Challenging a PCN

steve-L

Head_The_Ball wrote: »

That is not what the Highway Code and articles in my links appear to state.

It's not in the highway code but the law say's

[Law TSRGD regs 10(1) & 29(2)]


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.

The offence is committed on entering ... (not what happens later)
The offence is due to the presence of stationary vehicles

dtsazza

steve-L wrote: »

It's not in the highway code but the law say's



The offence is committed on entering ... (not what happens later)
The offence is due to the presence of stationary vehicles

That seems like a very narrow (i.e. incorrect) reading of the wording.

To me it seems clear that the offence is entering and then having to stop. It doesn't make any sense to take a "snapshot" of the situation when the car enters and then try to evaluate the remaining conditions (which are naturally in the future).

It's like saying that the offence of GBH has to be determined when you send the nerve impulses to contract your arm muscles. That would be weird and unnecessary - it's much more sensible and useful to evaluate the offence based on the actual situation that unfolded.

Also, if the law was intended to work the way you've interpreted it, I would have thought it would be phrased differently. Something like "no person shall cause a vehicle to enter a box junction if at the time of entering they can reasonably expect the vehicle will have to come to a stop."

Head_The_Ball

steve-L wrote: »

It's not in the highway code but the law say's



The offence is committed on entering ... (not what happens later)
The offence is due to the presence of stationary vehicles

Good luck quoting that law in court if you ever get caught in a box junction.

Your incorrect interpretation of what that means differs from the interpretation put on it by the Police and the Courts. If you were correct, the lawyers would be all over it.

The Highway Code is relevant too.

From the Highway Code:

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence

The section on box junctions is a 'Must Not' rule.

It isn't advisory. It is the law.

Coupon-mad

steve-L wrote: »

It's not in the highway code but the law say's
The offence is committed on entering ... (not what happens later)
The offence is due to the presence of stationary vehicles

The above IS CORRECT.


Head The Ball and dtsazza:
If you do not believe us, ask on pepipoo forum!

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

Good luck quoting that law in court if you ever get caught in a box junction.

Your incorrect interpretation of what that means differs from the interpretation put on it by the Police and the Courts. If you were correct, the lawyers would be all over it.

The Highway Code is relevant too.

All wrong, thank goodness.

The Highway code is not the applicable statute.

The Police are not involved and nor are the courts, not with box junction PCNs from dozy Local Authorities!

Box junction ones are EASY to appeal, I've won one myself this year (and yes, the driver 'did the crime' but that's not actually the point!).

Pepipoo posters win almost all. If you don't know this why not read their forum and learn, or at least don't post stuff that you don't know the answer to!

Head_The_Ball

^^^^

All I can see on Pepipoo are appeals that were contested on the basis of the car not actually stopping but moving slowly within the box junction or the box junction not being correctly laid out etc.

I cannot see a successful appeal based on the vehicles ahead not being stationary as being discussed above.

Can you please link to successful appeals based on that?

There are presumably lots of them.

Coupon-mad

I should firstly say to balance this discussion that a driver is expected before entering a box junction, to make a reasonable assessment as to whether he/she can clear the box, so if the traffic is coming to a halt then there is less to argue on that front (but still 90% of people win on pepipoo so there are other grounds!).

For example, here is a typical one where the OP appealed because they could not have anticipated the moving vehicles in front would stop, so when they entered the YBJ there was no contravention at the point of entry. But the Council mucked up the appeals process (which is very typical and how I won my one this year too and is how pepipoo have such a high % rate of wins). This sort of case is why I said 'dozy Local Authorities' earlier because lots of wins are actually on procedural impropriety:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=84179



Here are a few other YBJ cases won on the 'no stationary vehicles when the car entered the YBJ' argument:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=100287

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=90145&view=findpost&p=996405

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=90145&view=findpost&p=1041540

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=90145&view=findpost&p=1216358

Mr Mustard is the Barnet area expert and has identified a new loophole:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=90145&view=findpost&p=1224481


If this were me now and if the situation was unlikely to have been possible to anticipate upon entering the YBJ, I would use the persuasive Review Panel appeal case of:

Essoo –v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767)

''In Mr Essoo’s case he had submitted that only after he had committed the vehicle into the box junction from the left hand lane, did another vehicle, approaching from the right hand lane, cut across in front of him and take the exit space. Therefore he was stranded in the box junction due to the unexpected action of the other driver who had cut across into his lane without signalling.

Mr Essoo objected to the local authority’s evidence as he submitted that the camera did not show his point of entry.

The Adjudicator made a finding of fact that Mr Essoo could not have predicted the behaviour of the van driver. However the Adjudicator did not find that there was any defence but that the circumstances were ones which went only to mitigation.

Mr Essoo applied for a review in which, once again he objected to the camera evidence. He re-iterated that, at the time he entered the box junction, his exit lane was clear. Only after he entered did the van decide to change lanes and cut in front of him. Mr Essoo’s recollection of the appeal hearing was that the previous Adjudicator had made reference to advice in the Highway Code - but that the Adjudicator had stated that this was not law.''

Essoo –v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767)

31 We had the opportunity of hearing from Mr Essoo in person and we thanked him for his attendance. We examined the camera footage several times.

32 We are not persuaded that there is any justification in Mr Essoo’s submission that there was a failure by the local authority to prove the case due to the scope of the camera. The evidence is sufficiently proximate so that the Adjudicator can draw the necessary judgment as to the state of the traffic which the driver would have seen as he entered the box.

33 In examining the camera footage our attention was drawn to the somewhat brisk progress made by Mr Essoo’s vehicle. When he entered the box the offending van had already begun to straddle the two exit lanes. A more cautious approach would have given Mr Essoo the better chance of reacting to the van driver’s decision to cut across. However it is certainly true that the van driver diagonally cut across the box junction from right to left with the consequence that Mr Essoo’s vehicle could not leave the box.

34 The finding of fact made by the previous Adjudicator - that the Appellant could not have predicted the behaviour of the van driver - is in our view a generous one. However it was a finding at which the Adjudicator was reasonably entitled to arrive upon the evidence. We therefore consider that we are bound by that finding of fact.

35 Therefore the evidence before the previous Adjudicator was that, at the point of entry, Mr Essoo would have been able to see the free movement of traffic and the likelihood that his exit would be free for his vehicle. Since he could not have predicted that the van driver would perform an intervening act, namely cutting across his right of way, Mr Essoo’s judgment was not at fault at the point of entry. Therefore in our view no contravention occurred here. Mr Essoo did not breach the entry prohibition. The vehicle had to stop because of the intervening act of the other driver which was not predictable at the point of entry. A driver cannot be held liable for the contravention when it was outside his judgment to prevent it.

36 In our view the Regulation, describing as it does a consequence that a vehicle has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles, does not thereby impose a necessity upon a driver that he must wait outside the box to see if traffic ahead will become stationary before he decides to enter. The traffic may still be moving when s/he enters and yet a contravention still occur if the traffic stops thereafter. This is the driver’s risk in the judgment s/he exercises unless, as in Mr Essoo’s case, the driver could not have predicted the reason for the stopping of the vehicles ahead.

37 We have had regard to the relevant paragraph advising motorists in the Highway Code. The warning is “ You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear.” However we are of the view that this steps rather beyond what is required by the Regulation. A driver may exercise a prediction in his judgment as to whether the exit space will be clear. He is not to blame if the exit is thereafter blocked by an unexpected event such as the intervening action of another vehicle cutting into his right of way without warning.

38 We are therefore of the view that the interests of justice are served by a review here. Applying the finding of fact to the Regulation, we believe that the Adjudicator has made a misdirection in viewing the circumstances as only proving a contravention subject to mitigation.
We review the decision and find that no contravention occurred. The appeal is therefore allowed.''



The MoneyBoxJunction website has been going for nearly ten years I think with thousands of cases, if you want to read more evidence:

https://moneyboxjunction.wordpress.com/about/

https://moneyboxjunction.wordpress.com/help-me/

Then there are the other websites listed there, like TicketFighter, with yet more cases won...

Head_The_Ball

^^^^

Most of your links take me to the same page and none of them appear to support your assertion or contradict mine.

Thanks for your efforts but I think I shall stick to my understanding and interpretation of the rules.

Coupon-mad

Head_The_Ball wrote: »

^^^^

Most of your links take me to the same page and none of them appear to support your assertion or contradict mine.

Thanks for your efforts but I think I shall stick to my understanding and interpretation of the rules.

Nice try. The pepipoo links didn't work well but were intended to lead to individual posts on that thread, which give case numbers for wins when a car did not enter then stop due to stationary vehicles. I'm not digging them out again and re-linking for a poster who seems to have your fingers in your ears and is singing lalala...

The Essoo case even shoots down your Highway Code assertion, but never mind.

At least you know now where to get help when you need it. Unless you want to just pay PCNs anyway.

Head_The_Ball

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Nice try. The pepipoo links didn't work well but were intended to lead to individual posts on that thread, which give case numbers for wins when a car did not enter then stop due to stationary vehicles..

At least we agree on something.

Head_The_Ball

Coupon-mad wrote: »

..the Essoo case even shoots down your Highway Code assertion, but never mind. ...

No it doesn't. It refers to someone changing lanes which was covered by my original post.

It doesn't really matter what the other traffic ahead of you was doing unless someone reversed or otherwise blocked your anticipated space.