PCN for stopping in yellow box when turning right

forgotmyname

The problem is they are not in the box turning right. The right hand turn is further up the road isnt it?

They turned left in the box junction and didnt exit it on the main road. Not blocked by traffic coming the other way. But the queue already on the main road.

Overhead views makes it clearer. Its nbot overly wide it covers 2 lanes. Point 2 (ii) above may apply?


OP turned left on the dotted line, Cam got them as the red box and they intended on turning right where the white van is (circled in red)

Coupon-mad

They will still win, simply on the 28 days argument; the Council is stuffed on that alone. And you have missed my points here or I didn't explain them well:

The problem is they are not in the box turning right. The right hand turn is further up the road isnt it?

Doesn't matter - read the Regs I quoted.

Not blocked by traffic coming the other way. But the queue already on the main road.

Doesn't matter - read the Regs I quoted.

Its not overly wide, it covers 2 lanes.

That's not the width I meant. I did explain (not very well!) it looks 'too wide for the side road' and arguably catches cars it should not. So as you are looking at it, my point is the box is too long, then. That's what I meant, and the OP can ask for any DFT Authorisation/drawings & measurements as part of the appeal wording.

Trebor16

Bantex wrote: »

Yellow box junctions are pretty visible.

It is not uncommon for them to be incorrectly painted and not complying with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

Coupon-mad

Doesn't matter though - the Council are stuffed.

Bantex_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Doesn't matter though - the Council are stuffed.

It is only the council tax payers that end up paying though.

Coupon-mad

And as I already said, the fault lies with the Council for issuing borderline PCNs for any tiny transgression. And also, now I've looked at the Notice properly, the wasted money lies with the Council squarely for using a non-compliant document wording. Their legal team who created that document no doubt earn considerably more (multiple times) than me in a School, and yet they come up with that!

If the 28 day glaring error - and the fibs about an Operator viewing in 'real time' - was to be exposed in the Media after this OP wins, it's possible Redbridge would have to offer refunds IMHO. Their fault, they are the ones who waste the taxpayers money by making major errors when they are fully accountable.

The wasted money is not caused by the appellant. Their transgression is de minimis; the Council's enormous.

Bantex_2

Coupon-mad wrote: »

And as I already said, the fault lies with the Council for issuing borderline PCNs for any tiny transgression. And also, now I've looked at the Notice properly, the wasted money lies with the Council squarely for using a non-compliant document wording. Their legal team who created that document no doubt earn considerably more (multiple times) than me in a School, and yet they come up with that!

If the 28 day glaring error - and the fibs about an Operator viewing in 'real time' - was to be exposed in the Media after this OP wins, it's possible Redbridge would have to offer refunds IMHO. Their fault, they are the ones who waste the taxpayers money by making major errors when they are fully accountable.

The wasted money is not caused by the appellant. Their transgression is de minimis; the Council's enormous.

My point was, it may be the councils fault, but it will be the local taxpayers that pay the bill

Coupon-mad

Yes indeed. Councils need to get their @rses in gear and stop paying silly money to execs and legal bods who don't do their job properly; can't write a simple compliant statutory notice. It's because of them that the tax payers have such hefty amounts to pay, partly due to overpaid idiots and then the costs of sweeping up their mess.

skudoman

Bantex wrote: »

My point was, it may be the councils fault, but it will be the local taxpayers that pay the bill

Are you really serious ! Would you also think it was right to put someone in nick if it was known that someone else did the crime.The council are criminals and need to be stopped.If they want to blow the council tax money on their illegal get rich quick skanks then make them dough brained crooks pay for it.:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

skudoman

Before the,"poor old council tax payers will have to pay"brigade start spouting their nonsense they should take a little trip down to the yellow box at Chadwell Heath lane and then try defending this tyrannical bunch of crooks at Redbridge road planning.The box is a money spinner and if it truly was to minimize congestion,etc then,why not install the sensible option,ie,a set of traffic lights.The truth is,these toerags are out to skank the motorist.Has anyone had a look at the other end of Chadwell Heath lane-the exact same layout.Anyone think this is more than a coincidence ! They are deliberately putting these useless boxes in unworkable positions to catch unsuspecting motorists.Does anyone remember the Bowes road fiasco where,Enfield council put a yellow box at the junction of Brownlow road and Bowes road and for nearly 4 years,fleecing the motorist for millions of £s.It was only when a barrister got caught in their trap that things were exposed and they had to remove it and repay all the fines "if motorists requested it".They are all criminals and don't accept that they are voted in to carry out the wishes of the electorate but,instead line their own pockets with our wedge.:mad::mad::mad::mad: