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.
Show Posts
