Show Posts
16
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
« on: December 09, 2024, 11:35:34 pm »
Thanks everyone.
It's annoying that because of the angle, fact that the camera moves and the low quality video it's hard to see the positions well. While I'm satisfied there's room there's always other peoples interpretations. I've uploaded a google maps view of the location.
I assume that the location to be concerned about is where exactly the car in front stops for the first time?
Is it worth mentioning the worn markings? I'll have to go down to see if they actually are worn or whether it's the camera quality.
Something like this: -
Dear Sirs
Ref: PCN: FR64089158
I make the following representations as to why the offence did not occur:
1. The hatched box markings are excessively worn, particularly on the exit.
2. The car did not stop in the box junction "due to the presence of stationary vehicles" as required for the offence, but to allow pedestrians to cross. Indeed, at the time that the car in front stops there is space for a car directly behind it and to the right (as occupied by the grey van at approximately the 24 second mark.)
Is there anything else worth mentioning or modifying?
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
It's annoying that because of the angle, fact that the camera moves and the low quality video it's hard to see the positions well. While I'm satisfied there's room there's always other peoples interpretations. I've uploaded a google maps view of the location.
I assume that the location to be concerned about is where exactly the car in front stops for the first time?
Is it worth mentioning the worn markings? I'll have to go down to see if they actually are worn or whether it's the camera quality.
Something like this: -
Dear Sirs
Ref: PCN: FR64089158
I make the following representations as to why the offence did not occur:
1. The hatched box markings are excessively worn, particularly on the exit.
2. The car did not stop in the box junction "due to the presence of stationary vehicles" as required for the offence, but to allow pedestrians to cross. Indeed, at the time that the car in front stops there is space for a car directly behind it and to the right (as occupied by the grey van at approximately the 24 second mark.)
Is there anything else worth mentioning or modifying?
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
