Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: gimpel on March 17, 2025, 02:10:44 pm
-
They rejected my appeal :'( see attached anything I can do?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It's worth at least making reps on the basis of no ask no get and that WF will reoffer the discount (unlike Havering). It's not a frivolous ask.
Not such what depth there is - it's not an exercise in quantum mechanics.
-
Fair enough but having lost a similar case I am a little more cautious at the moment.
Always hard to know exactly where to draw the line.
I did win 7 of 9 yellow box PCNs at the tribunal in 2024.
2240307837 was the twitter featured pcn.
Mr Dishman appeared before me today on behalf of the appellant.
The council did not attend the hearing.
I reserved my decision.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited.
Mr Dishman made submissions in accordance with his skeleton argument of 31/07/24.
I would accept that this box is marked in an unusual way but, my having considered the matter, and notwithstanding the marking of two horizontal lines in the middle of the box, diagonal lines are not out of kilter. I am satisfied that there is no ambiguity as to the prohibition on stopping this box conveys. I find that this box is marked in substantial compliance with the legal requirements.
The benefit of the right turn exemption is claimed.
The prohibition on vehicles entering and having to stop within a box junction due to the presence of stationery vehicles does not apply where a vehicle enters a box for the purpose of turning right it stopping in the box for so long as it is prevented from completing that right turn by oncoming vehicles or by other vehicles being stationery whilst waiting to turn right.
I am not satisfied on the footage that either of these criteria have been met and I am not accordingly satisfied that the exemption is applicable.
I find this contravention proved.
-
Each to their own, but IMO the problem with such short reps is that it's difficult to argue subsequently that they've failed to give proper consideration when there's no depth to the argument.
-
I posted the video for the PCN concerned - it's not the black vehicle.
I would try saying the driver entered the box to turn right as you are allowed to do and the exit was mostly clear and the contravention is minimal and unfair given one oncoming car took some space. You can also see the car moving a bit.
-
In reply number 3 you gave us FT64722658 and LS55WCU (you meant FR not FT). That is the vehicle which clearly has the PCN as I used the council website to watch it.
The black car behind, which I hadn't concerned myself about as it didn't get a PCN doesn't appear in the video until later and the camera operator, who appears to be a human, not a computer, has already selected an allegedly contravening vehicle to focus on.
Although the black car making its entry isn't shown we know that the exit was well and truly blocked to overflowing. If you haven't got a PCN you have been very lucky as you were 100%, in my view, in contravention.
I'm not going to give you any words to write (which experts don't generally do, they give you the ground and expect you to take it from there) as I think LS55WCU should pay the 50%.
If I am wrong about this and the thread has been hard to follow, start a new thread for the black car if the keeper has been issued with a PCN and see if any other expert thinks you have a hope in hell (you will gather that I don't).
(https://i.ibb.co/DPz2VF98/car-in-contravention.png) (https://ibb.co/9mc580bV)
(https://i.ibb.co/7NZrHwBY/black-car.png) (https://ibb.co/qFcmzthy)
(There was an error in my earlier post when I said 'black car' by which I meant the dark blue one - anyway the first car behind the white car. - Did you know that Guinness is dark red?)
-
If you intend to make reps then as regards the contravention, IMO write that the contravention did not occur and on this point you rely upon the following:
As the marking is a regulatory sign of the form prescribed by Diagram 1043, Item 25 in the Sign Table to Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations you rely upon the exemption provided at para. 11(3) of Part 7, namely:
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.
When I first entered the box and stopped, para. 3(a) applied and when I moved off and stopped subsequently para. 3(b) applied.
If the authority reject these representations then this must be supported by cogent argument and reasoning and not simply 'we do not agree'.
You would at least test their argument.
-
Any help in what I can write to them?
-
(I don't understand this explanation - It was my brother driving I was the black car behind and only he received a pcn I did not get one - as the car which got the PCN is LS55WCU, the black car)
Ls55 is a dark blue car I was the next car behind him mine is a black estima
-
I lost the case I put on twitter.
I watched the cctv on the Waltham Forest website.
The white car is ignored as it exited the box even though when it entered there was half a moving bus in the way.
The black car behind it entered when the exit space was blocked (freeze the cctv just as its wheels cross the line to prove this) and then it had to stop so was in contravention despite turning right. The idea is that the box becomes clear when the lights go red again and that because the exit is clear the cars which were queued up when turning right could get out the way before the other way goes green. If there is no space when you enter, the idea of the box, free flowing traffic, is frustated.
Given that you knew the car in front they wouldn't have been upset if you had gone close to them up the inside and got out of the box but that is to be wise after the event.
I would, if there is no other argument, pay the 50%
(I don't understand this explanation - It was my brother driving I was the black car behind and only he received a pcn I did not get one - as the car which got the PCN is LS55WCU, the black car)
-
This is a very tricky one! I believe @mrmustard had one in similar circumstances in Barnet which he was working on (see case in twitter link below):
https://x.com/MrChips69/status/1791443746531275207/quotes
Difference here is that the exit wasn't clear at point of entry, but would ultimately have been but for oncoming car which turned left taking your potential spot, which your brother wouldn't really have been able to predict when he entered the junction. Generally the overriding requirement is not to enter if you don't have a clear path out the other side of the box, so I think chances are probably less than 50% on this one, but well worth a debate!
-
As you were stationary for at least 4 seconds and the whole of the rear axle plus overhang was within the box then IMO a claim of 'de minimis' would fail. Therefore, this is the exemption upon which you are relying:
3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) [stopping in a box junction] does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression[your type], 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.
IMO, a strict interpretation based solely on the wording could mean you're in a no-win situation. The oncoming traffic had ceased to impede your manoeuvre, therefore this defence isn't available, and the other vehicle had already completed its right turn, albeit that it hadn't left room for you to exit the box.
Let's hope there's wording from successful adjudication decisions on this dilemma which can be replicated in your reps. If not, then IMO you should focus on a broad interpretation of 'other vehicle...waiting to complete a right turn'.
Wait for other views.
-
It was my brother driving I was the black car behind and only he received a pcn I did not get one
It's definitely wrongly issued as we are allowed to stay in a yellow box to turn right
It's not quite as clear cut if you can see the exit is blocked - the white car waited as you can see.
-
It was my brother driving I was the black car behind and only he received a pcn I did not get one
It's definitely wrongly issued as we are allowed to stay in a yellow box to turn right
-
I think you were entitled to enter the box to turn right and it's a minimal contravention. The vehicle behind you not so much...
(https://i.imgur.com/AM2lxlJ.gif)
https://imgur.com/AM2lxlJ
-
Thanks for your reply
pcn ft64722658
Plate LS55WCU
-
In the meantime the photos suggest a potentially unclear exit, even if your vehicle was turning right, so the video will be crucial in determining the state of play at the point of entry.
-
The PCN ref number and vehicle reg haven't come through, please could you repost? Without these we can't interrogate the video evidence.
-
Hi
I turned right which can be seen clearly on the video on their website and they issued me a pcn for being on a yellow box
[attachment deleted by admin]