DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 36069--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: MrChips
Date: September 8, 2024, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Proposed draft representations for Redbridge. You've still got
another week before the discount expires so no need to rush.
Give others a chance to chip in. Credit to cp8759 for the
wording on vague location, nicked from another Ilford Lane case.
Dear London Borough of Redbridge,
I challenge liability on the ground that the penalty charge
notice ('PCN') does not adequately particularise the alleged
wrongdoing. The location of the alleged contravention is given
as "Ilford Lane", the name of the road junction is not given. I
have looked online and I can see that Ilford Lane is over a mile
long and has some 35 junctions, but I cannot find any box
junction markings so it seems the box markings have been painted
since the Google Street View car last drove down this road.
As the notice does not allow me to understand where it is that
the contravention is alleged to have taken place, the notice
does not adequately specify the grounds on which you believe the
penalty is payable, I refer you to the decision of adjudicator
Carl Teper in Saijal Patel v London Borough of Brent
(2160240742, 8 August 2016) and adjudicator Andrew Harman in
Sandra Grauzyte v London Borough of Redbridge (2230201115, 31
May 2023).
Notwithstanding the issue with the vagueness of the location in
the PCN, the video footage shows that no contravention has taken
place in any case. Under the relevant regulations a
contravention only takes place if a person causes a vehicle to
enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within
the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The
footage shows a large space beyond the box junction which would
be sufficient to accommodate my vehicle. As such my vehicle was
not forced to stop where it did by stationary vehicles and it
follows that no contravention took place.
It follows that the notice must be cancelled.
I'd further point out that if the PCN did include sufficient
information to identify the actual junction involved I would be
able to undertake a precise distance analysis of the space
involved as compared with the length of my car to further back
up the fact no contravention took place. Alas this is not
feasible given the dozens of potential junctions in scope along
Ilford Lane.
#Post#: 36079--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 8, 2024, 7:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well I'd start with a simple challenge that the contravention
didn't occur. Surely that's best.
Secondary would be vague location.
I wouldn't get into measuring cars - it's obvious that the
driver stopped when the exit was way clear.
#Post#: 36374--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: MrChips
Date: September 10, 2024, 1:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK - here's a redraft on that basis. I disagree that it's
'clear' there was sufficient space, by my reckoning there's only
about 30cm in it, but agree it's clear that the footage doesn't
adequately prove the council's case (i.e. show a forced stop on
balance of probabilities).
Dear London Borough of Redbridge,
Re PCN XXXXXXXX
I challenge liability for this PCN on the grounds that the
contravention did not occur.
Having had the opportunity to view the video footage I can see
it shows that no contravention has taken place. Under the
relevant regulations a contravention only takes place if a
person causes a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the
vehicle has [my emphasis] to stop within the box junction due to
the presence of stationary vehicles. The footage shows a large
space beyond the box junction which would be sufficient to
accommodate my vehicle. As such my vehicle was not forced to
stop where it did due to stationary vehicles and it follows that
no contravention took place.
I would further add that that the penalty charge notice ('PCN')
does not adequately particularise the alleged wrongdoing. The
location of the alleged contravention is given as "Ilford Lane",
but the name of the road junction is not given. I have looked
online and I can see that Ilford Lane is over a mile long and
has some 35 junctions, but I cannot find any box junction
markings so it seems the box markings have been painted since
the Google Street View car last drove down this road. Living
many hundreds of miles away, near Blackburn, I have no
reasonable opportunity to return to the location to seek out the
junction.
As the notice does not allow me to understand where it is that
the contravention is alleged to have taken place, the notice
does not adequately specify the grounds on which you believe the
penalty is payable, I refer you to the decision of adjudicator
Carl Teper in Saijal Patel v London Borough of Brent
(2160240742, 8 August 2016) and adjudicator Andrew Harman in
Sandra Grauzyte v London Borough of Redbridge (2230201115, 31
May 2023).
For these reasons, it follows that the notice must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 36390--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 10, 2024, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think that's better but maybe could add something about the
stop - 'From the video I think I may have stopped to give way to
other drivers but this does not constitute a contravention.'
#Post#: 36399--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: Sam6688
Date: September 10, 2024, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
>
> Re PCN XXXXXXXX
>
> I For these reasons, it follows that the notice must be
cancelled.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks to Mr Chips and Mr Stamford man for your valuable advice.
I has submitted the representation as have been suggested by
[member=43]MrChips[/member]. So will wait and update here once
redbridge council replay.
Thank you.
#Post#: 37497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: Sam6688
Date: September 19, 2024, 6:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=MrChips link=topic=3025.msg36374#msg36374
date=1725991277]
OK - here's a redraft on that basis. I disagree that
Hi guys just an update I have received the letter from Rddbridge
Council as they rejected my representation please see the links
for letter and and notice of appeal aswell. Can you please have
a look and let me know what are the chances now. Thanks in
Advance
@MrChips
@Stamfordman
HTML https://ibb.co/chk8k6x
HTML https://ibb.co/S3hSJyW
HTML https://ibb.co/vHcDqZ8
HTML https://ibb.co/NTCFzcz
HTML https://ibb.co/RQLnxkY
HTML https://ibb.co/sRdjtd3
HTML https://ibb.co/cXm5jB0
#Post#: 37506--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 19, 2024, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No access.
Put the images of the rejection on say Imgur or IBB.co and post
the BBCode share links.
#Post#: 37507--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 19, 2024, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Clearly there was no contravention.
OP: did you screenshot the challenge page as there is a wording
issue with it?
#Post#: 37510--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: Sam6688
Date: September 19, 2024, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> No access.
> Put the images of the rejection on say Imgur or IBB.co and
post the BBCode share links.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hi Sorry I don't what is the issue why you guys can't see the
images.
Here is links for IBB images
HTML https://ibb.co/chk8k6x
HTML https://ibb.co/S3hSJyW
HTML https://ibb.co/vHcDqZ8
HTML https://ibb.co/NTCFzcz
HTML https://ibb.co/RQLnxkY
HTML https://ibb.co/sRdjtd3
HTML https://ibb.co/cXm5jB0
#Post#: 37511--------------------------------------------------
Re: Ilford lane redbridge Yellow box junction PCN
DIR By: Sam6688
Date: September 19, 2024, 7:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Clearly there was no contravention.
>
> OP: did you screenshot the challenge page as there is a
wording issue with it?
>
--- End Quote ---
I did and pictures was attached at original post please find the
links with letters regarding PCN and also the rejection letter
for my representation thanks
HTML https://ibb.co/chk8k6x
HTML https://ibb.co/S3hSJyW
HTML https://ibb.co/vHcDqZ8
HTML https://ibb.co/NTCFzcz
HTML https://ibb.co/RQLnxkY
HTML https://ibb.co/sRdjtd3
HTML https://ibb.co/cXm5jB0
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page