representation and then read the NoR which she just skimmed and seemed to misinterpret. Had to repeat key points several times until she appeared to understand.
No decision from her at the time. She says she send it through by close today or early tomorrow. She did take note of a couple of cases nd said she' have a look.
May have fallen for a trick question - If the EA had considered your representation would you have paid or would you still be here?
She initially said the Mersey bridge case didn't apply but after me saying 'completely failed to consider' a few times she made a note of that.
Hopefully, the penny will drop when she carefully reads the documents and cases. At least she hasn't dismissed it out of hand.
-
Many thanks.
I'm trying to make sense of Chapter 5 Traffic Signs (Road Marking) Section 8 YBJs, specifically 8.4 - Setting Out
I sort of understand why the council are going on about lines at right angles to traffic flow, but that's not enough IMO.
Even if the box bottom corners were redrawn to be touching the apex of the curved highway (like figure 8-6) then the current box still extends beyond that. There is a wide radius on those corners that makes it more difficult for them.
-
ETA Register of Appeals
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable
Case Details
Case reference 2060381000
Appellant Gina Adamou
Authority London Borough of Haringey
VRM Y733GVX
PCN Details
PCN HY72193896
Contravention date 05 Jul 2006
Contravention time 16:17:00
Contravention location High Road N22
Penalty amount GBP 100.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 21 Oct 2006
Adjudicator Hugh Cooper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 7. This provides as follows.
"7 (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, [box junctions] shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.
(2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person
(a)who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right: and
(b)stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn."
In this case the Council served a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on Mrs Adamou alleging that the vehicle of which she was the registered keeper had contravened this regulation "in High Road N22".
Mrs Adamou says that she telephoned the Council on receipt of the PCN and asked them about this contravention. She was told that it had taken place at the junction of Ewart Grove and High Road N22. She pointed out to the person she spoke to that there was no box junction at that location. When the Council served photographs with their Notice of Rejection they made no mention of Ewart Grove.
The Council finally stated in their Case Summary that the box junction is actually at the junction of High Road and Bounds Green Road; the junction with Ewart Grove is simply where the camera is located. In a letter subsequent to her Notice of Appeal Mrs Adamou argues as to whether or not the events recorded on the video recording actually amount to a contravention.
However I do not have to decide that issue, because the confusion that has evidently arisen in Mrs Adamou's communications with the Council clearly demonstrates that the original PCN failed to comply with the requirements of Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This provides that the PCN "must…state…the grounds on which the council… believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".
The Council's own evidence shows that they have no fewer than 9 cameras in High Road N22, 6 of which are located at junctions. Whether or not all are devoted to monitoring compliance with box junctions, it makes clear that this is a long road with a considerable number of junctions. It is evident from Mrs Adamou's case that she did not know on receipt of the PCN where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.
Had the PCN specified "High Road N22 at its junction with Bounds Green Road", then Mrs Adamou would have known where to look. As it was, by simply stating "in High Road N22", I find that the PCN did not state the grounds on which the Council believed that the penalty charge was payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred.
I find therefore that no valid PCN was served on Mrs Adamou, and so the Council cannot enforce this penalty charge.
[I would add that there is considerable doubt in my mind as to whether the layout of the box junction markings in this case actually comply with the requirements of Diagrams 1043 or 1044 in Schedule 6 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, neither of which appears to allow for box junction markings opposite the mouth of a T-junction, as opposed to across it. Furthermore it appears that there is a right turn filter lane on the main road, so that the box junction markings only cover one lane. However I do not make a formal determination on this issue. It maybe that in future cases the Council will feel the need, and be able, to clarify how this layout complies with either of the diagrams.]
-
I wouldn't bother with their error re the camera certificate as it doesn't apply anyway to this legislation. That point is not a winner I am afraid.
I wouldn't have put it in had Redbridge not provided the Secretary of State approval letter in their evidence. I didn't ask for it and I hadn't raised it in the reps.
However, as it does state 'Parking and Bus Lanes only' I thought I'd throw it in at the end, just in case all other grounds fall on deaf ears.
Hopefully something will stick before we get to the end. Bit of a kitchen sink approach.
Extending beyond the junction has worked in a previous appeal.
Vague Location is a gamble but the fact they ignored it in the NoR then admitted it is not exact opens up the biggest opportunity for success in the Tribunal Lottery.
I assume this is a personal hearing?
Yes it is.
-
I assume this is a personal hearing?
-
Glitch, you need to quote the Council's words after this fashion:
Only in the Summary of Council’s Representation for this appeal is there reference to the vague location. The council admit it is not an exact location and have somehow satisfied themselves that the appellant knew the location referred to in the PCN.
"I have noted the appellants comments however this is not a valid reason to cancel the PCN. I am satisfied that the PCN clearly gives the name of the contravention. A contravention code is not required. Whilst the exact location is not on the PCN the still images clearly show the appellants vehicle stopped in the Box Junction in Cambridge Park. I am satisfied the appellant knew where this was and was not misled."
However, they completely failed to mention vague location in the Notice of Rejection.
Thanks John.
-
I wouldn't bother with their error re the camera certificate as it doesn't apply anyway to this legislation. That point is not a winner I am afraid.
-
Glitch, you need to quote the Council's words after this fashion:
Only in the Summary of Council’s Representation for this appeal is there reference to the vague location. The council admit it is not an exact location and have somehow satisfied themselves that the appellant knew the location referred to in the PCN.
"I have noted the appellants comments however this is not a valid reason to cancel the PCN. I am satisfied that the PCN clearly gives the name of the contravention. A contravention code is not required. Whilst the exact location is not on the PCN the still images clearly show the appellants vehicle stopped in the Box Junction in Cambridge Park. I am satisfied the appellant knew where this was and was not misled."
However, they completely failed to mention vague location in the Notice of Rejection.
-
Have you included the quote about 'The council admit it is not an exact location and have somehow satisfied themselves that the appellant knew the location referred to in the PCN.'?
Yes I have. As follows:
Only in the Summary of Council’s Representation for this appeal is there reference to the vague location. The council admit it is not an exact location and have somehow satisfied themselves that the appellant knew the location referred to in the PCN. However, they completely failed to mention vague location in the Notice of Rejection.
-
Have you included the quote about 'The council admit it is not an exact location and have somehow satisfied themselves that the appellant knew the location referred to in the PCN.'?
-
Good advice John. I've tarted it up to emphasise specific sections and phrases.
-
My comments are more about style than content - any of the latter I've marked in blue.
Style - don't be afraid to use bold, italic, underline, &c. to make it easier for the Adj. to read - who will not see it until the day. I've done a few (not all needed) to give you the idea.
I refer to my formal representation to the Redbridge:
1) The location stated on the PCN is vague. Cambridge Park is almost a kilometre long with 10 road junctions along its length. I believe this does not adequately convey the location of the alleged contravention.
2) The YBJ extends beyond the bounds of the intersection of the two roads.
I refer you to:
TSRGD 2016 Section 11
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is –
(a) at a junction between two or more roads
A junction is typically defined as the intersection of the outside edge of the first highway with the outside edge of the second highway.
I refer you to a recent Tribunal case relating to the same location:
Case ref 2230267259 in which Adjudicator Mr Harman states:
‘I was satisfied on the council's online footage of the incident, which I viewed, that this box was marked well beyond the junction shown thereon it thus not I find being marked at the junction of two roads as required under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016.’
The Council’s own evidence (YBJ Construction Drawing- see below/attached) clearly shows the box extending metres beyond the confines of the junction where the two roads intersect. Extended lines from the kerbs of each road define a much smaller area. I have included below a copy of the construction drawing with the kerb lines of Blake Hall Road extended to show the true boundary of this road junction.
Further to the formal representation made to the council I wish to add the following:
The set back of the stop line in Blake Hall Road makes it impossible to see the extent of traffic in Cambridge Park and the end of the overly long box junction.
The Redbridge video evidence shows an overhead perspective but does not convey the view of the driver. The junction is particularly busy at this time. The constant traffic filtering left from Cambridge Park into Blake Hall Road is a distraction and obscures the view of the exit after you pass the stop line.
On passing the stop line there was a cyclist stationary inside the YBJ. From the driver perspective it gives the impression they are outside the box junction. The cyclist is definitely outside the intersection of the two roads.
The vehicle in front of our vehicle had completed its right turn and had exited the junction of Cambridge Park and Blake Hall Road giving the impression that the exit was clear.
Even the professional driver behind has made a decision to enter their bus into the box junction, then having to stop. I believe this is because the box junction is extended beyond the confines of the actual road junction.
Furthermore, the driver entered the YBJ from Blake Hall Road to turn right into Cambridge Park
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 states.
Box junctions
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition 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.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(c) of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition 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 oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who—
(a)causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b)stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
3) Issues with the Notice of Rejection
In my formal representation to Redbridge I have clearly stated grounds of 1) vague location and 2) the box extending beyond the confines of the junction, i.e., the intersection of the two roads. These were the primary grounds mentioned in the formal representation.
In the Council’s Notice of Rejection, in spite of their ‘careful consideration of the details provided’ neither of these significant grounds were adequately acknowledged or addressed. This is a Procedural Impropriety.
Only in the Summary of Council’s Representation for this appeal is there reference to the vague location. The council admit it is not an exact location and have somehow satisfied themselves that the appellant knew the location referred to in the PCN.[Put in the quotation from the summary which justifies this assertion.] However, they completely failed to mention vague location in the Notice of Rejection.
The Council state in the NoR that the box is compliant with TSRGD 2016 because ‘the sides of the box are approximately at right angles to the flow of traffic’. This has no relevance to the definition of a junction and whether the box fits within the confines of the intersection of the two roads, which it clearly does not. I believe this is another failure to ‘carefully consider’ the representation and adequately address the points raised.
The Council fail to mention in the NoR that the box junction prohibition does not apply to vehicles entering the box junction to turn right, as in this case.
4) Other
Finally, the Council have included Secretary of State approval for a CCTV camera in a letter dated 15th May 2023 – presumably the camera at the junction of Cambridge Park and Blake Hall Road? The approved enforcement types in this letter clearly state ‘Parking and Bus Lane only.’ As this is neither a parking or bus lane contravention I believe this camera is not approved for a box junction contravention and the Council’s video evidence is inadmissible.
END
-
This it is unless someone suggests necessary changes.
I refer to my formal representation to the Redbridge:
1) The location stated on the PCN is vague. Cambridge Park is almost a kilometre long with 10 road junctions along its length. I believe this does not adequately convey the location of the alleged contravention.
2) The YBJ extends beyond the bounds of the intersection of the two roads.
I refer you to:
TSRGD 2016 Section 11
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is –
(a) at a junction between two or more roads
A junction is typically defined as the intersection of the outside edge of the first highway with the outside edge of the second highway.
I refer you to a recent Tribunal case relating to the same location:
Case ref 2230267259 in which Adjudicator Mr Harman states:
‘I was satisfied on the council's online footage of the incident, which I viewed, that this box was marked well beyond the junction shown thereon it thus not I find being marked at the junction of two roads as required under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016.’
The Council’s own evidence (YBJ Construction Drawing) clearly shows the box extending metres beyond the confines of the junction where the two roads intersect. Extended lines from the kerbs of each road define a much smaller area. I have included below a copy of the construction drawing with the kerb lines of Blake Hall Road extended to show the true boundary of this road junction.
Further to the formal representation made to the council I wish to add the following:
The set back of the stop line in Blake Hall Road makes it impossible to see the extent of traffic in Cambridge Park and the end of the overly long box junction.
The Redbridge video evidence shows an overhead perspective but does not convey the view of the driver. The junction is particularly busy at this time. The constant traffic filtering left from Cambridge Park into Blake Hall Road is a distraction and obscures the view of the exit after you pass the stop line.
On passing the stop line there was a cyclist stationary inside the YBJ. From the driver perspective it gives the impression they are outside the box junction. The cyclist is definitely outside the intersection of the two roads.
The vehicle in front of our vehicle had completed its right turn and had exited the junction of Cambridge Park and Blake Hall Road giving the impression that the exit was clear.
Even the professional driver behind has made a decision to enter their bus into the box junction, then having to stop. I believe this is because the box junction is extended beyond the confines of the actual road junction.
Furthermore, the driver entered the YBJ from Blake Hall Road to turn right into Cambridge Park
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 states.
Box junctions
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition 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.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(c) of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition 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 oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who—
(a)causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b)stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
Issues with the Notice of Rejection
In my formal representation to Redbridge I have clearly stated grounds of 1) vague location and 2) the box extending beyond the confines of the junction, i.e., the intersection of the two roads. These were the primary grounds mentioned in the formal representation.
In the Council’s Notice of Rejection, in spite of their ‘careful consideration of the details provided’ neither of these significant grounds were adequately acknowledged or addressed. This is a Procedural Impropriety.
Only in the Summary of Council’s Representation for this appeal is there reference to the vague location. The council admit it is not an exact location and have somehow satisfied themselves that the appellant knew the location referred to in the PCN. However, they completely failed to mention vague location in the Notice of Rejection.
The Council state in the NoR that the box is compliant with TSRGD 2016 because ‘the sides of the box are approximately at right angles to the flow of traffic’. This has no relevance to the definition of a junction and whether the box fits within the confines of the intersection of the two roads, which it clearly does not. I believe this is another failure to ‘carefully consider’ the representation and adequately address the points raised.
The Council fail to mention in the NoR that the box junction prohibition does not apply to vehicles entering the box junction to turn right, as in this case.
Other
Finally, the Council have included Secretary of State approval for a CCTV camera in a letter dated 15th May 2023 – presumably the camera at the junction of Cambridge Park and Blake Hall Road? The approved enforcement types in this letter clearly state ‘Parking and Bus Lane only.’ As this is neither a parking or bus lane contravention I believe this camera is not approved for a box junction contravention and the Council’s video evidence is inadmissible.
END
(https://i.ibb.co/0K6z1mP/YBJ-confines-of-the-junction.jpg) (https://ibb.co/kJwPz5Y)
-
Also, is there anything to allow entry behind another vehicle turning right - without there being oncoming traffic?
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within paragraph
(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who— (a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn
That last bit is ambiguous to me. Doesn't say the stationary vehicle has to be waiting for oncoming traffic to clear, just that they are turning right.
-
Make sure that the Tribunal has a copy of your submissions now so that the council is aware. You need to upload the evidence on their website. Otherwise, they may ask for an adjournment. At this stage in the game - 5 days before - I usually send the council a copy direct.
I'll get this done ASAP.
Initially ticking with vague location and box extends beyond junction, plus adding the challenge of negotiating the box from behind the wheel.
What legislation/regulations can I quote about the location stated on the PCN? Is there any guidance on how accurate it needs to be?
Then onto the NoR and complete lack of consideration about vague location, irrelevant nonsense about the markings and failure to consider extending beyond junction.
I will cite the case CP mentioned above but will need some guidance on how to pitch it to the adjudicator.
Finally throw in the fact their Camera approval says parking and bus lanes only.
Is this the right approach, or need a different structure?
-
Make sure that the Tribunal has a copy of your submissions now/today so that the council is aware. You need to upload the evidence on the Tribunal website. Otherwise, they may ask for an adjournment. At this stage in the game - 5 days before - I usually send the council a copy direct.
-
So when you write to the council that's a representation, not an appeal.
It's only an appeal when you get to the tribunal stage.
When's the hearing listed for?
I'm tidying up the draft so I'll make sure I use the right terminology.
It's listed for 19th September.
-
So when you write to the council that's a representation, not an appeal.
It's only an appeal when you get to the tribunal stage.
When's the hearing listed for?
-
Bit of a brain dump to kick things off
The location stated on the PCN is vague. Xxx states that the location needs to be self evident Cambridge Park is almost a kilometre long with several road junctions. An internet search for Cambridge Park is more likely to bring up Cambridge City Park and Ride.
A search for Cambridge Park Blake Hall Road leads you to the right junction.
The YBJ extends beyond the bounds of the intersection of the two roads. Previous case 2230099245 in which Mr Styles agrees. Also, 2230267259 Mr Harman agrees the box extends beyond the junction.
The Council’s own evidence (YBJ Construction Drawing) clearly shows the box extending metres beyond the confines of the junction where the two roads intersect. Extended lines from the kerbs of each road define a much smaller area.
The set back of the stop line in Blake Hall Road makes it impossible to see the extent of traffic in Cambridge Park and the end of the YBJ.
The traffic filtering left from Cambridge Park into Blake Hall Road is a distraction and obscures the view of the exit after you pass the stop line. On passing the stop line there was a cyclist stationary inside the YBJ, giving the impression they are outside the YBJ.
The vehicle in front had completed its right turn and had exited the intersection of Cambridge Park and Blake Hall Road giving the impression that the exit was clear.
Even the professional driver behind has made a poor decision to enter their bus into the YBJ.
The driver entered the YBJ from Blake Hall Road to turn right into Cambridge Park
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 states.
Box junctions – diagram 1043
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the marking provided for at item 25 of the table in Part 6 (“a diagram 1043 marking”) conveys the prohibition 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.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the diagram 1043 marking when placed so as to be a box junction within paragraph (c) of the definition of that expression conveys the prohibition 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 oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within paragraph (
a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who— (a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn
In my formal appeal I have clearly stated grounds of 1) vague locus and 2) the box extending beyond the confines of the intersection of the two roads. These were the only grounds mentioned in the appeal.
In the Council’s subsequent Notice of Rejection, in spite of their ‘careful consideration’ neither of these significant grounds were either acknowledged or addressed. The Council believe the box is compliant with TSRGD 2016 because ‘the sides of the box are approximately at right angles to the flow of traffic’. This has no relevance to the definition of a junction and whether the box fits within the confines of the intersection of the two roads.
Only in the Summary of Council’s Representation is there reference to the vague location. The council admit it is not an exact location and have somehow satisfied themselves that the appellant knew the location referred to in the PCN.
The Council have included Secretary of State approval for a CCTV camera in a letter dated 15th May 2023 – presumably the camera at the junction of Cambridge Park and Blake Hall Road? The approved enforcement types in this letter clearly state Parking and Bus Lane only.
-
Best way to play this?
Start with the failure to consider the main points of the formal appeal, or leave that in reserve if the adjudicator is not swayed by the fromal appeal?
I've not taken the lead on this case so wait for @Hippocrates and @Pastmybest to comment, but as a general rule you want to put in a skeleton argument that covers every conceivable point you might want to argue (even if only in summary, you can always expand in oral submissions).
-
Missed out these important pages.
(https://i.ibb.co/7jcMS8H/Summary-of-Council-representation-pg-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fqR6XBb)
(https://i.ibb.co/6nZVLCK/Summary-of-Council-representation-pg-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JBd0gJY)
They do mention location but believe we've not been misled and we know where it is!
Also, we never contested the contravention code. I reckon they cut and paste rubbish from one case to another.
-
Redbridge have uploaded their evidence.
They are just relying on the video evidence of the vehicle entering the YBJ and stopping.
They have included the NoR which as mentioned previously has not mentioned the vague location or the box extending beyond the confines of the junction.
They have uploaded a camera certificate which says 'For Parking and Bus Lanes only' and a handy construction map of the YBJ.
(https://i.ibb.co/Zc6627x/CCTV-Certification-letter.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6DRRXLF)
(https://i.ibb.co/Mnzz32F/CCTV-Witness-Statement.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gy00Bjk)
(https://i.ibb.co/mJZ1JSn/YBJ-Construction-drawing.jpg) (https://ibb.co/K64R6mt)
Best way to play this?
Start with the failure to consider the main points of the formal appeal, or leave that in reserve if the adjudicator is not swayed by the fromal appeal?
-
In the good old days cases were won when the appellant did not receive the evidence less than 3 days before.
Always best to bat second: RBK filed nom evidence a few weeks ago and DNCed. No point in filing evdience against a case which does not exist.
-
Thanks, that's good to know and provides a straightforward strategy.
-
The letters from the tribunal are just templates and don't really mean much.
In practice, the tribunal gives appellants up to two reschedules, no questions asked, and you can actually upload evidence as late as the day of the hearing.
This being the case, just want and see what the council does. If they don't upload anything at all, you win by default. If they upload their evidence when you only have a few days left (I've seen them upload evidence as late as the day before), just phone the tribunal call centre and ask to reschedule the hearing, you can push it back by up to 28 days and they'll do that while you're on the phone. You then have a month to prepare for the hearing.
-
Hearing is set for 19th September.
Slightly confused that the letter says:
We have sent a copy of your appeal to the Enforcement Authority. The authority is unlikely to
participate in the hearing. You should receive a copy of the Enforcement Authority’s evidence directly
from the authority at least three days before the hearing.
3 days?
They say our evidence needs to be uploaded 7 days in advance.
How does it work?
-
Appeal has been lodged on the Tribunal website.
-
You can just register the appeal with "The appellant relies on his formal representations" and keep you powder dry for when the council's evidence pack comes through.
Makes sense, Thanks.
Do the formal reps get included by default, or do I need to add them, or leave it until Redbridge lodge their evidence?
In the meantime I'll get some approximate measurements of the box extending outside the junction.
I did record a video of driving from Blake Hall Road and turning right into Cambridge Park but need a better quality one.
I'll see if I can get a better one a decide on here if it helps or hinders.
-
You can just register the appeal with "The appellant relies on his formal representations" and keep you powder dry for when the council's evidence pack comes through.
-
Rubbish NOR. You know the standard advice: I rely upon my formal representations and wile file further submissions upon receipt of the council's evidence pack.
Main ground would be penalty exceeds the amount applicable. Details later. They may well mess up.
I would start with the inexact locus and failure to consider. As above advice given.
-
Take everything to tribunal you never know which adjudicator you will get and which point they may pick up on
-
The driver/owner is happy to take this to the Tribunal.
They accept they will lose the discount.
Should this just rely on failure to consider or just add it to the original reps and use that?
-
no recent cases but this one was heard by chan 2180001857
and this one by teper 217057585A
-
There is definitely a failure to consider on vague locus, and importantly it's a complete failure to consider so it meets the threshold of Halton Borough Council, R (On the Application Of) v Road User Charging Adjudicators [2023] EWHC 303 (Admin).
As above, your choice is fundamentally to either take the discount, or pursue an appeal.
What I will add is that Redbridge seems to be struggling to put evidence packs together at the moment, it might be that they're short staffed. If there's no evidence pack from the council, you win by default as there would be no evidence of any contravention.
Let us know what you decide to do.
Thanks!
I assume this is the relevant part of the Halton case:
4. The judge rejected this argument, concluding that, on the true construction of the Regulations, the concept of “procedural impropriety” included matters that occurred after the filing of Representations under regulation 8(9); and so could constitute a ground upon which an adjudicator could allow an appeal under regulation 11(6) ([37]-[39]). As an alternative route, he also concluded that a failure by the Council to observe the regulation 8(9) duty to consider Representations would in any event constitute a ground of appeal under regulation 8(3)(e) because, under the Regulations, that failure to consider the Representations as required would have the prescribed consequence that the Representations would be deemed to have been accepted (“if it can clearly be shown that there was no consideration of the duly-made representations…” [40(ii)] and see 8(i) below).
-
There is definitely a failure to consider on vague locus, and importantly it's a complete failure to consider so it meets the threshold of Halton Borough Council, R (On the Application Of) v Road User Charging Adjudicators [2023] EWHC 303 (Admin).
As above, your choice is fundamentally to either take the discount, or pursue an appeal.
What I will add is that Redbridge seems to be struggling to put evidence packs together at the moment, it might be that they're short staffed. If there's no evidence pack from the council, you win by default as there would be no evidence of any contravention.
Let us know what you decide to do.
-
Thanks for the response.
Before I take it up with the driver is there any mileage in 'failure to consider'?
They've ignored the grounds of vague location. Cambridge Park is 767m long.
They've not answered the challenge that the box is outside the junction.
Are there any recent examples in any YBJ appeals where these grounds have succeeded?
-
OP, the choice is yours as to whether to take the discount or appeal.
IMO, your strongest grounds are wrapped up in the issue of the box not being at a junction:
1. You came to a stop within the markings only because they extend too far;
2. The extent of the markings is not apparent from your approach because the stop line for cars at the traffic lights in Blake Hall Road has been set back to accommodate a 'cycles only' box and shrubbery obscures the extent of the markings. It is reasonable for a motorist to presume that the markings would comply with regulations and not extend beyond the limits of the junction which taking even the most generous position would equate to an extension of the back line of the footway in BHR and not as here for a further 50ft.
Some thoughts should you decide to continue.
-
The box still extends beyond the perimeter of the junction so what are they talking about, particularly as TSRGD 2016 has little to nothing to do with the design of a box other than setting out those perimeters
-
Got the anticipated rejection.
They have not addressed the vague location challenge - failure to consider?
Sides of the box at right angles to the flow of traffic?? What are they talking about??
They have not addressed the grounds that the box extends beyond the junction - is that another failure to consider?
(https://i.ibb.co/1ntX1FP/LBR-rejection-letter-20230811.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZJpg5qF)
(https://i.ibb.co/phsVCBT/LBR-REjection-Letter-20230811-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VwhnXcG)
-
They might be able to email you a copy of the rejection, most councils will do this if asked.
-
I can see online that the reps were rejected. It's offering the discount.
I need to get hold of the rejection letter to see why they've rejected. Nice little earner for Redbridge based on other recent posts.
It is a problem junction, mainly for cars turning right from Cambridge Park into Blake Hall Road.
-
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mx91zKd6HIw
Let us know when you get a response.
-
Started this one on Pepipoo for a friend.
(https://i.ibb.co/D8XbZML/Document-2023-07-24-203108.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/SV9dy7T/Document-2023-07-24-203150-2.jpg)
GSV Blake Hall Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.573522,0.0235395,3a,75y,343.66h,85.17t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1syE1j47ucwKrnTQ9e7bDz0g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
Cutting long story short and due to time constraints this is the reps submitted on 25th July.
Key points are vague location 'Cambridge Park' and box extends outside the confines of the 'junction'
Credit to Mr Chips for crafting it.
I submit representations against this PCN on the following grounds.
A PCN is required to state the grounds on which the authority believes a charge is payable, and this has been held to require not only the nature of the alleged contravention but also the location where the allegation is said to have taken place. The location of the contravention simply states "Cambridge Park", but there are several road junctions along Cambridge Park and it is not possible to determine from the PCN where exactly the contravention is said to have occurred.
Further, from looking at the video footage supplied it is clear that the markings of the box junction extend far beyond the junction with the road from where my vehicle is seen turning. Under the TSRGD 2016, 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.
By inspection, it is clear the point my vehicle came to rest is beyond the natural confines of the junction. This view was shared by adjudicator Andrew Harman in case 2230267259 (taken from London Tribunals statutory register).
In my case, this is further supported by the fact the car in front (behind which my vehicle stops) has long since completed its right turn (if it hadn't I also would not be committing a contravention as I would have entered the box junction for the purpose of turning right and would have been waiting in the box behind a vehicle waiting to complete a right turn out of the box).
The following image from google maps taken from the spot where my vehicle stops further illustrates this point:
GSV from point vehicle stopped (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5739673,0.0234961,3a,75y,201.3h,94.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swS4WTuueyApS2cEFMQB8bw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu)
For both these reasons, it follows that the PCN should not be enforced and must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,