DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10898--------------------------------------------------
Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: wolvoman
Date: November 22, 2023, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
<p>
Was driving home from the Theatre in Kingston. Stopped at
controlled lights with junction. Lights were green and traffic
ahead was moving so proceeded into box expecting traffic to
clear as it was moving. However as I entered the box I saw that
the box was much bigger than expected (you cannot see the exit
to the box clearly due to faded markings and poor weather and
dark conditions).
<p>
I could’ve have cleared the box however the car in front failed
to close the gap ahead (even with a friendly hoot of the horn).
<p>
Poor traffic controls on the subsequent lights mean that the
junction does not function correctly. Compounded by ongoing
roadworks further on backing all traffic up.
<p>
My argument would be that the box is too big as you can’t see
where it ends clearly as it ‘travels’ around to the right. This
is also impossible to see at night and in poor weather until you
are on it. Also traffic controls suggest that you can proceed –
the lights are well behind the box and you cannot see the exit
of the box from the controls.
<p>
Here is view in day:
HTML [url=http://"
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4134214,-0.3008654,3a,75y,118.55h,97.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOu9oPFUvvW7QRuMfTmJDsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu"]https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4134214,-0....i8192?entry=ttu[/url]
<p>
At night the poor markings are not clearly visible.
<p>
It also doesn’t help that I don’t live in Kingston and are
unfamiliar with the layout.
<p>
PCN pictures:
HTML https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/5043/Ufg6VN.jpg
HTML https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7013/whYPzE.jpg
HTML https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/3180/P1nQsU.jpg
HTML https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/4764/3dwZwD.jpg
HTML https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/18/IVwjkS.jpg
HTML https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/1940/AsIFdi.jpg
<p>
Video:
HTML [url=http://"
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1po3au5R5oj7qs0yxy1eMfa-XRqcDTeyY/view?usp=sharing"]https://drive.google.com/file/d/1po3au5R5oj...iew?usp=sharing[/url]
<p>
Thoughts on challenging this? All help appreciated.
<p>
I also got a bus lane ticket 9 minutes earlier which I will post
on here too. Closed roads and poor signage again.
<p>
Thanks
#Post#: 10945--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 22, 2023, 12:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The whole PCN please.
#Post#: 11058--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 23, 2023, 7:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Video does not show the car entering the box:
HTML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1OLUcEmSdE
Some pages of the PCN doesn't seem to be loading properly,
please re-post.
#Post#: 11084--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 24, 2023, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q70/922/whYPzE.jpg
@cp. May be worth trying the conflation argument and the TWOC
ground limiting to theft just to test their response? Plus the
video point.
For the benefit of the OP:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.
One of the issues that Mr Egenti raised was wither the Penalty
Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground
of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately
reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating
that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this
fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be
made. In his initial representations Mr Egenti specifically
raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have
taken the keys to the car without his consent.
In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30th March 2011 the local
authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission
the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the
charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it
may be that a local authority would not accept a representation
made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation
on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is
incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide
a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find
that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it
is therefore misleading.
The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an
enforcement authority to consider representations made and to
then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made.
In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has
failed to properly consider the representations because the
Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could
have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular
basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its
duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the
local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I
allow this appeal.
#Post#: 11192--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 25, 2023, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=992]wolvoman[/member] I will PM you a link to put in the
representation, it will redirect to here
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=19iEpXVLmlNGcipsJwCaaAU0rQu4jFtRH<br
/>but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the
click
count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously
do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to
remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove
they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in
the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've
got them for lying as well.
[indent]
Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,
Firstly I challenge liability because the video evidence does
not show my vehicle enter the box, so it does not actually show
any contravention, nor does it show the circumstances at the
point of entry.
Furthermore, a contravention of this type occurs at the point of
entry into the box: a vehicle is prohibited from entering the
box if it is later caused to stop, so the contravention occurs
at the point of entry and not later on when the vehicle stops.
The vehicle had already entered the box markings at 17:27:51.928
according to your video, so while a contravention might have
occurred at 17:27, a contravention did not occur at 17:28.
As the PCN alleges a contravention at 17:28, the contravention
alleged on the PCN did not occur.
I further bring a collateral challenge on the basis explained by
the adjudicator in the decision in Chidi Egenti v London Borough
of Islington which can be accessed at LINK and for the reasons
explained there, the PCN is invalid in any event.
In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
Send the representations online and keep a screenshot of the
confirmation page.
#Post#: 11193--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 25, 2023, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Re the Egenti case, I would prefer to make a representation
without mentioning the case, rather try to recreate what Mr
Egenti said. And I would throw in the conflation argument to
test their response.
#Post#: 11229--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 25, 2023, 12:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Re the Egenti case, I would prefer to make a representation
without mentioning the case
>
--- End Quote ---
You think they'll actually read it?
#Post#: 11245--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 25, 2023, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Re the TWOC ground I suggest this:
I do not believe that the PCN is enforceable 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.
A more appropriate wording would be to include "for example" so
that the absence of such a phrase clearly implies theft only as
a taken without consent ground.
Re conflation argument:
The PCN is also a nullity because of the conflation of the two
periods of payment and making representations. According to the
relevant legislation, there are two distinct periods in which
the recipient may either pay the penalty charge or make
representations. The following statement creates prejudice and
confusion: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make
representations before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased
charge of £195 may be payable." I interpret the use of "or" as a
conjunctive and so I do believe it to be a simple matter of
syntax in that the conditional phrase "if you fail to pay the
penalty charge notice or make representations...." clearly
refers to and governs grammatically both periods and I contend
that any other interpretation would fall under Wednesbury
unreasonableness. I refer to the Barnet case at the High
Court, which set a legal precedent, of course, in terms of the
statutory obligations placed upon an Authority in its production
of penalty charge notices, what they must contain in order to
justify their legal enforcement and, lastly, that prejudice does
not need to be proven i.e. R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator
(2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin): "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not
have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the
civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme
motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain
specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory
conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not
arise." The conflation of the two periods creates ambiguity,
confusion and could even be interpreted that a charge
certificate may be served even if representations have been
made. In light of the above I would be most grateful if the
Representation is given due consideration and the PCN cancelled
on this occasion.
#Post#: 11246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 25, 2023, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [member=992]wolvoman[/member] I will PM you a link to put in
the representation, it will redirect to here
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=19iEpXVLmlNGcipsJwCaaAU0rQu4jFtRH<br
/>but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the
click
count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously
do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to
remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove
they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in
the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've
got them for lying as well.
>
> [indent]
> Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,
>
> Firstly I challenge liability because the video evidence does
not show my vehicle enter the box, so it does not actually show
any contravention, nor does it show the circumstances at the
point of entry.
>
> Furthermore, a contravention of this type occurs at the point
of entry into the box: a vehicle is prohibited from entering the
box if it is later caused to stop, so the contravention occurs
at the point of entry and not later on when the vehicle stops.
The vehicle had already entered the box markings at 17:27:51.928
according to your video, so while a contravention might have
occurred at 17:27, a contravention did not occur at 17:28.
>
> As the PCN alleges a contravention at 17:28, the contravention
alleged on the PCN did not occur.
>
> I further bring a collateral challenge on the basis explained
by the adjudicator in the decision in Chidi Egenti v London
Borough of Islington which can be accessed at LINK and for the
reasons explained there, the PCN is invalid in any event.
>
> In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
>
> Yours faithfully,
> [/indent]
>
>
> Send the representations online and keep a screenshot of the
confirmation page.
>
--- End Quote ---
You could include this too for them to consider. The more the
merrier.
I do not believe that the PCN is enforceable 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.
A more appropriate wording would be to include "for example" so
that the absence of such a phrase clearly implies theft only as
a taken without consent ground.
The PCN is also a nullity because of the conflation of the two
periods of payment and making representations. According to the
relevant legislation, there are two distinct periods in which
the recipient may either pay the penalty charge or make
representations. The following statement creates prejudice and
confusion: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make
representations before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased
charge of £195 may be payable." I interpret the use of "or" as a
conjunctive and so I do believe it to be a simple matter of
syntax in that the conditional phrase "if you fail to pay the
penalty charge notice or make representations...." clearly
refers to and governs grammatically both periods and I contend
that any other interpretation would fall under Wednesbury
unreasonableness. I refer to the Barnet case at the High
Court, which set a legal precedent, of course, in terms of the
statutory obligations placed upon an Authority in its production
of penalty charge notices, what they must contain in order to
justify their legal enforcement and, lastly, that prejudice does
not need to be proven i.e. R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator
(2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin): "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not
have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the
civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme
motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain
specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory
conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not
arise." The conflation of the two periods creates ambiguity,
confusion and could even be interpreted that a charge
certificate may be served even if representations have been
made. In light of the above I would be most grateful if the
Representation is given due consideration and the PCN cancelled
on this occasion.
#Post#: 11295--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 26, 2023, 8:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] if you spell it out for them, it
reduces the chances of a failure to consider?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page