DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 470--------------------------------------------------
TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: kno
Date: June 26, 2023, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello Everyone,
I received a PCN from TFL for entering a box junction under
contravention 31. I know I should have been more careful, but
being a new driver, I am still learning the intricacies of
driving at complex junctions with neck-to-neck traffic. Paying
£80 as a fine to me seems quite steep, at least for the first
time.
This is located at bath road/great west road junction -
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4751137,-0.3935809,3a,75y,243.37h,75.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq62NeHu8YsoBGtf913h5-w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Video from TFL - I do not know how to cut the video at this
time, but my car CX62 TXM is at the box at 2:30 mark -
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1td4_FI9SM8HfnlY4nxHs2RwaopL2oR2C/view?usp=sharing
TFL PCN letters/notice are here -
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YNPoJYkTXlVQrW2n7rhlt3VZ4Hus6o93?usp=sharing
Asking for your expert opinions in case there is leeway. Thank
you.
#Post#: 480--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 26, 2023, 7:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There's an argument that the car ahead of you stopped well short
of where it could have stopped, and this was an unexpected /
unpredictable event. However TFL will argue that unless you can
see there is a clear exit ahead, you should not enter the box in
the first place.
You'd have to take this to London Tribunals with the full
penalty in play in order to get this cancelled, you're unlikely
to have much luck with TFL so you have to decide whether it's
worth risking the full amount.
#Post#: 504--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: MrChips
Date: June 26, 2023, 12:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This case is also running on Pepipoo where we've indicated the
turning right exemption should save the day.
#Post#: 514--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 26, 2023, 3:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> This case is also running on Pepipoo where we've indicated the
turning right exemption should save the day.
>
--- End Quote ---
From where the OP was coming, there's no oncoming traffic?
#Post#: 523--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: MrChips
Date: June 26, 2023, 4:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't need to be any oncoming traffic. It's sufficient to be
waiting behind another vehicle which is also stationary while
waiting to complete a right turn.
#Post#: 526--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 26, 2023, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> Doesn't need to be any oncoming traffic. It's sufficient to
be waiting behind another vehicle which is also stationary while
waiting to complete a right turn.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes that is arguable, but the counter-argument is that applying
a purposive interpretation there must be at least one vehicle
that has its progress impeded by oncoming traffic. So there is
an element of risk.
#Post#: 534--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: June 27, 2023, 1:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> Doesn't need to be any oncoming traffic. It's sufficient to
be waiting behind another vehicle which is also stationary while
waiting to complete a right turn.
>
--- End Quote ---
IIRC, it was ruled that at the infamous Bagley's Lane/New Kings
Road box T-junction in Fulham, the right turn argument could not
be used turning right from Bagley's Lane (the upright of the
'T') into New Kings Rd, as being a T-junction, there could not
be oncoming traffic.
Is the present case not also a T-junction?
#Post#: 544--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: June 27, 2023, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
By 17.35 Mr. Mollanaghi had not attended and there had been no
application for an adjournment. I proceeded to deal with the
matter on the basis of the notice of appeal, the enforcement
authority (EA)’s case summary and all the material, evidence and
representations submitted by both parties.
Mr. Mollanaghi appeals against a penalty charge notice (PCN)
issued in respect of an alleged contravention of the
requirements of a ‘box junction’, as defined in paragraph 11(1)
of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2016. Paragraph 11 goes on to say:
“(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect
of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition
of that expression, apply to a person who
(a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose
of turning right; and
(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the
vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an
oncoming vehicle or [my emphasis] other vehicle which is
stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.”
There is no doubt on the evidence that Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle
entered the box junction and stopped within it due to the
presence of stationary vehicles. On the face of it, therefore,
the alleged contravention is proved. But that is not the end of
the matter.
Mr. Mollanaghi applies on the above sub-paragraph, (3). There
does not appear to be a dispute – and I would in any event have
decided – that the junction is one to which sub-paragraph 6(a)
applies because it is a junction between two or more roads.
What Mr. Mollanaghi was doing at that junction was,
self-evidently, turning right, and he entered the box junction
for the purpose of doing so. There could not be any dispute
about that. Sub-paragraph (3)(a) is therefore satisfied.
The EA asserts that nonetheless the exemption does apply because
sub-paragraph 3(b) does not apply. That is because, the EA
submits, there were no ‘oncoming’ vehicles. That is indeed
correct as a statement of fact. However, as subsection (3)(b)
makes clear, the presence of oncoming vehicles or, respectively,
of vehicles which are stationary whilst completing right turns,
are alternatives. It follows that it is not necessary, for
sub-paragraph (3) to apply, for there to be oncoming vehicles.
I turn then to consider whether, on the evidence, sub-paragraph
3(b) applies. I looked carefully at the position of the vehicle
ahead of Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle vis-à-vis the carriageway at
the point the two vehicles were stationary. I find that neither
Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle nor the car in front of it had
completed their respective right turns. The vehicle ahead had
not yet fully lined up with the carriageway and was still in the
process of turning right when it came to a halt. Mr.
Mollanaghi’s vehicle was only stationary behind the vehicle
ahead whilst that other vehicle was stationary in the position I
have described, waiting to complete its own right turn.
Accordingly, I find that sub-paragraph (3)(b) applies with the
effect that sub-paragraph (3) as a whole applies and the
contravention is not proved.
Rather the contravening vehicle in this case is that vehicle
ahead of Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle. Whilst that vehicle was
turning right at the point it was stationary, the vehicle ahead
of it was not and had completed its right turn. Therefore,
whilst sub-paragraph 3(b) applies to Mr. Mollanaghi’s vehicle it
does not apply to the vehicle in front of his.
The above is a case heard by Jack Walsh re turning right at a
Tee junction 2190001784
Given the positioning of the car in front and that of the OP it
seems to me to fit perfectly
#Post#: 583--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 28, 2023, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is certainly arguable but the odds are fairly evenly split
IMO.
#Post#: 1616--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL PCN - Bath Rd_Great West Rd
DIR By: kno
Date: July 20, 2023, 1:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=5]John U.K.[/member]
Attaching the junction pic representation to the best of my
abilities. Not sure if this is a T-junction or not.
[attach=1]
Update
I see that TFL has rejected the representation, dated 11th July
on the website. I am yet to receive a physical letter.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11 July 2023
Rejected Representation - Discount Period Reset
TfL has rejected a representation received for this PCN. The
discount period has been reset for a specific duration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do I need to wait for some more time, given its been around 9
days?
Their communication methods are odd. They sent the video footage
through signed tracked mail, but the initial notice, and perhaps
the other letter would come in as ordinary letters/mails.
[attachment deleted by admin]
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page