DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 83122--------------------------------------------------
3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: July 28, 2025, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there, I wonder if anyone can shed some light on this?
I was filmed by a traffic camera turning into a road at this
yellow box junction on Friday 18 July at about 20:56. I was just
following normal traffic into the turn like any other driver,
not being able to see if the turn to the right would be blocked.
I understand that cars are allowed to enter a yellow box
junction when turning right, but if you enter the box and are
then blocked by oncoming traffic or other vehicles waiting to
turn right, you may not be fined, as this is an exception to the
rule.
As I say, I was generally following the flow of traffic, and
would not have known I was blocked until later, but have now
recieved a PCN wqith a notice date of 24 07 2025.
You can see the video here - the second to last White Hatchback
car in the video at 00:10:
HTML https://youtu.be/fKlT1EgazJE
So I wonder if I have a case to make?
I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, whether there have been
any past precedents, and - do check - but I believe I must make
representations to the council by Wed 6 August.
Thanks so much
HTML https://i.ibb.co/9Hz78NPj/HFB307-Redacted.jpg
#Post#: 83241--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 29, 2025, 2:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN
as it does not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v)
of
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not
valid as it is missing mandatory information.
Furthermore, the PCN limits to one ground whereas the
legislation states "one or other grounds". In fact, your
statements in this regard are also contradictory and are
followed by a further conflationary statement which is
meaningless in light of the missing information. I refer to :"If
you fail etc. "
#Post#: 83381--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: July 29, 2025, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi [member=24]Hippocrates[/member].
Thanks for this advice. - I've looked at the PCN and the
legislation you're referencing.
Ground 1:
While I understand your thinking on Ground 1, the mandatory
information from section 4(8)(v) about increased charges is
actually included in the notice. On page 1, it clearly states
"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations
before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of
service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be
payable." The council has included the required warning about
the £240 increased penalty - it's just worded slightly
differently than the statute. So unfortunately, i'm not sure
this ground will succeed because the mandatory information is
present, even though the wording isn't identical to the
legislation.
Ground 2 would definitely have a case. I could draft something
like:
Ground 2 Rep:
The Penalty Charge Notice is invalid as it fails to comply with
the statutory requirement under the LLAT(FL)A 2003 s.4(8)(b),
to specify the form in which representations are to be made.
The notice contains contradictory and prejudicial instructions,
stating first that "one or more" grounds may apply, yet
immediately after, directing the recipient to "Please tick one
of the set grounds listed below". if the legislation does not
require choosing only one ground for representations, then
artificially limiting this could be considered a procedural
defect.
This ambiguity is fatal to the validity of the notice. The PCN
is therefore unenforceable. Accordingly, the penalty charge must
be cancelled.
Just wanted your thoughts on whether this is ok, whether I'm
missing something with Ground 1, and if there are any other
substantive (over procedural) errors anyone else has spotted
with this PCN/Incident that could bolster my argument.
Thanks in advance.
#Post#: 83385--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 29, 2025, 4:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Tomorrow much later. Going to the beach to catch shingles. 8)
#Post#: 83564--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: July 31, 2025, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi @Hippocratews, [member=26]b789[/member],
[member=103]DWMB2[/member], [member=428]H C Andersen[/member] et
all ...
Just wondered what your thoughts were. Do you see any other
anomally with this PCN ?
#Post#: 83569--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 31, 2025, 8:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I stand by my draft as abpve.
#Post#: 83702--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: Chaseman
Date: August 1, 2025, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP it's rather an arcane point but there is a technical flaw in
the wording on the PCN i.e.
"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations
before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of
service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be
payable."
What LLATL 2003 4(8)(v) specifies is that there should be a
warning that an increased charge may apply if the PCN has not
been paid [or appealed] within 28 days from the date of the PCN,
not the date that it was served. Due to a quirk in the wording,
the LA can't send out a Charge Certificate until 28 days after
the deemed date of service of the PCN but nonetheless the added
penalty that the LA can apply comes into force 28 days after the
date of the PCN itself.
Hippocrates will tell me if I have got this right but that is
what I think he is getting at when he says he stands by his
original draft. And yes, you have picked up that the wording
isn't identical to the legislation and that is where the problem
[for the LA] lies. Look up case 2250161512 on the London
Tribunal register of cases.
#Post#: 83716--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: August 1, 2025, 10:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks [member=65]Chaseman[/member] ... and Hippocrates
(apologies for the name typo - i hope you did not catch
shingles.)
I get it .. but my head hurts lol! But here goes. Shoot me if
i'm wrong:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am making a formal representation to challenge the validity of
the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that it is
procedurally improper and legally non-compliant. I make this
collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it does
not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not
valid as it is missing mandatory information. The PCN
incorrectly warns that an increased charge may be payable 28
days from the "date of service" ("If you fail...etc). The
governing legislation, (LLATL 2003 4(8)(iii)), stipulates this
period runs from the "date of the notice". This is a failure to
include mandatory information and as such, this misstatement of
the legal position is prejudicial.
Furthermore, The PCN is invalid as it fails to comply with the
statutory requirement under the LLAT(FL)A 2003 s.4(b), to
specify the form in which representations are to be made.The
notice contains contradictory and prejudicial instructions,
stating first that "one or more" grounds may apply, yet
immediately after, directing the recipient to "Please tick one
of the set grounds listed below". If the legislation does not
require choosing only one ground for representations, then
artificially limiting this is a procedural defect, as ambiguous
instructions prevent proper compliance with statutory rights.
Given the significant procedural improprieties detailed above,
These ambiguities are fatal to the validity of the notice; the
PCN is therefore unenforceable.
Accordingly, the penalty charge must be cancelled.
-----
Do let me know what you think of my representation and feel free
to make any amendments.
Thanks...
#Post#: 83744--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 1, 2025, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: LemonTootski link ---
>
> Thanks [member=65]Chaseman[/member] ... and Hippocrates
(apologies for the name typo - i hope you did not catch
shingles.)
>
> I get it .. but my head hurts lol! But here goes. Shoot me if
i'm wrong:
>
> Dear Sir or Madam,
>
> I am making a formal representation to challenge the validity
of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that it
is procedurally improper and legally non-compliant. I make this
collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it does
not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
> which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not
valid as it is missing mandatory information. The PCN
incorrectly warns that an increased charge may be payable 28
days from the "date of service" ("If you fail...etc). The
governing legislation, (LLATL 2003 4(8)(iii)), stipulates this
period runs from the "date of the notice". This is a failure to
include mandatory information and as such, this misstatement of
the legal position is prejudicial.
>
> Furthermore, The PCN is invalid as it fails to comply with the
statutory requirement under the LLAT(FL)A 2003 s.4(b), to
specify the form in which representations are to be made.The
notice contains contradictory and prejudicial instructions,
stating first that "one or more" grounds may apply, yet
immediately after, directing the recipient to "Please tick one
of the set grounds listed below". If the legislation does not
require choosing only one ground for representations, then
artificially limiting this is a procedural defect, as ambiguous
instructions prevent proper compliance with statutory rights.
>
> Given the significant procedural improprietie[/s[s]]s
collateral issues as detailed above, these ambiguities are
fatal to the validity of the notice; the PCN is therefore
unenforceable.
>
> Accordingly, the penalty charge must be cancelled.
>
>
> -----
>
> Do let me know what you think of my representation and feel
free to make any amendments.
>
> Thanks...
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 83749--------------------------------------------------
Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box
Junction when prohibited
DIR By: LemonTootski
Date: August 1, 2025, 3:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all. Will put in the rep to the LA tomorrow and keep you
posted with the outcome ...
(that smiley though - (LLATL 2003 4(8)(iii)))
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page