Yellow Box fine on Barking Road east Ham

paye

Having looked closely at the PCN i think i might have a case to appeal on, on the basis that PCN dose not tell me the exact location of where the contravention took place, Barking Road is a long Road about 2-3 miles long, am I right in thinking that the PCN should state two roads and not just one Road like on my PCN.

I'm thinking of firing this letter across to them:

Dear Sir / Madam

I am writing to appeal against the PCN that was issued to me. I believe the PCN should be cancelled for the following reason:

1) The Penalty Charge Notice does not specify the location of the alleged contravention accurately (the principle of vague locus).

Section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 States:

(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must – (a) state – (i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, London Borough of Newham believe that the that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

The grounds on which the PCN is payable has not been established because the location of the contravention is non-specific. Inspection of a map, such as those freely available on the internet shows that Barking Road is a long road that may contain many box junctions. Given that this is an alleged contravention of entering and stopping in box junction, the PCN must specify the two roads for the junction in this case.

I would like to bring to your attention the allowed PATAS appeal ‘Reeve –v-Haringay’ (PATAS Case Reference 2060376463) in which the Adjudicator’s reasons contain the following:

‘’Ms Reeve argues that the Local Authority do not in the PCN state the precise junctions for the alleged contravention, the location being described as ‘Green Lanes N4’. There are a number of Junctions on Green Lanes within N4. There is nothing that I am aware of to prevent the Local Authority giving the precise junction. I am not satisfied that the PCN in this case is sufficiently particular and accordingly I will allow the appeal.


This principle was also upheld in the PATAS appeal ‘Stuart –v- Islington’ (PATAS Case reference 2070018834).

‘’ The applicant’s principle argument is that the PCN is not compliant with section 4 (5) (b) of the London Local Authorities Transport Act 2003 in that it does not specify where in Liverpool Road the contravention occurred.

‘’I have looked at the PCN and it does not indicate at which junction in entirety of Liverpool Road this contravention occurred. In such circumstances the point is well made and the PCN is, in my judgement, invalid.


In the parking Adjudicator’s Annual report for 2006/7, under the heading of ‘Description of Contravention in PCN’’, the Chief Adjudicator highlights the case of ‘Adamou –v- Haringay’ (PATAS Case reference 2060381000), in which he says ‘draws attention to the need to adequately identify on the PCN the location of the alleged contravention. Imprecision in this respect may lead to appeals being allowed for this reason.’’

In order to comply with the Act and to enable the owner to exercise his/her rights to make representation and / or an appeal, a PCN should state the exact location so that the owner can verify the restrictions in that particular spot for him/herself.

This view is further supported by various court cases such as ‘Young –v- Day’ (1959) 123 J.P. 317].

wat do you think?

Coupon-mad

I think, see the video first. See that video as a priority, and look at when you entered the YBJ, keeping in mind what was in those links above.

And post up the PCN asap here, including the back/small print!

I think location is an appeal issue but not sure in situations where the photos might show the junction clearly.

And if you think you were in the wrong, don't just pay up, still appeal (I would!) but get advice first from pepipoo.com about your PCN wording.

Register and post your PCN pics here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

HTH

paye

Coupon-mad wrote: »

I think, see the video first. See that video as a priority, and look at when you entered the YBJ, keeping in mind what was in those links above.

And post up the PCN asap here, including the back/small print!

I think location is an appeal issue but not sure in situations where the photos might show the junction clearly.

And if you think you were in the wrong, don't just pay up, still appeal (I would!) but get advice first from pepipoo.com about your PCN wording.

Register and post your PCN pics here:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showforum=30

HTH

thanks for the reply m8, i've signed up on pepipoo will have to wait and see what comes up.

here is a copy of the pcn i received:

http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/2103/pcnpage1.png
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2528/pcnpage2.png
http://img714.imageshack.us/img714/8084/pcnpage3.png
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/695/pcnpage4.png

Coupon-mad

I'm not a m8, I am a girly! SchoolRunMum on pepipoo.com forums!

But I expect they will tell you the PCN is non-compliant due to 'fettered TWOC'. Search for those words in the search box on pepipoo so you know what they mean by it!

I am also not certain that the box junction is compliant as I think the kerb-side corners should extend to the kerb, but it seems to stop short of the kerb at the far end, on those pics. That's just another point though and I am not sure as I haven't seen the regs on that point. I have seen it queried before though.

You definitely need to see the video to see if your way was clear before you entered the YBJ - it could be argued from that still, I think, that the outer lane was clear (if you had cut up the car on your right you would not have had to stop!) therefore the contravention as laid down in the regulations, did not occur.

See what the experts on pepipoo say.

paye

well guys I know it's an old post but though I'd give you guys an update. After taking the case all the way to PATAS i won on the grounds that the pcn did not specfy the exact location of where the contrevention took place. Because Barking road is a long road the pcn should of stated a junction but it didn't. My argument was that I could not put in accurate appeal because I did not know where exactly on Barking Road the contrevention took place.
So the judge ruled in my favour. :beer:

forgotmyname

Oh dear so you have committed fraud/perjury??? Obvious identifiable information posted on the net and you
openly admit to lying in court?

OOPs edit button working??