DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 88311--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: Rogersmith1977 Date: September 3, 2025, 6:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hippocrates,
I’m not defending our council but I can’t ignore some irony here
which is laughable to be honest.
It is clear and can easily be brought to the attention of formal
parties that a post published on your platform contains the full
name of an employee of the council.
Alongside damaging accusations without results of a full
investigation conducted by the party in question. With you also
including suggestions that the person should lose their
employment.
The main issue is yes a mistake may of been made unintentionally
by the council, however you have purposely chosen to post
personal information without authorisation on a public forum.
This publication is both harmful and unlawful under UK law for
the following reasons:
1. Defamation (Defamation Act 2013): The statements made are
false and have the potential to cause serious harm to the named
person’s reputation, particularly in relation to the employment.
This constitutes defamatory material.
2. Data Protection and UK GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018): The
publication of the persons’s full name without consent amounts
to unlawful processing of personal data. There is no lawful
basis for the disclosure of such data in this context. - irony
at its finest that one
3. Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997): Publicly
targeting an individual in this manner way could amount to a
harassment investigation which is recognised as both a civil
wrong and a criminal offence.
In light of these concerns, the following actions are normally
formally requested:
• The immediate removal of all posts containing the individuals
full name and defamatory statements.
•Written confirmation that such personal data will not be
republished in the future.
• Details of any action your platform intends to take against
the individual responsible for posting this content.
Failure to act promptly may result in escalation, Due to your
protection breaches. As well as you may end up on the end of
potential legal proceedings for defamation and harassment.
I have all your details from your YouTube channel and other
online sources - so what do you think an actual professional can
find out unlike us idiots on this website.
Unlike your self I won’t be posting your details in public a
forum.
I understand you may have spotted an error however, I suggest
you advise the people effected by the error to request a data
leak investigation to the council or company.
Your actions however in this forum aren’t exactly productive and
you are yourself running the same risks your accusing the
council of.
Not particularly the best behaviour to demonstrate for someone
claiming to help with legal matters.
#Post#: 88333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: Hippocrates Date: September 4, 2025, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=5658.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
Hippocrates,
I’m not defending our council but I can’t ignore some irony here
which is laughable to be honest.
It is clear and can easily be brought to the attention of formal
parties that a post published on your platform contains the full
name of an employee of the council.
Alongside damaging accusations without results of a full
investigation conducted by the party in question. With you also
including suggestions that the person should lose their
employment.
The main issue is yes a mistake may of been made unintentionally
by the council, however you have purposely chosen to post
personal information without authorisation on a public forum.
This publication is both harmful and unlawful under UK law for
the following reasons:
1. Defamation (Defamation Act 2013): The statements made are
false and have the potential to cause serious harm to the named
person’s reputation, particularly in relation to the employment.
This constitutes defamatory material.
2. Data Protection and UK GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018): The
publication of the persons’s full name without consent amounts
to unlawful processing of personal data. There is no lawful
basis for the disclosure of such data in this context. - irony
at its finest that one
3. Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997): Publicly
targeting an individual in this manner way could amount to a
harassment investigation which is recognised as both a civil
wrong and a criminal offence.
In light of these concerns, the following actions are normally
formally requested:
• The immediate removal of all posts containing the individuals
full name and defamatory statements.
•Written confirmation that such personal data will not be
republished in the future.
• Details of any action your platform intends to take against
the individual responsible for posting this content.
Failure to act promptly may result in escalation, Due to your
protection breaches. As well as you may end up on the end of
potential legal proceedings for defamation and harassment.
I have all your details from your YouTube channel and other
online sources - so what do you think an actual professional can
find out unlike us idiots on this website.
Unlike your self I won’t be posting your details in public a
forum.
I understand you may have spotted an error however, I suggest
you advise the people effected by the error to request a data
leak investigation to the council or company.
Your actions however in this forum aren’t exactly productive and
you are yourself running the same risks your accusing the
council of.
Not particularly the best behaviour to demonstrate for someone
claiming to help with legal matters.
[/quote]
[member=6744]Rogersmith1977[/member]
Be a man, and say all this to my face at The Coronation Hall
tonight in Surbiton. The officer is a public servant, sends out
numerous notices of rejections, has sent in two plans to my
knowledge to the Tribunal - wilfully - which do not tally with
the actual layout of the YBJ at the time. I am fully aware of
the laws you cite so you do not need to teach me how to suck
eggs with respect. I speak the truth and this officer is part of
the long cog which is responsible for unjust enrichment. She
should resign, her superiors should resign and the monies
accrued at the said location paid back.
If anyone wants to initiate litigation against me, molon lave.
I respectfully suggest that YOU identify yourself if you wish to
conduct yourself in this manner, no matter how awkwardly
expressed.
#Post#: 88335--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: Southpaw82 Date: September 4, 2025, 4:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Take it offline 🙄
#Post#: 88341--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: Hippocrates Date: September 4, 2025, 4:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hang on a minute. I understand there is no rule in this forum
which prohibits me to publish names of officers.
[member=1]cp8759[/member] may confirm.
One adjudicator is exasperated with this council's continuous
enforcement at the said location. Even the last three decisions
in August this year confirm their continued extrapolation of the
urine and complete disregard for the Tribunal - as is the want
of others. 2250256969;2250264719; 2250333866.
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 2250333866
Appellant Rossana Estefanous
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM A12GHA
PCN Details
PCN QT10613444
Contravention date 24 Apr 2025
Contravention time 11:56:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 14 Aug 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
I heard this appeal by video link
The CCTV footage shows the Appellant’s vehicle entering the
mouth of the junction and then stopping in anticipation of a
vehicle pulling out in front of her a short distance to her
right.
There was ample space ahead of her vehicle, clear space on the
exit side of the box, and she had right of way. The Appellant
did not have to stop at all, nor was the vehicle for which she
chose to stop a vehicle which was stationary
Not for the first time, this Council appears not to understand
the law. It seems to think that once a vehicle is stationary in
a box junction a contravention automatically occurs. This is not
so, and the Council is referred to the Traffic Signs Regulations
and General Directions 2016 Schedule Part 7 para 11:-
“11(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow
criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in
Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a
vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to
stop within the box junctiondue to the presence of stationary
vehicles.” (emphasis added).
The vehicle in this case was clearly not in contravention and
the PCN should never have been issued.
**************
Registers 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 2250264719
Appellant Suresh Ragavan
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM LL74UXG
PCN Details
PCN QT10607452
Contravention date 22 Apr 2025
Contravention time 16:28:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Aug 2025
Adjudicator Darminder Lehal
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
1. This is a personal appeal against a penalty charge notice
issued by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames .
2. The Appellant states he stopped to let the vehicle join from
the left hand side of the adjoining road. The Appellant asserts
he did not stop due to the presence of a stationary vehicle. The
appellant also raised the point that the box junction is marked
beyond as required under the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2016 and are therefore unenforceable.
3. The Enforcement Authority submit that the Appellant’s vehicle
was observed entering and stopping in the yellow box junction on
the date in question. The Authority have provided CCTV of the
alleged contravention and photographs. They assert that the
Appellant’s vehicle enters the box junction when the exit lane
was not clear. The Authority say it is the motorists
responsibility to assess the road situation ahead and only enter
the box junction if they can be sure of crossing it without
stopping.
4. There are 3 elements to this this contravention, firstly that
the driver causes the vehicle to enter the junction. Secondly
that it is stopped in the box junction. Thirdly that the vehicle
has to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles. I do not
find that the third element has been satisfied.
5. This box junction is not only marked at the junction between
these two roads but also in advance and beyond that junction. It
is not therefore marked in compliance with The Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016 this penalty charge thus
being unenforceable.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
*******
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 2250256969
Appellant Mark Porter
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM SP18 YUR
PCN Details
PCN QT10527615
Contravention date 09 Apr 2025
Contravention time 15:26:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Aug 2025
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant appeared in
person via MS Teams.
The Enforcement Authority did not attend and was not
represented, either in vision, by telephone, or in person.
Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction
marking conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a
vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to
stop within the box marking due to the presence of a stationary
vehicle.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 on
the basis of information provided by a camera or other device.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this
location, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv)
images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The images clearly show that the vehicle did enter this box
junction marking when the vehicle ahead was still in it and then
had to stop within the box due to the presence of a stationary
vehicle.
The Appellant’s case is that the box marking is non-compliant,
and the Appellant cites the finding of a previous Adjudicator in
this regard.
Adjudicators are not bound by findings of each other but will
obviously give them close consideration.
A box junction is the yellow criss-cross marking prescribed by
Diagram 1043 at item 25 in Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the 2016
Regulations. Although less prescriptive than the previous
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, as there
are no kerb requirements, the cctv images produced show that in
this case the marking appears to extend well beyond the
junction.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I am not
satisfied that the box marking is compliant with the current
Regulations.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
******
These are highly experienced adjudicators and I have appeared
before all of them. Indeed, the adjudicator in the case
pertaining to this thread was concerned about the said plan. RBK
should own up and say how many cases at the Tribunal has this
plan been adduced as evidence because, in my view, this amounts
to misfeasance and a deliberate attempt to mislead the
Adjudicator. This is not a mistake. I have studied the context
of its purpose and the explanation for its inclusion.
Interview at 2.30 p.m. I shall be discrete.
#Post#: 88361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: Hippocrates Date: September 4, 2025, 6:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=6744]Rogersmith1977[/member] I'll be in Covid Corner
back of the pub on the left around 18.00 hrs tonight wearing the
T shirt. Bring a tape recorder.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917back<br
/>of the pub
#Post#: 88393--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: Rogersmith1977 Date: September 4, 2025, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Now now,
I normally don’t lower myself to be found in the coronation hall
to be honest
I’ll be in the duke sinking a few tonight, next to the fire
place if you fancy a wondering up to a proper pub.
By the way I thought the clue was in my title of my name - id of
thought someone with your perception skills and legal expertise
would have spotted that to be honest.
On a serious note though if people just looked out there car
windows and didn’t stop in the yellow box then we wouldn't be in
this situation
Just saying
#Post#: 88408--------------------------------------------------
Re: Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: mickR Date: September 4, 2025, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=6744]Rogersmith1977[/member]
if you wish to air your point further why not start a thread in
"the flame pit" on your quest to defend local authorities who
act un lawfully. ?
#Post#: 88459--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: ivanleo Date: September 4, 2025, 3:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
This publication is both harmful and unlawful under UK law for
the following reasons:
1. Defamation (Defamation Act 2013): The statements made are
false and have the potential to cause serious harm to the named
person’s reputation, particularly in relation to the employment.
This constitutes defamatory material.
[/quote]
Hippocrates has access to the evidence pack and has identified a
public sector employee as having caused a GDPR breach. Quite
aside from the fact that article 10 of the ECHR provides private
citizens with extremely broad rights to criticise public
officials, and public officials engages in contentious
litigation that takes place in public can hardly have an
expectation of privacy, what evidence do you have that what
Hippocrates has said is false? Do you claim you have evidence to
show that Macey Briggs did not cause a GDPR breach? If what
Hippocrates says is true, he'd have a complete defence of truth
to any defamation statement.
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
2. Data Protection and UK GDPR (Data Protection Act 2018): The
publication of the persons’s full name without consent amounts
to unlawful processing of personal data. There is no lawful
basis for the disclosure of such data in this context. - irony
at its finest that one
[/quote]
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, by the logic anyone
naming anyone on any social media platform is breaking the law.
However private individuals posting in a private capacity on
this website are not, contrary to what you think, bound by GDPR.
Therefore whether processing would be lawful under GDPR is
irrelevant. However even if GDPR were engaged, both GDPR and the
ECHR recognise the right to process personal data for
journalistic purposes and that includes the right of citizen
journalists publishing wrongdoing by public officials.
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
3. Harassment (Protection from Harassment Act 1997): Publicly
targeting an individual in this manner way could amount to a
harassment investigation which is recognised as both a civil
wrong and a criminal offence.
[/quote]
Given that harassment requires a course of conduct and we are
talking about a one-off incident, you're obviously wrong.
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
In light of these concerns, the following actions are normally
formally requested:
[/quote]
Request by whom? And with the best will in the world, what the
fiddlesticks has this got to do with you? It's literally none of
your business so you have no standing to make any such demands,
unless you tell us that you are Macey Briggs?
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
Failure to act promptly may result in escalation, Due to your
protection breaches. As well as you may end up on the end of
potential legal proceedings for defamation and harassment.
[/quote]
Legal proceedings by whom?
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
I have all your details from your YouTube channel and other
online sources - so what do you think an actual professional can
find out unlike us idiots on this website.
[/quote]
The only correct statement in your post is highlighted in bold
above, I completely agree that you're being an idiot.
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
Unlike your self I won’t be posting your details in public a
forum.
I understand you may have spotted an error however, I suggest
you advise the people effected by the error to request a data
leak investigation to the council or company.
[/quote]
I thought there was no error because what Hippocrates said was
false and defamatory?
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
Your actions however in this forum aren’t exactly productive
[/quote]
Well if you work for a council or are mates with someone who is,
then you would say that, wouldn't you?
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
and you are yourself running the same risks your accusing the
council of.
[/quote]
I refer you to the statement I've highlighted in bold above,
which is correct.
[quote author=Rogersmith1977 link=topic=7928.msg88311#msg88311
date=1756942581]
Not particularly the best behaviour to demonstrate for someone
claiming to help with legal matters.
[/quote]
Given your apparent utter and complete misunderstanding of how
any of this works, I'm not sure you're best placed to comment on
legal matters.
#Post#: 88587--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: Hippocrates Date: September 5, 2025, 11:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am going to do another one very soon and mention all of the
superior officers right up to the councillor supposedly in
charge of this outfit. Serendipity. ;D If they showed any
magnanimity and any capacity to say sorry, this would not be
necessary. They will all rally around said person - to protect
themselves and cover up their own embarrassment. When, some
years ago, they used the signature of a Barnet officer, Robin
Moorwood, they batted that one away with: "This is a generic
signature, all of our officers are trained."
For years they even denied that bus lane cameras needed
certificates. And one David Fellows was a senior legal officer
at the time, now moved to Merton as a solicitor. They don't get
sacked - just moved.
I no longer play my violin in the Market Square unless I wear a
bulletproof vest, just in case The Jackal is lurking on top of
the Town Hall. :D
And I will obtain the APCOA contract.
@cp8759 Well said, Maestro.
#Post#: 88608--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
By: Hippocrates Date: September 5, 2025, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=6744]Rogersmith1977[/member] Contravention or not? We
filmed this recently and clearly the driver did not have
his/her windows open. The ignoramus bus driver shouted at the
driver too. May be the horn was engaged because there was a fly
on his screen?
Your quote:
On a serious note though if people just looked out there car
windows and didn’t stop in the yellow box then we wouldn't be in
this situation
Which situation? They have reduced the size because of experts
on this forum and sensible adjudication. You mention irony. The
real irony is that the layout now looks more like the dodgy plan
adduced. ::)
Quote:
I’m not defending our council but I can’t ignore some irony here
which is laughable to be honest.
You're right there. The council are laughing at the 99% of
drivers who are taken in by the bribe and scare tactic of paying
the reduced rate. I will do my best that they pay them all back.
If successful, I make no apology for taking money away from your
council. In fact, I would go so far as to say that you, as a
rate payer, are directly funding this incompetence. Some of my
very best friends live in Kingston and they are equally
disgusted with RBK's parking services. And so it is arguable
that you are guilty by association in terms of unjustly
enriching this council now that you know the truth about said
YBJ. You remind me of the idiot who was most aggressive to me
and two others some years ago when we stopped drivers going down
the infamous Surbiton Crescent fiasco/trap. As I said, molon
lave. You are attacking a guy who made legal history in 1998: I
achieved residence of my children. You remind me of this famous
maxim: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” Jolly Hockey
Sticks, mon vieux.
HTML https://youtu.be/z4yF0XfpoUo
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page