DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 73968--------------------------------------------------
Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: Nitewalker38
Date: May 30, 2025, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I have received a PCN from Royal Borough of Kingston Upon
Thames for 31J: Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited (camera enforcement). I would like to add today 30th
May is the first letter received however they claim one was
originally issued on the 24th April to which i haven't responded
but can categorically state this was never received so am unsure
where i stand regarding that.
I shall admit that yes I did stop in the box, for less than 6
seconds to let a motorcyclist out the side street and was not
stopping the flow of traffic or anything as could have easily
proceeded without letting this individual out.
Any advice as to how to proceed challenging this?
Details are linked below.
Photos:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/65trczZ
Video:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/IfVnES1
Google map location: 51.40070328023877, -0.2653368759639359
Obviously I am sore about this mainly because I think the box is
massive. I also think the council should get better cameras
(can't see reg on video but yes there is a photo with
sensitivity turned to max ...) but don't tell them.
I would appreciate if someone can advise if this is worth
pursuing. Many thanks in advance.
#Post#: 73972--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 30, 2025, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not a contravention as you didn't have to stop in the box
owing to stationary vehicles.
Kingston has form in issuing ridiculous yellow box PCNs and if
they insist on taking you to the tribunal you have a good shout
for costs, as the cases below show.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hxX3BC9R/w3-D7l-Of-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif
--------------
Case reference 2240526422
Appellant xxxxxxxx
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM KK03 RJK
PCN Details
PCN QT09944524
Contravention date 12 Oct 2024
Contravention time 13:12:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Although the vehicle is seen to be briefly stationary
within the box junction this of itself is not a contravention.
The Council is required to prove that the vehicle had to stop in
the junction as a result of the presence of a stationary
vehicle. Neither criterion is met in the present case. The
vehicle did not have to stop but clearly chose to do so in order
to give priority to the - moving – vehicles coming from the
right. The Appellant had right of way and could have continued.
The vehicle was clearly not in contravention and the PCN should
never have been issued.
-------------
Case reference 225014083A
Appellant xxxxxxxx
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM GJ70JRU
PCN Details
PCN QT10349776
Contravention date 28 Jan 2025
Contravention time 08:15:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 May 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons I heard this appeal by video link.
The vehicle certainly comes to a halt within the box junction.
However this of itself is not a contravention. Under the terms
of the regulations (Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2016 Schedule 9 Part 7 Para 11) the Council is
required to prove that the vehicle had to stop in the junction
as a result of the presence of stationary vehicles. In this case
the Appellant self-evidently did not have to stop. He had right
of way, but chose to stop out of courtesy to let the vehicles
turning right pass ahead of him. In addition, these were of
course moving vehicles not stationary vehicles.
The PCN should never have been issued, and the Council shows a
regrettable lack of understanding of the law. If similar cases
occur in future the question of costs may fall to be considered.
#Post#: 73979--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 30, 2025, 4:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You should definitely take them to London Tribunals as suggested
by sfm. The council are behaving disgracefully, (par the course
with this council !). The description "immoral charlatans" comes
to mind.
#Post#: 73988--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 30, 2025, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Various issues. This is extrapolation of he urine. Vague locus
and Mr Harman has said the box is too big. I know it well, just
south of Kendalls. Will draft something tomorrow. Today even.
#Post#: 74106--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 31, 2025, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Dear RBK
1. There was no contravention as per the law.
2. The locus is vague as there are several junctions.
3. The box is too big as already ruled by one adjudicator whose
decision you have not appealed.
Considering the above, please cancel. Should you not agree to do
so, I am prepared to take the matter to the Tribunal and, if
successful, make a claim for costs in addition.
***
I achieved costs against them for a different in Nina Sabbagh v
Kingston. Case reference 2230339804. This was one where I also
complained to the council and their response dug themselves an
even bigger hole.
*****
ETA Register of Appeals
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph
21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007, as applicable
Case Details
Case reference 2230339804
Appellant Nina Sabbagh
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM PJ11 HZZ
Decision Cost award allowed
PCN Details
PCN QT07663375
Contravention date 23 May 2023
Contravention time 08:27:00
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 15 Aug 2023
Adjudicator By Order of the Chief Adjudicator
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction EA to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice
Reasons The Enforcement Authority has informed me that they will
not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s)
mentioned above.
The Chief Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without
considering your evidence or any details of the case. You are
not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any
amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement
Authority.
Authority Response
Cost Details
Application by Appellant
Decision date 25 Sep 2023
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Decision Cost award allowed
Direction -
Reasons
The Appellant has attended for her costs application and is
represented by Mr P Morgan.
Under the Regulations it is provided that an Adjudicator shall
not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses but may,
subject to hearing representations from a party, make such an
order against the other party if he is of the opinion that the
party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that their conduct
in making and pursuing this appeal was wholly unreasonable.
The Regulations restricts any award to "the costs and expenses
incurred by that other party in connection with the
proceedings". "The proceedings" commence at the point when a
Notice of Rejection has been served and the recipient of the
Notice submits a Notice of Appeal. It does not include
compensation for loss of wages or injury to feeling or
embarrassment.
I have considered the evidence in this case as produced by the
Appellant, her written and oral submissions and the response to
the costs application, which is contained in a letter dated 20
September 2023 from the Authority's Service Director.
The contravention allegedly occurred on 23 May 2023, the
Appellant made informal representations which were rejected on 8
June 2023. The Appellant decided to appeal and this allowed the
Authority another opportunity to review the issuing of the PCN
and the second officer took an opposing view to that of the
initial reviewer
I have decided, on a balance of probabilities, to accept the
Appellant's claim, and I find that the conduct of the Authority
has been wholly unreasonable.
The reason for this is that whilst the second officer who took
the opposing view of the Appellant's case was correct, I find
that the initial officer's view that her vehicle '...had slowed
down in order to allow others to enter the road as opposed to
those vehicles entering the road & stopping you from
proceeding.' should have resulted in the PCN being cancelled at
the first stage. I find it wholly unreasonable that this case
had to proceed to a second stage and the Appellant required to
take time to prepare for an appeal before the Tribunal.
Quite simply if the Appellant's vehicle '...had slowed down in
order to allow others to enter the road..' that would mean that
the Appellant's vehicle would not have been stopped due to the
presence of stationary vehicles.
The Regulations cited do not contain any provisions as to the
rate to be awarded when an order for costs is made. However,
Adjudicators take as their guidance the Civil Procedure Rules as
applied to Small Claims in the County Court. These allow for an
award of £19.00 per hour for a litigant in person (i.e. one not
represented by a lawyer) in respect of preparation for and
attendance at any hearing, together with reasonable expenses
actually incurred. I therefore apply that rate to the
Appellant's claim.
The Appellant has requested costs in the sum of £57.00 for 3
hours preparation, which I do find unreasonable in the
circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, I direct the Authority to pay to the Appellant the
above sum of £57.00, forthwith.
#Post#: 74119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 1, 2025, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> It's not a contravention as you didn't have to stop in the box
owing to stationary vehicles.
>
> Kingston has form in issuing ridiculous yellow box PCNs and if
they insist on taking you to the tribunal you have a good shout
for costs, as the cases below show.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
RBK would do better if they sent that video to the Police re the
motorcyclist who overtook you. I cannot stand these idiots and
have successfully got the council (via threats re a JR and
Health and Safety) to change the camera position in Eden Street
contraflow bus lane to now capture their VRMs too!
#Post#: 74120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 1, 2025, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> You should definitely take them to London Tribunals as
suggested by sfm. The council are behaving disgracefully, (par
the course with this council !). The description "immoral
charlatans" comes to mind.
>
--- End Quote ---
+1. Please don't get me started on their parking manager(s)! I
called publicly for the previous one's resignation. She moved to
Croydon.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/tommy-poirot-to-expose-all-london-councils'-bus-lane-enforcement/msg3970/#msg3970
@mrmustard Please can you remind us of the said case re the size
of box?
#Post#: 74122--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: June 1, 2025, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With respect to fellow posters, the OP's account is unclear and
potentially worrying.
We have not seen the PCN.
Hi, I have received a PCN from Royal Borough of Kingston Upon
Thames for 31J: Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited (camera enforcement). I would like to add today 30th
May is the first letter received however they claim one was
originally issued on the 24th April to which i haven't
responded.
So, OP post what you have received. The only procedural notice
which fits your description is a Charge Certificate which means
that at present you do NOT have any route to make
representations or appeal. We need to get you back on track.
So, post what you have received and confirm that it's addressed
to you.
#Post#: 74279--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: Nitewalker38
Date: June 2, 2025, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
You are right what i have received is a charge certificate.
As mentioned in my first post they claim they sent a letter to
me on the 24th April however this was never received, they are
unable to provide any proof it was delivered but stated on the
phone "that's not their issue they have proof it was posted".
If i go on the website it gives me an option to appeal the PCN
still but not sure whether this is too late or not.
Any advice appreciated.
#Post#: 74286--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston Upon Thames - 31J - Kingston road
DIR By: Nitewalker38
Date: June 2, 2025, 5:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have just spoken with David at RBK. He advises this PCN is
part of a batch that have an error and not to do anything until
i hear from the appeals team regarding this despite the fact i
have received a charge certificate.
This all makes me quite nervous as i can see this just ending up
at county court judgement level as outlines in the the charge
certificate notice.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 5
DIR Next Page