Free Traffic Legal Advice

First a couple of questions: -

1.Are you prepared to stand your ground and take CoL to London Tribunals ? You would have to risk the full PCN penalty of £110

2.Is the car yours and is the V5C Registration Certificate up-to-date ? If it is hired or leased, the matter gets much more complicated, (to the benefit of the council, naturally !!!)

Here are the bay markings shown on GSV latest view dated July 2022. For me, the markings are totally inadequate even when unworn. It appears your car was straddling two bays, but it's almost impossible to make that out from the current photos. I am just extrapolating from the 2022 view.  The sign makes no reference to parking in a marked-out bay, so something else to mention.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/22gthSbtujGigyCs8

In terms of the PCN, you can submit an informal challenge as the driver, but councils reject >95% of these knowing that most people then cough-up to get the discount. Things are only looked at in any degree of seriousness at the Notice to Owner stage. If you car is a hire or lease car, they get the Notice to Owner, not you and you have no legal role in the enforcement process unless it is transferred. Most hire and lease companies just pay the NtO and off-charge it, adding in an "admin" fee, naturally !

Hello, thank you for your reply and the GSV which is really helpful.

1 - I would have no issuue paying a fine when clearly in the wrong, but this just feels very unjust. The bay markings are non-existent, especially when compared to the GSV view from 4 years ago. I was indeed parked between bays MS5 and MS6 (extrapolating from GSV) but as the driver photos show, those numbers and markings are completely worn now and no longer visible. So yes, I think I would want to take this to Tribunal - I can't see how an independent judge could rule in favour of CoL when the bay markings are so faded. In fact, driver took a photo of the other side of the road and the markings for DMS2 Disabled bay are very clearly marked, just as they are in GSV. (Can post the photo if necessary)

2 - Car is mine and V5 is up-to-date.

The small line visible in the council evidence is the start of Bay MS6 (in GSV) where the nose the "plantmovements" van in GSV is. As the driver photos show, there are no other bay markings any longer visible.

Given car is mine, do I submit an informal appeal now, or wait for NtO to come through?

Many thanks for your time

Hello,

Grateful for advice please. The driver received the above contravention, a notice was left on the car despite that fact that the supposed bay markings were so faded, they are essentially non-existent. The driver feels this is completely unjustified - if a council is going to fine someone for not parking in a bay (not sure if that forms part of the HWC or needs to be written on the adjacent signage) they must surely have legible bay markings.

Please see the following 9 images, REG NUMBER redacted, but otherwise unaltered images from the Council Website showing the alleged evidence. It is telling that there are no direct photos of the car tyres outside the bay (as the bay markings do not exist).




















Additionally please see here for the front and rear of the PCN left on the car:






Lastly, the following three images were taken by the driver after moving the vehicle, to show the non-existent bay markings. There is one fraction of a line visible, which does not consitute a "bay". Please note the positon of the van in the drivers' images, which is the same van as can be seen in the 1st image of the Council's alleged evidence.








The driver assumes appealing will result in a rejection although this is surely unjustified given the lack of clear bay markings. Grateful for advice on the best way to appeal to the council and any subseuqent independent/court appeals, should it be necessary.

Many thanks in advance

Hi everyone,

Would be grateful for advice on an appeal here.

PCN Page 1: https://ibb.co/d5M0KF9
PCN Page 2: https://ibb.co/4phnt7q
Council video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOoefebZGnI

I believe this should fall under the right turn exemption. The driver has clearly entered the YBJ with the intention of making a right turn - and eventually forced to stop by the white van in front. The van is free to move at around 6 seconds into the video however, at this point the crossing is green for pedestrians so they remain stationary. Would this be justifiable exemption to why the vehicle remained in the box?

The other clear issue is that the video does not show the moment of entry and hence, it is impossible to determine from the video evidence, whether the exit was clear at the point of entering the YBJ.

Looking at similar threads on 31J, I have drafted the following appeal and would be grateful if it could be critiqued before I submit:

I am writing to appeal the recently issued Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) XXXXXXXXXX, relating to an alleged traffic violation committed with my vehicle registration XXX XXXX.

Firstly, I draw your attention to the absence of clear and complete evidence. The provided footage does not show my vehicle as it enters the box junction. For an enforcement decision to be fair, all relevant evidence including the moment of entrance into the junction should be reviewed. Such evidence is vital to establish the incident's context and determine whether a contravention occurred.

Secondly, my vehicle has entered the box junction with the purpose of turning right:

The box junction prohibition is contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 7. This provides as follows.

"(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."

Regarding the above exemption for entering the box junction when turning right, it is essential to clarify that this allowance applies when a vehicle is stopped by oncoming traffic or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. In my case, the footage does not categorically dispute this condition. I entered the junction for the purpose of turning right, believing the exit path to be clear. Therefore, I argue that it is not justifiable to assert that I should have foreseen, during my entry, that my exit would be blocked.

I further bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances.

Lastly, The PCN is deficient in that it does not provide information about the location of the box junction other than stating it is in Cambridge Park which we can see from maps is a long road.

Therefore, I respectfully request that my representation be reconsidered, taking into account the points raised above and that the PCN be invalidated.


Many thanks in advance