Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: zimmme on February 26, 2025, 03:09:51 pm
-
If you have a Notice of Rejection I believe you can still take it to tribunal. Please post it up.
-
Frustratingly my partner paid for it when she saw the letters the desk and I was away - though then WF did reject. I was prepared to go to tribunal but my partner thought she was doing me a favour.
Let me see if I can find the rejection.
-
The PCN office is normally pretty quick in responding via the CEO office. So hopefully I will know tomorrow how they wish to proceed. Of course I will start a thread should they refuse my costs. ty
-
Please start a new thread with your own circumstances if you want help.
-
I got a PCN on the same junction after a car cut into my lane forcing an emergency stop. And I did like you appealed through the online portal. No response! I sent a further 4 emails to the PCN office, no response!...Ultimately I emailed the Council CEO office to complain about the total lack of communication. The next day I received an email from the PCN office cancelling the penalty. They stated on this occasion they used discretion which is nonsense as I did not commit any offence.
I am awaiting a response to my request they pay my out of pocket expense, being the car hire company want £68 administration fee for dealing with the PCN.
Perhaps someone here could advise the best course of action to get this reimbursed as I am not hopeful they will agree.
Clearly these PCNs are issued by AI which makes my blood boil that its allowed to happen.
Steve
-
Had a look online today and the amount owing is £0. @zimmme did they accept your representations or did you pay??
-
No reply as of yet - how long do they have? 56 days?
Worryingly I received no confirmation i submitted an appeal, and the WF portal allows me to submit another challenge; so arguably there's no proof I submitted. Very odd.
PCN is under the LLA & TfL Act 2003. The 56 days you mention is in the Traffic Management Act 2004, so doesn't apply. There is no time limit in the 2003 Act, other than their general duty as a public to act fairly.
Have a read: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted
-
Thank you! I suspect it's simply just bad council website and back-end systems.. I just resubmitted in order to get a couple of screenshots.
-
The legislation sets out no time limit for response in respect of box junction ("moving traffic") offences. However, London Tribunals have formally stated that they consider any delay in excess of 3 months to be unreasonable and so that serves as an unofficial deadline beyond which the council would generally have to have good justification.
Concerning that you did not receive a confirmation email. The good news is that you are still within the deadline for making representations.
Not sure what the best way forward is here - whether to resubmit the same ones (be sure to take a screenshot or two while doing so if you do), or to follow up with WF somehow to check if representations were received. See what others think, who might have a better handle on internal processes.
Deadline for representations would be 25 March by my maths (28 days starting with presumed date of service, 26 February).
Worst case scenario, if you were willing to swear that you submitted representations and WF sent you a Charge Certificate you would be able to reset the process on the grounds that you submitted representations but did not receive a Notice of Rejection.
-
No reply as of yet - how long do they have? 56 days?
Worryingly I received no confirmation i submitted an appeal, and the WF portal allows me to submit another challenge; so arguably there's no proof I submitted. Very odd.
-
Good luck! Come back here when they respond.
I managed to find two recent rejection letters from WF in respect of box junctions so that sentence in quotes in the middle paragraph is taken directly from their template. Will be fascinated to see if they try and redraft it just for you :)
It gets so annoying when they claim to have carefully considered representations when they've done no such thing so I thought we should try and call their bluff - in advance.
Btw, there's a slight inconsistency in one place where your partner refers to themselves as being the driver where that's not the case. It's no big deal but if you haven't submitted it yet, please edit this bit as follows:
Accordingly there was no necessity to stop within the box junction (the vehicle only did so as the driver was under a misapprehension they had already fully cleared the junction).
-
Thank you so much, will submit now.
-
Updated draft (assumes it will be coming from your partner) - give others a chance to critique...
Dear Waltham Forest
I recently received a PCN in respect of stopping in a yellow box junction. I am submitting these representations on the basis that the contravention did not occur.
As you will be aware, a box junction contravention only occurs if a vehicle HAS TO [my emphasis] stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Put another way, if there is sufficient room to exit the box junction (often referred to as the exit being clear) then no contravention is committed even if a vehicle stops with a part of the vehicle within the box junction. In this instance, having reviewed the footage and undertaken a distance analysis via Googlemaps (using the manhole cover under the left rear wheel of the vehicle directly in front of my own as a reference point), there was 4.5 metres of space in front of the box junction to accommodate my vehicle. My vehicle (a Renault Clio) is only 4.05 metres long and on this basis there was clearly sufficient room for my vehicle to completely pass through the box junction. Accordingly I didn't have to stop within the box junction (the vehicle only did so as the driver was under a misapprehension they had already fully cleared the junction).
Should you reject these representations please confirm that you have carefully considered (and understood!) my point above by explaining the basis for your belief that there was not space for my vehicle (i.e. less than 4.05 metres of space beyond the box junction to the car in front). You have a duty to act fairly, and a templated statement that "the CCTV evidence confirms the vehicle entered and stopped in the box junction without ensuring that the exit was clear" without backing this statement up with precisely how this has been "confirmed" will demonstrate that you have not considered my representations in any way "carefully". The angle of the video footage, and the resulting foreshortening effect, makes it impossible to judge the distance left between my vehicle and the car in front to the necessary degree of accuracy simply from a cursory review of the video images.
Notwithstanding my main point, above, the level of incursion and brevity of the stop within the box junction is so trivial as to constitute de minimis in any event. Please see London Tribunal decisions 2240537258 and 216036762A for guidelines of what is considered a de minimis offence (i.e. a vehicle stopping with only its back wheels on or within box junction markings, and/or only for a few seconds).
I look forward to confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.
Kind regards,
Vehicle owner
-
Only my rear wheels are in the box not causing obstruction.
My vehicle came to a halt for approximately 3-4 seconds and so I argue this is de minimis on both points.
When the camera zooms in, the video dose not show the situation ahead of my vehicle.
-
All clear, and your help in the draft would be massively appreciated! Thank you!
-
Hi zimme,
In response to your initial queries:
- previous tribunal decisions do not set any precedent, and the staff who deal with PCNs tend to be fairly dense (and not impartial) anyway, so in 99% of cases we see them turn down perfectly reasonable representations. You can expect a template rejection letter pretty much whatever you respond with!
- if this goes to tribunal and lose, then yes the penalty of £130 will be payable, the discount will have long expired
- glad you mentioned this, the vehicle owner is legally liable for the penalty - presumably this is your partner. Probably more straightforward if the representations are sent in his/her name (and they should be made aware if they aren't already!). The alternative is for your partner to sign a letter authorising you to submit representations on their behalf in respect of this PCN and for this to be sent to the council.
Moving on to your draft reps, these cover most of the points, but I'd be tempted to redraft slightly in a few areas. If you can give me a few hours I'll be back with an update later today. I'd lead with the fact you don't believe a contravention occurred in the first place, and give the de minimis ground as supplementary to this. I'd also lose your third point as it isn't relevant and risks diluting the focus on the main grounds.
-
Firstly, thank you so much for all of the input/advice!
Unsure how much detail to include, but i wrote the below draft. Feel free to tell me it's bad/good. :)
Quick Qs:
* I'm new to all this, but does it really go to tribunal when you clearly cite another case - such as case 2240537258 @Hippocrates raised? Incredibly stupid, isn't it!
* If it goes to tribunal, and it's upheld, does this mean the fine is £130 or do you have the 50% option?|
* The notice is in my partner's name, assume I do not need to state anything or gain her authorisation?
DRAFT:
Dear Waltham Forest
I'm writing to appeal the PCN for the following reasons:
1. The contravention pertains to my vehicles' rear wheel being on the line at the very edge of the box junction. The principle of de minimis recognises that minor, trivial infractions that have no material impact should not be penalised. In this instance, my vehicle’s rear wheel barely entered the box junction, and this slight encroachment did not hinder traffic flow or obstruct the junction in any way. The CCTV shows the car moving 2-3x, and only actually stopping for less than 5 seconds.
This is trivial as to amount to no more than a de minimus breach, as also found in case reference 2240537258 and 216036762A "There is no minimum time for a vehicle to become stationary for the contravention to occur, but it has to be more than a few seconds, otherwise it is nominal or de minimis and does not constitute coming to a stop. 7 or 8 seconds can just about be said to be nominal or de minimis."
2. The enforcement camera footage appears to have been zoomed in on my license plate, thereby shortening the perspective of the junction. This perspective does not accurately show the full circumstances of the alleged contravention, including the clear path that was available for my vehicle to move forward.
The rear left wheel of the car in front is on a manhole which provides a good reference point using Google's Street View and Maps. That point is circa 4.6 metres in front of the yellow box. The Renault Clio is 4.053m in length, thus I had around half a metre of clearance. It's only a contravention if I had to stop in the box. I thought I had cleared the junction. As seen in the video, I clearly obeyed the box junction and waited patiently.
3. The zoomed in cctv of the supposed contravention doesn't show the situation ahead.
I ask that you review this case with a view to applying the de minimis principle and consider the limitations of the evidence provided. Given the trivial nature of the alleged contravention and the lack of impact on traffic, I request that this PCN be cancelled.
Thank you for your time and understanding.
-
++1
-
I've spent a bit longer on this this evening.
The rear left wheel of the car in front is on a manhole which provides a good reference point. That point seems to be about 4.6 metres in front of the yellow box. Assuming your car is indeed 4 metres long, it can be demonstrated you had sufficient clearance.
It's only a contravention if you had to stop in the box. You didn't have to, you only stopped as you thought you'd already cleared it. You could have shuffled forward another metre and cleared it completely.
-
I will dig out a very similar case in a moment. 2240537258. De minimis amount of car plus the video zooms in so does not show the situation ahead.
More than happy to represent when they reject.
-
You might have a shot with this by arguing that there was sufficient space for your vehicle. The video is shot from an angle which makes it difficult/impossible to judge how much space there was between you and the car in front. It appears like there wasn't much but that could be due to 'foreshortening'.
I think that's a Renault Clio which would be around 4 metres in length. Using distance measuring on googlemaps and satellite view, 4 metres clearance of the box junction broadly takes you just beyond the start of the next lane divider between your side of the road and that for oncoming traffic.
It's difficult to judge but I reckon on balance of probabilities the car in front was beyond that point.
If you can demonstrate that on balance of probabilities you had enough space to clear the box completely, then there's no contravention, even if you did stop inside. Certainly, it will be hard for the council to demonstrate convincingly that you couldn't have moved forward the necessary additional half metre or so.
That, combined with the fact the video starts with you clearly obeying the box junction and waiting patiently on the other side may convince an adjudicator to give you the benefit of the doubt and/or side with a de minimis argument.
-
Yeh - I can see where I did wrong, but I did think it was incredibly petty!
-
This is a petty PCN. You are barely in contravention. They could have let this go.
(https://i.imgur.com/DNYjdDf.gif)
-
PCN Attached, with CCTV and street view link.
I pulled forward as I thought the gap was big enough from my eye level (poor judgement, I admit) and saw the traffic ahead moving. My main query is whether I can challenge this given I'm creeping forward, only stationary for seemingly 3-4 seconds and my back wheels are on the line. From looking at this site (https://www.yellowboxes.co.uk/duration-of-stop-appeals), it looks as if this could be classed as 'de minimis' given I saw other appeals given on these two points - but, perhaps it's not worth it?
Embed vid doesn't seem to work: https://i.imgur.com/ew1Cb02.mp4
(https://i.imgur.com/4j4siqM.jpeg)
StreetView https://maps.app.goo.gl/7aJ68YDYLJnwqxqW9