Free Traffic Legal Advice

No do not pay. Let's see the NOR and your formal reps. please.

Second, and more importantly the vehicle is still moving out of the box junction when the CCTV footage stops. The Adjudicator must see the entire driving of the vehicle in and out of the box junction. I find this to be a serious omission.

It could also be argued that the exit was clear (i.e. no offence) when the car entered the box junction. It could easily have slotted in the left hand side of the lane, partially alongside the black vehicle. (Why don't people take the obvious "escape routes" rather than stopping in the box junction?)

I made this argument to the TPT with regards to a fail to concider It won the day as the adjudicator did not find on the other arguments


Extract from the appeal decision by the adjudicator

3. When Mr Yousef made both informal and formal representations to the council in respect of the PCN he referred to the grounds of appeal as detailed above but in rejecting those challenges the council did not address the limb of his appeal that was concerned with the method of payment using a premium rate telephone number. It was therefore Mr Allen’s submission that in failing to respond to this ground of appeal there had been a procedural impropriety on the part of the council, a further ground of appeal and that the PCN should not then be enforced. Mr Allen provided case law in support of his submission, specifically The King (On the application of Halton Borough Council) and Road User Charging Adjudicators and Damian Curzon [2023] EWHC 303 Admin, provided at evidence tab 23 and it was his view I should determine the appeal without adjourning to enable the council to respond to his submissions in these respects.
4. In considering Mr Allen’s submissions it was my view that the council should have a further opportunity to address the issues relating to the use of a premium phone line to pay the PCN and the issue of procedural impropriety and I adjourned the hearing to enable the council to respond by January 8th 2024. To date the council has not responded and so I have considered the appeal on the basis of the evidence that is available to me.
5. In The King (On the application of Halton Borough Council) and Road User Charging Adjudicators and Damian Curzon [2023] Mr Justice Fordham considered the extent to which there had been procedural impropriety on the part of the council and or their agents in the consideration of representations made to them following the issue of PCNs and he said, “The "procedural impropriety" enquiry is straightforward and clear-cut. It would ask: has there been consideration at all?” and whilst the council did deal with the other limbs of Mr Yousef’s appeal, I cannot find there has been any consideration of the submissions in respect of the premium phone line and for this reason alone I would find there has been a procedural impropriety and I would allow the appeal.

We need to know what is in the panel below the Flying Motorbike sign. It is above the camera sign. So don't cough up just yet.