Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: PaulCE11 on April 19, 2025, 04:02:51 pm
-
If we accept that the rear bumper of the Merc is in line with the 2nd newal post of the metal fencing (indicated by the top of the dark black post in the picture below to the left of the blue mark in the picture below), and after that comes the last newal post, by the green mark in the photo and then after that the keep left sign, which is by the red mark in the picture- I think we can prove this.
The distance from the edge of the box to a position not yet at the second Newal post (by the blue mark) where the mercs bumper is, is in excess of 4m so the Clio should fit and it simply stopped short, which isn't an offence.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Can we not argue that the bumper of the Merc in front is in line with the larger more distinctive newel post of the railings on the right hand side? If so then all we have to do is measure from the newel post to the edge of the box and if the Clio fits then they must aquit (to mutate a well used legal phrase)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks.
I've had the date through and it will be Monday 8 September at 3.30pm.
Cheers
-
Do come back a week or two beforehand and we'll help draft appeal wording. And share the council's evidence pack with us once it arrives.
-
Thanks appeal lodged so we'll see how I fair when it comes around!
-
Don't get too hung up about making your appeal, the procedure is very open:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1202/regulation/5/made
Further representations
5.—(1) Any party may deliver representations to the proper officer at any time before an appeal is determined.
But you must register your appeal before the end of the period beginning with the date of service of the NOR (2 working days after date of issue in most cases)
-
Don't get too hung up about making your appeal, the procedure is very open:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1202/regulation/5/made
Further representations
5.—(1) Any party may deliver representations to the proper officer at any time before an appeal is determined.
-
Thanks both.
I've seen extracts from Essoo –v- L.B. of Enfield, so thanks for mentioning it.
Will update when I have details of the date/time of the hearing.
Thanks again
-
I believe at point of registering you can put something like "I rely on my formal representations".
add also and further submissions on sight of council evidence
I would be relying on the key case Essoo vs can't remember of hand" but will look it up and draft something when you come back with a case number and hearing date
-
I believe at point of registering you can put something like "I rely on my formal representations".
add also and further submissions on sight of council evidence
-
OK - I've only personally attended a tribunal hearing once, but have a 100% success rate ;D
You may therefore wish to get input from others with more experience on tribunal strategy, but typically we advise people to register the appeal first and foremost but not submit their full appeal arguments until nearer the time, ideally after the council has submitted their evidence.
I believe at point of registering you can put something like "I rely on my formal representations".
The key thing is to ensure you opt to be present for the hearing (usually by telephone or on Microsoft Teams). If instead it's a decision purely on "the papers" you have a worse chance of success as we frequently see the adjudicator putting insufficient weight on the appellant's arguments as they lose the chance to get additional verbal context.
-
I've decided to pursue via right to appeal so not to worry but I should have looked more closely at any postmarks on the envelope before binning!
Thanks again
-
I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is it is served when it is received at your address. However, there is a presumption of service (when posted 1st class which they are obliged to do) two working days after posting unless you can sufficiently demonstrate otherwise. So, if you can show somehow it arrived yesterday (or whenever) then that's the service date, otherwise it's 28 May.
-
thanks @MrChips
Your mention of the 14 days has also alerted me to the fact that the letter took almost 2 weeks to arrive - so when does the 'served' kick in.
Another reason to not just give into them.
Thanks for all your advice!
-
By the way, the opportunity to settle at discount ends today/tomorrow (depending on whether the 14 day period commences on or from the assumed date of service of the notice of rejection - the letter doesn't make it clear).
My view is that you have more than a 50% chance of success, but we can never guarantee 100%. The fact the notice of rejection completely fails to address your main appeal point ups the odds of a win a bit. The letter also shows a complete misunderstanding of the rules, and suggests that any stop in the box will result in service of a PCN which shouldn't be the case.
-
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 to move forwards sufficiently to clear the box. In particular I kindly request that a templated statement of the sort that "the CCTV evidence confirms the vehicle entered and stopped in the box junction without ensuring that the exit was clear" is backed up with some sort of explanation as to how precisely this has been "confirmed" by Waltham Forest given, as per my argument above, a cursory review of the video images alone does not confirm the length of clear space ahead in any way. I emphasise again that merely stopping within a box junction is not in itself a contravention, there has to be insufficient space to a stationary vehicle ahead to allow the vehicle to exit the box junction.
The PCN was issued because the CCTV evidence confirms that the vehicle entered and stopped in the box junction without ensuring that the exit was clear.
I have carefully considered your case and whilst I appreciate the circumstances outlined in your correspondence they are not sufficient grounds for cancellation of the PCN in question. The footage shows that the contravention occurred, the vehicle should not have entered the Box Junction unless it could clear the exit.
(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji848.png)
-
you can understand why it seems easier just to pay it >:(
-
Thanks @JohnUK and @MrChips
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes, please share the notice of rejection so we can see to what extent they've considered your representations.
-
When registering an appeal, opt for a personal hearing (will be video oor telephone) - never choose decision on papers.
Please post the letter of rejection (only redact yr name & address).
-
Hi again
Thanks for all the assistance so far.
Unsurprisingly, a letter has arrived from Waltham Forest rejecting my representation - with the option to appeal.
I'm assuming I submit what my representations were to LBWF in exactly the same way to the adjudicator @MrChips?
You can see why people just pay it off
With many thanks
Paul
-
Thank you very much for your time and putting the letter together @MrChips, it is very much appreciated.
-
OK, here you go. Discount expires at the end of tomorrow so give it 24 hours for others to comment if you can before submitting online (and taking a screenshot as you do so).
Dear Waltham Forest,
Re PCN: FR65232814
I would like to submit representations against this PCN on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
You will be aware that 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 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 I can see my vehicle was only inside the box junction by a trivial amount, and had it moved forward just one wheel diameter (around 40 centimetres) it would have cleared the box junction markings.
Accordingly it would only be the case that my vehicle had to stop within the box junction if there was less than half a metre of space to the car in front (this is broadly the width within which a pedestrian could easily pass between the two vehicles). The angle of the camera footage provides very limited evidence of how much clear space I had in front of my vehicle, especially taking into account the foreshortening effect of a zoomed in video taken from that angle. However, it seems to me very unlikely that my vehicle could not have moved forward the required distance to remove the rear wheel from within the box junction markings had I known they had not been completely cleared.
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 to move forwards sufficiently to clear the box. In particular I kindly request that a templated statement of the sort that "the CCTV evidence confirms the vehicle entered and stopped in the box junction without ensuring that the exit was clear" is backed up with some sort of explanation as to how precisely this has been "confirmed" by Waltham Forest given, as per my argument above, a cursory review of the video images alone does not confirm the length of clear space ahead in any way. I emphasise again that merely stopping within a box junction is not in itself a contravention, there has to be insufficient space to a stationary vehicle ahead to allow the vehicle to exit the box junction.
Notwithstanding my main point, above, the level of incursion within the box junction is also so trivial as to constitute de minimis in any event. Please see London Tribunal decision 2240537258 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). Further, I note the box junction markings within which the rear of my vehicle was overlapping is adjacent to diagonal white markings which mean that vehicles should not enter that part of the carriageway (unless completely necessary and safe to do so). As such, not only was my vehicle's incursion of a de minimis nature, but it was also not obstructing any part of the road junction over which other vehicles would be allowed to pass through as part of their normal use of the junction.
For these reasons I look forward to confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.
Kind regards,
-
That's the hope, yes.
Reps to follow later today.
-
No one has mentioned a key part of the regulations.
TSRGD says:
'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.'
Surely the adjudicator is going to look carefully at the footage when the OP enters the box junction. Then what happens to prevent exit.
-
We've still got a few days before the discount expires so I'll probably draft something at the weekend.
-
Thank you for your offer to draft something @MrChips, that would be very much appreciated, and thanks to everyone for your continued knowledge!
-
Back in a long lost time in a far away forum, a tale of one council was told, where they had due regard for:
The critical factor here is that the drivers have a reasonable line of sight to make their judgements. We should apply discretion. We have to weigh up the good momentum of traffic travelling freely over box junctions while not trying to make people treat it like a stop line or give way line unnecessarily.
And:
On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25% "grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction.
Such a fairy tale!
As for the case here, the car behind the OP had plenty of space to exit on the left, as did the OP if quicker off the mark. I do think this big box, exit area and traffic scenario do not fall into the strict criterion of having to stop on the other side and the above first point applies but these days councils have lost all reason.
But as we all know, greed prevailed !
-
Back in a long lost time in a far away forum, a tale of one council was told, where they had due regard for:
The critical factor here is that the drivers have a reasonable line of sight to make their judgements. We should apply discretion. We have to weigh up the good momentum of traffic travelling freely over box junctions while not trying to make people treat it like a stop line or give way line unnecessarily.
And:
On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25% "grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction.
Such a fairy tale!
As for the case here, the car behind the OP had plenty of space to exit on the left, as did the OP if quicker off the mark. I do think this big box, exit area and traffic scenario do not fall into the strict criterion of having to stop on the other side and the above first point applies but these days councils have lost all reason.
-
If you are minded to submit representations I'm happy to draft something - please confirm.
-
It would be foolish to not at least make representations to the council on the matters raised.
They often mess up their response, potentially giving you further angles.
-
Just to build on Neil's response, the key part of the contravention wording is that you "had to" stop due to stationary vehicles. We frequently win cases where the council sends a PCN but the video shows sufficient space for a car, which is stationary in the box junction, to be able move forward and exit the box. I.e. it stopped in the box junction but it didn't have to.
In your case, the video is opaque as to how much space you left in front. I estimate you were only in the box by around one wheel diameter (which for a Renault Clio I believe will be around 40 cm). It's for the council to prove you committed a contravention so I'd like to think that a fair minded adjudicator would agree there is insufficient evidence you "had to" stop where you did. The test is on the balance of probabilities so you would only need to create sufficient doubt as to this fact rather than prove your case.
40 cm is not very long, and I would suspect, unless you had deliberately got as close as possible to the vehicle in front as you knew you were likely to encroach into the box junction, that you would routinely leave at least 1 metre to the car in front. Most cars these days have distance sensors which would enable you slowly to creep forward very closely to the car in front without fear of an actual collision meaning you could have fairly easily moved closer and out of the box if you had realised you had left your back wheel inside.
The council will never accept this argument, so your choices will be either to settle at £65 while the discount is still available, or take it to the tribunal where it's £0 if you win and £130 if you lose.
-
This ia large box and given the exit space in two lanes you had reasonable expectation of clearing and only had rear wheels in box.
This refers to the ignorant points made on FB. There is NO law saying your exit has to be clear but if we accept it anyway you certainly had reasonable expectation od clearing the box.
How were you to know that divers of at least two vehicles in the inside lane would move to a bus ride from the kerb (as is a frequent London trait.)
-
Thanks very much for all your replies so far, very useful.
A local FB page has said that previous appeals have been dismissed so wondering if I swallow it up.
All local FB pages will tell you that their respective councils are the worst.
They also use the term'appeal' generically and rarely explain what they mean.
Appeals can only be made to London Tribunals.
Representations to the council must first be rejected before you can do that and it's true that they likely will be.
Most often FB posters are talking about representations to councils.
To explain Mr Chips' point >
You only commit a contravention when ypu stop in the box and that stop is due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
So you need to weigh up whether you could have moved forward a bit and if an adjudicator would agree with you?
-
Thanks very much for all your replies so far, very useful.
A local FB page has said that previous appeals have been dismissed so wondering if I swallow it up.
-
Sorry but that is not de minimis unfortunately.
In that case, then, the road markings are wrong. There should not be the two triangular hatched areas that indicate no traffic to pass over them.
-
I wasn't suggesting de minimis. On balance of probabilities, I expect there was at least 40cm of space ahead that the OP could have moved forward.
-
Sorry but that is not de minimis unfortunately.
-
The car is only in the box junction by less than half a metre. How can we be sure from the camera angle the car couldn't have simply moved forward at least this much. If it could, then no contravention committed.
-
This ia large box and given the exit space in two lanes you had reasonable expectation of clearing and only had rear wheels in box.
(https://i.ibb.co/0VCc3k7T/wf-ezgif-com-optimize.gif)
-
What a money-grubbing PCN ! We see rather too many of these and it clearly shows just how venal and rapacious councils in London are. There was no conceivable traffic management purpose in issuing that PCN, just greed for the penalty money.
However, as you may have guessed, so bedazzled by the riches gained, the council are unlikely to give way, so to fight this you would have to take them all the way to London Tribunals, your grounds of appeal would be "the offence did not occur, de minimis". This means you would have to risk the full PCN penalty, and an adjudicator with common sense, they don't all have this vital element in their heads, I'm afraid.
Apart from the above, there may also be a 'technical' appeal argument based on WF's mismanagement of the enforcement process, so wait a bit to see what comes up. Don't however miss the deadline for paying or submitting reps.
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-382-3382?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#:~:text=Related%20Content,or%20taken%20into%20consideration%3B%20immaterial.
-
Thanks for your assistance
I received a PCN for stopping for 10 secs exiting a ybj at Leytonstone High Road/Bush Road E11 with just the back wheels in the box.
The road has two lanes of traffic and had the car in front of me continued on I would not have been in the box at all.
The video and images are available to view on the Waltham Forest website: www.walthamforest.gov.uk/ocm using
PCN: FR65232814
VRN: EK15 OEZ
details of the PCN are here: https://imgur.com/a/WomFY8V
Google Map link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/y6RRRzACcGgwbLui8