DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 11361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 27, 2023, 6:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. So how's this? I think it asks the questions and
does not provide any answers - I have curtailed both our ideas
as follows:
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 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 in such circumstances.
Finally, The PCN is also a nullity because of the conflation of
the two periods of payment and making 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."
In light of the above I request that my representations are
given due consideration and the PCN be cancelled.
#Post#: 11387--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 27, 2023, 12:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] I'll contact you elsewhere, but
personally I'd stick to what I drafted.
#Post#: 11408--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 27, 2023, 2:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
@ cp: My point as left for you via whats app re the Egenti case
is to omit it because it gives them the answers. As, indeed my
pre-modified post re conflation did. 8) And so I took on board
your views and modified it.
If you give them a case, they will simply reply one case is not
binding upon another, which is their right to say as it is
correct. Rather, if you simply give them the arguments, then
they must consider.
We both know that these technical arguments cut to the core of
the wording of the PCNs. So, let them properly consider - all
three of their officers!
We know that the P.O.M. is not up to the job.
#Post#: 11442--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: wolvoman
Date: November 28, 2023, 3:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you. Will make representation based on the above and let
you know how it goes.
#Post#: 11468--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 28, 2023, 1:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: wolvoman link ---
>
> Thank you. Will make representation based on the above and let
you know how it goes.
>
--- End Quote ---
Which above?
#Post#: 11535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 29, 2023, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I further bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN
is unenforceable 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 in such circumstances.
#Post#: 16358--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 27, 2024, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This should be rather straightforward.
#Post#: 16362--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: taffer87
Date: February 27, 2024, 5:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> I further bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the
PCN is unenforceable 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 in such circumstances.
>
--- End Quote ---
are there any tribunal cases on this as would be useful
#Post#: 16368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 27, 2024, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Egenti v Islington but they messed up in their NOR. Tis above.
There may be another one forthcoming soon........
#Post#: 16397--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Borough Council – 31J Stopping in a box junction
(Richmond Road junction with Sopwith Way)
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: February 27, 2024, 10:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Manju Lukhman v London Borough of Redbridge Case No. 2230099245
I have however recorded the appeal as allowed on the basis of
insufficient
evidence. The clip shows the appellant stopped within the box
but it does
not show the appellant car at the point of entry and actually
entering it. It is
important in the correct assessment of an appeal of this nature
that the
adjudicator can assess what traffic flow and conditions are
present at the
actual time the car enters the box and in this case the shortage
of the clip
prevents this.
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Royal Borough of Greenwich
2230539604
In this case the CCTV footage that I have been provided with,
and
uploaded onto the Tribunal computer system by the Authority,
commences with the Appellant's vehicle already in the box
junction at
08:14:26.
It is crucial in determining any box junction contravention that
the
Adjudicator is able to see the actual entry of a motorist's
vehicle into the
box junction and the state of the exit.
Without such evidence a proper and fair determination is not
possible.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
********
Courtesy of cp's brilliant repository.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page