DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95166--------------------------------------------------
Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: October 22, 2025, 9:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Afternoon All
Nothing against you folks, but I'm frequenting this forum more
than I'd like to and find myself here again >:(
The below should be self-explanatory.....
Redacted PCN
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7d3p8kfqd8oa3kw9v7tl3/20251013_SAF17A_PCN_AF20933413_20251006_redacted.pdf?rlkey=rm4jelo6s6z2j9h7gyx5y50zj&st=3sa8hd2p&dl=0
CCTV Footage
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8o5rdj1f1uq6k5suhgl6t/PCN_AF20933413_Video1.mp4?rlkey=goan269ve7v2971cna8s3jk5u&st=evap3soc&dl=0
GSV Link
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/1e2czZYjJjyp253q7
....and shall be submitting the following reps via email as the
Redbridge website isn't working properly:
////////////////
Received the attached PCN.
Tried to submit representations online but unable to do so due
to technical issues with the LBR website, i.e. the “Enter
Representation Details” button doesn’t work. Hence, this
email…..acknowledge receipt.
The representations are as follows:
- The CCTV footage shows that the exit of the yellow junction
box (YJB) was clear when the vehicle entered it, i.e. the
vehicle was NOT forced to stop in the YJB because of stationary
traffic;
- furthermore, it also shows that the vehicle stopped only
briefly in the YJB when there was sufficient space to move
forward and clear it, should the driver have wished to do so;
- the alleged contravention of ‘31j – Entering and stopping in a
box junction when prohibited’ did NOT occur;
- cancel the PCN;
- be forewarned that should you not cancel this PCN, I will be
taking this matter to tribunal and making a request for costs.
////////////////
Any feedback/advice before I press the 'Send' button?
Thanks in advance.
Regards - NTIAEP
#Post#: 95170--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: October 22, 2025, 9:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks good.
Mr Chips may get his measuring tape out but looks clear that you
could have exited.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/KxRB4gZN/PCN-AF20933413-Video1-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif
#Post#: 95204--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: October 22, 2025, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It fails the test of "has to stop due to stationary vehicles",
so "contravention did not occur".
#Post#: 95220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: MrChips
Date: October 22, 2025, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Currently travelling so measuring tape has to remain unfurled
for now ;)
Redbridge are sure to reject so we can leave that for tribunal.
#Post#: 97408--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: November 8, 2025, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=43]MrChips[/member] If I may borrow your measure tape
please. :)
Redbridge (as expected) have rejected my reps (click here
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c7rnn20sap6oajhi8hjx8/20251106_SAF17A_PCN_AF20933413_NoR-redacted.pdf?rlkey=8hvjsvh1lu2621zvam4r8u3rx&st=a3jgc766&dl=0)
Off to tribunal again.....shall I just submit the same reps (see
initial post) or anybody suggest amendments/additions?
#Post#: 97445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: November 9, 2025, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Don,t send the same Though the reason for appeal will remain the
same it needs beefing up with examples also you might as well
throw in the NOR not mentioning the adjudicators power to extend
the appeal period and a failure to consider
#Post#: 97446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 9, 2025, 5:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am happy to do this one.
No contravention plus:
I had success yesterday re the wording of the PCN which affects
most, if not all, 34 authorities' PCNs.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-havering-code-31j-entering-and-stopping-in-a-box-junction/msg97394/#msg97394
“The PCN - This fails to contain mandatory information at Part 2
Para. 4(8 )(v) provided at:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased charge may be payable This in turn
refers to (iii)
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
The following statement does not clarify this: If after the last
day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which
this PCN is served we may increase the penalty charge by 50% to
Ł195.00 and may take steps to enforce payment of the increased
charge.”
The difference between date of the notice and the date of
service is not necessarily the same. That could lead to
miscalculation of the relevant period that the recipient has in
which to make payment or submit representations, which could be
crucial. The collateral challenge on this point succeeds and so
I allow the appeal.
********************
This is a resurrection of the old so-called "conflation
argument"; But, because there is missing information, there is
no possible conflation because the "or" cannot possibly be
interpreted as conjunctive or disjunctive. Ms Kaler was with me
on that.
****************
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg86653/#msg86653
#Post#: 99561--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: November 24, 2025, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Shouldn't need to rely upon the missing mandatory language as
mentioned by [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] in the post above.
Will leave that arrow in our quiver for another Redbridge PCN
(School Streets) that I've received and will start a new thread
accordingly.
From the council's own CCTV footage, at the point of entry the
car ahead was here
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dyotsdelv5cilftey7xor/PCN_AF20933413_YBJ-entry.JPG?rlkey=6f7gxfwlh1gdkkcu377xx1fq2&st=zdltjsxk&dl=0<br
/>with the feasible assumption that its rear was where there is
a
change in texture/colour of the road surface (you can see a line
in the image). FYI - there's also a white arrow marking
spray-painted on the kerb.
....and so I plodded off to the site of the alleged
contravention and took the following pics:
picture of full measuring tape
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/595c5l707ywqq5ljwi46u/PCN_AF20933413_full-measure-tape.jpg?rlkey=h6r6zaf7qme7a8ukrmeo45q7d&st=9l5f7mb4&dl=0<br
/>,
surface change at 353cm
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nept30x06j3ntcf2p08mb/PCN_AF20933413_surface-change-at-353cm.jpg?rlkey=mbq8h2dyof3m6mjljo21yagtr&st=m40aez2u&dl=0<br
/>and
white arrow at 369cm
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a5vlk96fqlvgitlqcsaqg/PCN_AF20933413_white-arrow-at-369cm.jpg?rlkey=hp5hgbs2reztw56r5899q6dzh&st=kltu241e&dl=0
The official measurements from Toyota for this vehicle (see page
18)
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gpddx03u14clliwpyuurh/Gen3-Yaris-2nd-MC-archive-press-pack.pdf?rlkey=rd4rmmglrxptayvs8map6mfvm&st=wxmo6qpl&dl=0<br
/>shows a wheelbase of 251cm with a front overhang of 81cm. A
combined total of 332cm and more than enough space to have
cleared the other side of the YJB.
Why oh why oh why? !!!!
#Post#: 99573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 24, 2025, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would shoot the arrow now. NOT later.
#Post#: 121214--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge/31J–Entering and stopping in a box junction when
prohibited/jct Ilford Lane & Natal Rd
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: June 8, 2026, 4:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal allowed 8)
Case reference: 2250625668
I'd like to make a request for costs (of which I'd already
forewarned Redbridge in my initial reps). Anybody advise me
best way of approaching LT with this?
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/costs
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/costs
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page