Show Posts - Demio323

Quote from: andy_foster on 16 Mar, 2026 11:56How that was not immediately obvious to anyone at first glance would be a mystery to Sir Jacob's nanny.Hard to argue. I refer the Honourable Gentleman to my previous point!

Hi Andy, thanks for your response.Quote from: andy_foster on 16 Mar, 2026 03:21It seems pretty clear that the "the vehicle" mentioned in sub-para (5) is a vehicle being used for one of the purposes in sub-para (6). In your example, it is the ambulance that can jump the red light as long as it does it carefully, not the car that is blocking its path.Now that you've pointed this out, it does seem obvious upon re-reading. My mistake for perusing at 1 in the morning  Thanks for the clarification.

Common wisdom seems to have it (not necessarily from users of this forum) that when driving, if an emergency vehicle with lights blaring is behind you and you cross a red-light stop line in order to make way for them, you automatically commit a red light offence and legally have no recourse if you receive a PCN as a result.Just wondering if someone can clarify whether this is actually the case?I was having a look through Schedule 14 of TSRGD 2016, and my understanding of it is that paragraphs 5(3) through 5(6) state that if not proceeding beyond the stop line is "likely to hinder the use of" an emergency vehicle, then the prohibition is qualified:Quote(5) The prohibition conveyed [by a red signal] is that the vehicle must not proceed beyond the stop line in such a manner or at such a time as to be likely to endanger any person or to cause the driver of another vehicle to change its speed or course in order to avoid an accident.In other words, as long as you don't endanger other road users or cause them to change speed/direction, you can proceed past the stop line in these circumstances if necessary. Am I missing something here?Thanks in advance for your time.

Thanks Andy.You do wonder how a self-proclaimed "motoring defence solicitor" can get a detail like that wrong, but oh well.

We've probably all seen those YouTube or Instagram videos by people giving "tips" on how to get out of speeding tickets. I randomly came across this video by MAJ Law (a law firm based in Cheshire apparently) titled "How to WIN a Speeding Case" and wanted to double-check a point they made:Video link removed by modIn short, the person talks about the 14-day time limit for receiving the initial NIP and goes on to say:"It's for the police to prove this case against you and that may also require them to produce evidence to prove that it was sent within 14 days".My understanding is that Section 1(3) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 makes it clear that the burden of proof in this instance would be on the defendant, not the police. Am I correct therefore in saying that the video creator is entirely wrong in what they say?

Quote from: NewJudge on 20 Nov, 2024 22:08There is no definitive answer to your question.Arguments relating only to the driver often succeed; those relating to the driver and/or others often fail. This is because every case turns on its merits and no two cases are likely to be identical. There is an added complication in that an EH argument could be made to one Bench and be successful and the identical argument could be put to a different Bench and fail.As a result, there are no lists of things that might succeed or will probably fail. It is true that, anecdotally, hardship visited on innocent parties seems likely to be met with more sympathy than that which only the driver will have to endure. But it is only one aspect of quite a complex balancing exercise which magistrates undertake when hearing EH arguments.A few years ago it was felt by those whose job it is to worry about such things, that too many EH arguments were succeeding. The stock advice down the pub was "Just tell 'em you'll lose your job - they won't ban you." And that wasn't too far from the truth. So the latest guidance was published to remind magistrates that the word "exceptional" went along with the "hardship".This is the crux of it - I had (evidently wrongly) reached the conclusion that nowadays an EH plea would be very unlikely to succeed unless hardship to others could be demonstrated. Sounds like that's not necessarily the case.That's why I asked the question initially: because I thought it was such a rare occurrence (EH with no hardship to others), I was interested in reading what the circumstances could possibly be that would lead a judge to accept the plea. Seems like a strange request now given that it's apparently not as rare I thought. Thanks for the info NJ.

Quote from: Southpaw82 on 19 Nov, 2024 22:14Quote from: Demio323 on 19 Nov, 2024 21:55Quote from: andy_foster on 19 Nov, 2024 21:48 I keep reading about how courts tend to look unfavourably on "exceptional hardship" only applying to the driver.Where have you read that?Sorry, poorly worded. I've read that EH caused to third parties (family members etc) carries more weight in an appeal than EH endured exclusively by the driver (potential loss of employment etc) given that the latter is, for many people, a natural consequence of a driving ban and forms part of the deterrent effect. So "less favourably" is perhaps more accurate.

Gosh, just realised I forgot to update this thread. My apologies.I sent an "appeal" that was essentially a request for clemency, and they luckily ended up cancelling the ticket. For the record, appeal and reply below:QuoteI received this PCN for parking on a single yellow line during restricted hours. It may not be clear from the photos, but the vehicle was parked in a diagonal bay for resident parking. The vehicle involved did (and does) have a permit for the zone in question. I wish to state for the record that I accept that a part of the vehicle (the right-hand tyre and part of the engine bay) was encroaching over the single yellow line. This is a result of my having parked the car slightly askew in order to leave space between it and the adjacent car (the back of the car was well within the dotted lines demarcating the parking bay area). Here is a Google Street View link to the approximate location the car was parked: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ViosBw4htabh2frU7 My car was positioned similarly to the dark blue Citroen but slightly closer to the bin. The bin is placed closer to the road than to the kerb. I would argue that the car's position, while technically partly positioned on a yellow line, caused negligible obstruction with respect to the yellow line's purpose (to keep the area in question clear for the placing of communal recycling bins). In light of the above, I am respectfully asking whether you would reconsider the issuing of this ticket. Best regards, Demio323And their reply:QuoteThank you for your correspondence received on 04/11/2023.We have cancelled the parking ticket.This parking ticket was issued because the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line.Parking is not allowed on single yellow lines during restricted hours. The Parking Attendantobserved the vehicle for five minutes and the driver did not return during this time.Even if only part of the vehicle is parked on a single yellow line a ticket can be issued. We havecancelled the ticket as a courtesy on this occasion but please note that future tickets issuedunder similar circumstances may not get cancelled.

Quote from: andy_foster on 19 Nov, 2024 21:48We apply the law to the facts and advise accordingly.We do not provide a shopping list of purported "facts" for people to adopt.Understood. To be clear, I was just asking out of curiosity if there are any known (i.e. published) cases of this having been done in the past given that I keep reading about how courts tend to look unfavourably on "exceptional hardship" only applying to the driver. Not asking for a hypothetical "tell me what defences could potentially be used" which I understand you're keen to discourage.

Just want to say that I enjoy reading through the threads and seeing the advice given by members on here; keep up the good work!I've seen it written multiple times that with regard to totting up bans, EH pleas carry more weight if it can be demonstrated that hardship would fall upon people other than the driver, given that hardship to the driver is to be expected and forms part of the deterrent etc.It got me thinking: does anyone know of any case where the defendant has successfully argued EH that only applied to themselves without any real hardship being caused to other parties?(I'm not seeking advice on any real-life situation that applies to me, hence why I posted here rather than in the criminal offences thread. Hope this is the right place).

Quote from: Incandescent on 25 Oct, 2023 09:13Please post a GSB link to the location, telling us exactly where you parked.Do you mean the Google Street View? The link I posted above (https://maps.app.goo.gl/z4t38kY7ZkHMwu3R6) is the location in question (I've put in a new link above to make the location slightly more accurate). Maps location here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/UVwn1iPzyRkz6zaR6

I am staying at a friend's house in the centre of Edinburgh and have use of his car. The car has a residents' permit for the surrounding zone.On the street in question, there is a long residents' parking bay designed for cars to park diagonally rather than parallel to the kerb. Parking spaces can be difficult to find, so I squeezed into a spot at the end of the bay in question. As can be seen from the pictures, the front of the car ended up slightly outside the dotted line, encroaching into a single yellow line area. The yellow line area in question is a "keep clear" area as that's where the communal bins are placed.Pictures here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UudCpmhXuUsqCuEOQZ2O81V7TQCdRCFI?usp=share_linkTo clarify, the back end of the car was very much within the dotted line, but the car's position was askew such that the front of it was outside the lines as seen.The GSV location for where the car was parked was approximately here, just to the left of the black bin and roughly where the Vauxhall is (although obviously slightly more to the right): https://maps.app.goo.gl/z4t38kY7ZkHMwu3R6And a photo of the PCN: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-FU7hg-PImC2RP9sm6BFbNhjSTRsuEAa/view?usp=share_linkIt's an annoying one because the encroachment would appear to be of zero practical consequence given the position of the bins. In hindsight, my mistake was that I could have probably parked the front of the car closer to the car to the left (not seen in the photo), but this would have left very little space between them so I decided to leave a gap (assuming that nothing would come of it).I realise that there are generally very limited grounds for appealing PCNs. Is it even worth pursuing the "no offence was committed" route and try to argue that the encroachment was so minimal as to not warrant punishment? Or just swallow the fine?Many thanks.