Is there case for appeal?

[minskiy]

Hi.

 

Few days ago i received a letter with Penalty Charge Notice issued to me on 28/11/09 (more than 2,5 months ago). It was issued on the basis that i stopped in the yellow box. Positioning of my car clearly stated that i was turning right at the time and stopped to let the outcoming traffic go. On this basis i made an appeal to the Haringey Council, London and received a negative reply.

 

Now looking at my notes i realised what happen that dayy (due to the fact it had been that long ago it is hard to remember what exactly happen on the road i'm using 2 times every day)

 

Basically as i'm doing every day i started turning right (i'm sure showed right signal at the time) but then realised that the road i'm turning into is closed. I'm not sure what was the reason, road works or something.

 

At the moment i was in the middle of yellow box and had no other option than stop, let all cars going forward on my left and then go forward as well.

 

I cannot see myself making any mistake in this driving situation. Also i havent' seen any signs in advance showing that road on the right is closed, but there is a possibility it was blocked by one of the buses in the first lane.

 

At the moment i can still pay £60, but if my appeal will be rejected i will have to pay £120.

 

I need professional opinion - it is worth trying or just pay even that there is no my fault?

 

Many thanks in advance

[buzby]

The rules ar the you are not permitted to enter the box unless the exist is clear. Now, turning right would normally be OK, however if they say the closure was well notified, and the tight turn 'ceased to exist', is your therfore mean you were admitting to inattention to the earlier signage stating the the right turn was indeed closed (I'm assuming that it was).

 

So, you could appeal formally to the Adjudicator, claiming that the situation was unusual - but it would depend on how rigorous they want to be, as some may not accept it as suitable mitigation. If you're still within the discount period, you might want to think about paying it. If not, then there's nothing to lose - take it to a formal appeal and see what they say.

[lamma]

may be depend on the presence or absence of adequte warning signs such as No Right Turn Ahead. was this a proper roadworks closure or just some temp thing because of an accident or the like ? And if there were signs there is still an argument. the contravention is upon entry not when you stop. If the exit you used was clear when you entered the box no contravention ! because its on entry IF it happened, you need to see the video.

Edited February 18, 2010 by lamma

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

The rules ar the you are not permitted to enter the box unless the exist is clear.

 

Can you quote the law that says that?

 

My recollection is that the contravention is:

 

Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, [box junctions] shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop with any part of it within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

 

The OP's circumstances do not fit this contravention.

[buzby]

Law? How does that big sign in advance of the junction seemingly become invisible? Since both what I said and you quoted are similar, can you point out where you feel there is a significant divergence that makes a whit of difference?

[minskiy]

Hi.

 

Thanks for your replies.

 

I cannot 100% guarantee that there was no warning signs (also i think there was one, but it was blocked from my view by a bus or something). It will be difficult to prove though...

[minskiy]

What a week... I just requested to see video footage sometime next week.

 

Also i just received a parking ticket today. It comes from the same Haringey Council. It says that parking ticket was issued to me month ago, but i have never seen it on my car window screen. I called them and they couldn't find any photos in the system regarding this parking penalty - no photo from parking officer showing that he placed it on my car.

 

I already appealed on this basis, how are my chances?

 

Also i have another question - this is not the first time when same Haringey Council in London issues tickets by mistake. Some time ago parking officer placed a ticket on my window right next to the permit allowing me to park at this place. I challenged and won. Hopefully i will get positive answer on those charges as well.

 

Can i do something against this council? Concidering the fact that i received 2 tickets in my life and both were issued mistakingly (assuming second one as well) i can imagine number of same tickets they do around this area every day. I'm really angry and would like to make a complaint. Is it worth it?

 

Thanks

[Jamberson]

they couldn't find any photos in the system regarding this parking penalty - no photo from parking officer showing that he placed it on my car.

 

I already appealed on this basis, how are my chances?

 

 

Very low. Why? Because an appeal based purely on lack of photos is almost bound to fail. Photos are not needed for a PCN to be enforced.

 

You need to find out why the PCN was issued (according to them) and write in and appeal in respect of that. If you do it now, you will probably find that both your letters are live at once on their systems, and get considered together - if you wait, they may just reject your first appeal and then you forfeit the discount should you fight on and lose.

 

Find out why the CEO issued the PCN; argue as to why he/she was wrong to do so.

[minskiy]

Thanks.

 

But how can they issue prove that i was parked illegally? I mean they can just walk around, take random car plates and issue them with tickets. Drivers won't know that they were issued one (as there is nothing placed on the window screen) and will have to pay full fine one month later. Correct me if i'm wrong, but it doesn't make any sence at all!

[Jamberson]

I don't know that they can prove it! The trouble is, you will be held liable unless you successfully appeal. They do not have to prove their case to enforce payment, so photos are not necessary.

 

I will say that there is no incentive for CEOs to issue PCNs incorrectly. CEOs are employed by private firms, and they do not receive revenue from PCNs, which goes to the council. They are on flat salaries.

 

The CEO should have recorded why the PCN was issued. If, for example, he says you were in a pay & display bay without a ticket, you can dispute this and send a copy of your pay & display ticket.

[buzby]

There is an expectation that the PA is being truthful in his dealings - and is an extension of the policeman's (supposed) unquestioning truthfulness. When you think about it, if these spurious registration numbers appeared (as you suggest) then clearly those recipients will appeal on the basis that they were not there. It would then require statements from both parties, and a PA invention PCN's will quickly become suspected as the number of challenges rise. As for your last point - does it have to make 'sense'? As Jamberson says, photographic evidence is purely corroboration, and not a requirement.

 

For info, my vehicle has a mini camera, recording all journeys to SD. I can prove when/where and verification for the last 30 days of of travel. I can then easily disprove a PA's claim on this basis, IF I were ready to challenge.

[minskiy]

But this is against the presumption of innocence - not guilty until proven otherwise. I need to see some kind of evidence proving that i broke the rule. Also i believe i suppose to be unknowledge of me being wrong so i will have a chance to pay reduced amount. Also after reading such things Fight your parking ticket - how to appeal your fine | This is Money seems like thay do mistakes and quite often. I've had two tickets issued to me before, challenged both and won as they were issued wrongly. So, for the time beeing i have 100% wrongly issued tickets.

 

Also from my understanding traffic wardens are getting bonuses on number of tickets issued, am i right or wrong?

[lamma]

Only the video can show it. Its a moving contravention which occurs, IF it occurs, upon entry to the box. "Statutory Instrument 2002 No. 3113 The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 Regulation 29 BUS STOP AND BUS STAND CLEARWAYS AND BOX JUNCTIONS PART II SIGNIFICANCE OF BOX JUNCTION MARKINGS Interpretation of Part II of Schedule 6. In this Part of this Schedule - (a) “box junction” means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which there has been placed the road marking shown in diagram 1043 or 1044; and (b) a reference (however expressed) to a vehicle which is stationary or stops within a box junction includes a vehicle which is stationary whilst part of it is within the box junction. Prohibition conveyed by markings in diagram 1043 or 1044 7. – (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. (2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person - (a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right; and (b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn. Prohibition conveyed when markings are placed in conjunction with signs in diagrams 615 and 811 8. When the road marking shown in diagram 1043 or 1044 is placed in conjunction with the signs shown in diagrams 615 and 811 on an area of carriageway which is less than 4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point, the road marking shall convey the prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction. © Crown Copyright 2002"

[Jamberson]

Wrong about the bonuses. It's an urban myth.

 

Your point about innocent until proven guilty has been voiced many times over the years. Whatever your own views, you are subject to what the law says and this argument has been taken to a high level. Can't remember precise details but someone on here will tell you about ancient civil rights law and legal rulings on this issue.

 

The official stance (I'm paraphrasing enormously) is that "innocent until proven guilty" is there to serve your right to defend penalties levied against you. In parking, there is a parallel system (the appeals process) and the powers that be say there is no conflict, and your rights have not been infringed.

 

Make your own mind up!!! But that's where you stand.

[buzby]

Presumption of innocence? That went out long ago - probably with gas lighting and Betamax tapes. This is not a criminal matter (assuming there was a presumption). Heck, it only takes two independent statements to the police that you did something unsavoury and you lose your liberty until you can prove otherwise.

 

By all means - fight your ticket, you will lose any discount but at least there is a chance you'll have to pay nothing. But only a chance. Many challenge tickets when they are clearly to blame, hoping that something will arise to invalidate it... this more than answers your 100% wrongly issued tickets. For Glasgow City Council, of all the Appeals sent to SPAS, 42% of them were upheld 20% withdrawn before hearing and 38% won by the appellant.

[minskiy]

I don't think there is much point arguing about ancient laws I do strongly believe that i should have been aknowledge if (please pay attention to IF) i parked illegally and given a chance to pay reduced amount.

[buzby]

You would. Most (all?) councils will, when sending an NTO will offer to reinstate the discount if this is the first knowledge the owner has of the ticket being issued.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Law? How does that big sign in advance of the junction seemingly become invisible? Since both what I said and you quoted are similar, can you point out where you feel there is a significant divergence that makes a whit of difference?

 

Why law with a "?"? It's what creates contraventions (in the context of what we are talking about).

 

Entering a box junction with an unclear exit is not, of itself, a contravention nor is being stationary in a box junction. There must be other factors to make it so.

 

Further there is no requirement for box junctions to be signed in any way other than paint on the road.

 

TFL were soundly lambasted by PATAS for overlooking the exemptions to box junction contraventions and thinking that the "do not enter unless your exit is clear" shorthand is the law when it is not.

[buzby]

The reason for the '?' is because whilst there is no requirement for the sign, it becomes double hard to dispute that you were sat square-wheeled on the junction going nowhere, and you liked the pretty patterns?

 

There is no requirement for signage at zig-zag lines at schools and crossings, yet the lines are (and rightly so) policed with fines issued. I have been caught quite a few times when traffic that is progressing well (and I have no real forward view) stops - leaving me on the junction. I then have to extricate my vehicle so that it doesn't linger there - but I digress.

 

I still see no divergence - as rules of thumb go (Do not enter..etc.) it remains a pretty compelling one.

[dax]

If you have absolutely no money at all to pay a parking fine, can it be written off?

[Jamberson]

Yes, in theory but it's not straight-forward. First the local authority would obtain a bailiff warrant and bailiffs would visit and seek to levy. If you literally have no suitable property or means of paying, they would return the warrant nulla-bona (unable to pay) and the local authority would almost certainly write off the debt, but it's not something they will accept from the debtor - the bailiff would determine ability to pay.

[buzby]

I would doubt it. Anyone who can afford to run a car these days will be seen as fair game to pay (otherwise, they'd be using the bus).

[Zamzara]

Stopping in a yellow box due to a closed road is not capable of amounting to a contravention: it must be due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

[lamma]

I agree.