successful appeal at PATAS for Yellow Box Junction PCN

[dan8]

I WON my appeal yesterday against a PCN issued for a yellow box junction contravention. My PCN was issued for the YBJ contravention at Battersea Bridge Road/ Westgate Road/ Parkgate Road junction. I successfully argued that this yellow box junction was not compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 diagrams 1043 and 1044.

 

Transport for London had argued that the reason that the YBJ at that junction was non-compliant was because of the presence of a red route at that junction which had double red lines drawn. In its letter rejecting my appeal TfL had said, "TfL has deemed it practical to not draw the yellow box marking above the double red lines or vice versa, as this will further create complication with the 2 road marks." My position was that if this was indeed TfL's rationale for the non-compliance then it needed to seek authorisation for this non-compliance from the Secretary of State, which TfL had not done. This made the YBJ non-compliant and thus, unenforceable for any PCN issued for it.

 

Fortunately, the adjudicator agreed with me and quashed my PCN.

 

Just for information, the adjudicator rejected my primary defence to the PCN that the left hand lane at this junction had been free at the time when my car was in the YBJ and, I could have used it as a viable exit. I said that the fact that I did not use it was because my car had been moving forward slowly in my right hand lane. But the adjudicator rejected this defence stating that even though there had been a viable exit for me I had chosen not to take it. The adjudicator also rejected my defence that I had never actually stopped in the YBJ but remained inching forward. She said that the DVD footage showed me having stopped for 10 seconds, which she ruled was "a finding of fact". She also rejected my contention that as the camera was sited over 20 meters back from the YBJ there was a possibility of some distortion on perspective which accounted for my explanation that I had never actually stopped in the YBJ but remained inching forward.

 

But she did accept my argument that TfL had inserted the incomplete contravention code of 31, rather than 31J, in the PCN documents, because the latter is the correct code for PCN's issued using CCTV evidence, which had been so in my case.

 

In any case, she quashed my PCN.

 

So, if anyone else wishes to appeal a PCN issued at this YBJ do so quickly BEFORE TfL get this YBJ compliant by getting authorisation for its non-compliance from the Secretary of State. And good luck all!!

[honeybee13]

Well done you, and thank you for coming back and telling us about it. I hope it helps someone.

 

My best, HB

[nero12]

Curious ruling for your primary appeal as it could be argued that the circuamstances had changed beyond your control thus preventing your exit -- however a wins a win

 

Can you be kind enough to post the case number for this ruling please -- this is the important information we need fopr future appeals here.

[LTKY]

dan8

 

Could you post your PATAS case number if you don't mind, as it would help a lot of people, especially as precedent with regards to the contravention code 31J for CCTV evidence.

 

They keed sending people the wrong code despite most councils have 31J in their code list.

 

many thanks

LTKY

[green_and_mean]

dan8

 

Could you post your PATAS case number if you don't mind, as it would help a lot of people, especially as precedent with regards to the contravention code 31J for CCTV evidence.

 

They keed sending people the wrong code despite most councils have 31J in their code list.

 

many thanks

LTKY

 

The code has nothing to do with any appeal its not even needed on the PCN its the contravention description that is required the 'j' suffix simply indicates its issued via cctv which is fairly obvious since the PCN states that by law.

[LTKY]

The code has nothing to do with any appeal its not even needed on the PCN its the contravention description that is required the 'j' suffix simply indicates its issued via cctv which is fairly obvious since the PCN states that by law.

 

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/standard_pcn_codes_v6-6_jan2011.pdf

 

My understanding is that the PCN cannot have mistakes and contravention code needs to be 31J .

 

It appears that the above adjudicator accepted the argument.

[HYMN AND MI]

Many congratulations. Please, as has been asked, could we have the case number? Thanks.

[andrew1]

http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/standard_pcn_codes_v6-6_jan2011.pdf

 

My understanding is that the PCN cannot have mistakes and contravention code needs to be 31J .

 

It appears that the above adjudicator accepted the argument.

 

Would someone mind telling me if there is a remedy to this code 31 on a pcn? I have a pcn which I objected to and just received a rejection based upon the fact their cctv footage shows the vehicle stationary for 20 seconds (damned ridiculous fining someone for this) anyway, no doubt if we appealed the movement of the car would not be significant enough in 20 seconds to qualify for the appeal being accepted, but doing what we do best on cag and researching I find this thread showing the wrong contravention code as what you are saying here is that it is 31J they needed to show.

 

Another thing is the car is registered in my name and thus the PCN is issued in my name, but the Mrs was driving at the time and this is clearly visible on the photo's they sent - does that make a difference and can either of these two issues put the pcn in jeapardy for TFL? This is almost as bad as bank charges and penalties - can't we use Dunlop Rhumatics or whatever the case was against penalties on this? LOL Don't you feel gutted when they charge £80 for 20 seconds on the tarmac just in the process of going shopping?

[crem]

I have a pcn which I objected to and just received a rejection based upon the fact their cctv footage shows the vehicle stationary for 20 seconds

 

Their claim that the car was stationery for 20 seconds is irrelavent as the offence is "entering the box....." If your exit was clear as you entered, but subsequently became obstructed in a manner beyond your control or anticipation, then the offence did not occur no matter how long you were stationery in the box.

 

You need to view the CCTV footage yourself and determine if the exit was already obstructed prior to you entering the box.

[HYMN AND MI]

These are probably the hardest contraventions to get off. The contravention occurs at the point of entry into the YBJ. In other words, what was the state of traffic at the point of entering the box? Any chance of seeing the paperwork, please?

 

The missing "J" in the code is irrelevant. Apparently, correction, this has been supported at PATAS. The owner or registered keeper is liable for the penalty, unless you can prove the vehicle was taken without your consent at the time and date of the alleged contravention.

Edited June 22, 2011 by HYMN AND MI

[andrew1]

Thank you people, Looks like I'm going to have to pay though, the evidence is far too weighted against us to win.

 

The part she got caught in is a daft part of the yellow box in any case which makes it all the more annoying on the corner of Tweedy Road and College road in Bromley, Kent. My wife was coming out of tweedy road turning left into that area before the pedestrian traffic light.

 

20 seconds - this is more and more a police state it makes me furious.

 

Thanks for your help anyway and well done to the previous poster for winning against these tyrants.

[HYMN AND MI]

Not necessarily. Always worth a challenge. Got someone off one the other month on the paperwork. If you let us see the PCN to see if it is compliant.

[aziz]

I WON my appeal yesterday against a PCN issued for a yellow box junction contravention. My PCN was issued for the YBJ contravention at Battersea Bridge Road/ Westgate Road/ Parkgate Road junction. I successfully argued that this yellow box junction was not compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 diagrams 1043 and 1044.

 

Transport for London had argued that the reason that the YBJ at that junction was non-compliant was because of the presence of a red route at that junction which had double red lines drawn. In its letter rejecting my appeal TfL had said, "TfL has deemed it practical to not draw the yellow box marking above the double red lines or vice versa, as this will further create complication with the 2 road marks." My position was that if this was indeed TfL's rationale for the non-compliance then it needed to seek authorisation for this non-compliance from the Secretary of State, which TfL had not done. This made the YBJ non-compliant and thus, unenforceable for any PCN issued for it.

 

Fortunately, the adjudicator agreed with me and quashed my PCN.

 

Just for information, the adjudicator rejected my primary defence to the PCN that the left hand lane at this junction had been free at the time when my car was in the YBJ and, I could have used it as a viable exit. I said that the fact that I did not use it was because my car had been moving forward slowly in my right hand lane. But the adjudicator rejected this defence stating that even though there had been a viable exit for me I had chosen not to take it. The adjudicator also rejected my defence that I had never actually stopped in the YBJ but remained inching forward. She said that the DVD footage showed me having stopped for 10 seconds, which she ruled was "a finding of fact". She also rejected my contention that as the camera was sited over 20 meters back from the YBJ there was a possibility of some distortion on perspective which accounted for my explanation that I had never actually stopped in the YBJ but remained inching forward.

 

But she did accept my argument that TfL had inserted the incomplete contravention code of 31, rather than 31J, in the PCN documents, because the latter is the correct code for PCN's issued using CCTV evidence, which had been so in my case.

 

In any case, she quashed my PCN.

 

So, if anyone else wishes to appeal a PCN issued at this YBJ do so quickly BEFORE TfL get this YBJ compliant by getting authorisation for its non-compliance from the Secretary of State. And good luck all!!

 

 

HI, I received a PCN for the same junction for last Sunday morning. And my notice also shows the code 31 rather than 31J. I am a bit confused as to the point about the yellow box and red markings. I am from yorkshire so unable to go down to view the area again, but are you saying that there is only a red box there and not yellow so it makes the charge unlawful?. I would appreciate some clarification.

And do you know if they have obtained the authority they needed or brought the markings upto legal requirements.

Am I still able to use the same arguments you did.

I must add, the governments policies on legal drivers amounts to extortion as we seem to be powerless and easy targets.

Thanks

[HYMN AND MI]

I would use the same arguments that the markings are not correctly laid out. You can only ask the council by e-mail if they have sought special authorisation and obtained it: doubt it in this time period. Also, there are problems with the PCN which has been ruled defective at PATAS: Cases 2100628598 and 2100498211: go to PATAS site and click on Register of Appeals, then Search and type in the numbers for the decisions. For further advice re the PCN see this thread, in particular #12 to check your PCN:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/foru/showthread.php?t=310376&goto=newpost

 

 

Having seen this link, perhaps it was argued that the yellow box lines did not fully go up to the kerb i.e. over the red lines, assuming the pictures are up to date?

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Battersea+Bridge+Road,+Wandsworth&aq=0&sll=51.408972,-0.305128&sspn=0.000989,0.002792&g=Kingston+Upon+Thames,+Surrey,+United+Kingdom&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Battersea+Bridge+Rd,+Wandsworth,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.478229,-0.16985&spn=0.000494,0.001396&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=51.478206,-0.169812&panoid=zr9zIN2E0iv1VlJrfTruNg&cbp=12,337.11,,0,0

 

Also, these two cases as I suspected: 2110069641 and 2110138201

Edited July 8, 2011 by HYMN AND MI

[cream70]

Their PCNs may also be defective and non-compliant.

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2100498211

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2100628598

http://www.patasregistersofappeals.org.uk/statreg/case.aspx?caseref=2100549287

[bennyowen]

More example cases won for Battersea Bridge Road / Westbridge Road yellow box junction:

2100439540 - Unforeseen obstruction

2100446400 - Multiple reasons for winning

2110069641 - Non compliant box

2110138201 - Non compliant box

[bennyowen]

More example PATAS Case Number for Battersea Bridge Road / Westbridge Road yellow box junction:

210061382A

 

And read the full story in Telegraph here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8068422/Yellow-box-camera-raises-1-million-a-year.html

[andrew1]

I'm with Ms Lord...I'm fed up of these fines. I parked up to pick up a take away the other evening, never been in that particular road before, left after 2 minutes and swung around to go back the way I came. Didn't realise it was a Bus lane - £65.00 - not a car to be seen anywhere so hardly causing a problem. £130 last month for the Bromley farce of 20 seconds in a box without moving much (the Mrs) and now this - ridiculous Police state.