Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Box Junction PCN - New Kings Road j/w Bagleys Lane


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1976 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Recenly received the following PCN from the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

 

2mp0gag.jpg

2q3x4hy.jpg

 

The offense allegedly happened when vehicle was travelling west to east along New Kings Road.

See arial google maps image

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Bagley's+Ln,+Hammersmith,+London+SW6,+United+Kingdom&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=13.679199,46.450195&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FZNwEQMdOiD9_w&split=0&hq=&hnear=Bagley's+Ln,+London+SW6,+United+Kingdom&ll=51.476809,-0.192082&spn=0.000439,0.001418&t=h&z=20

 

and see google maps street level view in direction of vehicle

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&q=Bagley's+Ln,+Hammersmith,+London+SW6,+United+Kingdom&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=13.679199,46.450195&ie=UTF8&cd=1&geocode=FZNwEQMdOiD9_w&split=0&hq=&hnear=Bagley's+Ln,+London+SW6,+United+Kingdom&t=h&ll=51.476692,-0.192368&spn=0,0.001418&z=20&layer=c&cbll=51.476618,-0.192472&panoid=C7zPanbw2smnQczD0UT0xg&cbp=12,42.94,,0,18.62

 

All that has beem recieved as evidence is a still photograph which does not prove anything, and to be honest drive this section of road so frequently that cannot remember the time in question, but sure would not stop in box junction.

 

Any help would be most welcome.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 110
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

I'm slightly confused because that picture is awful - I don't see at all how it can show you in a box junction, the front wheel is only just in front of what looks like the stop line, behind the refuge and the box is even after the refuge. If that's your car stopped, surely it isn't in the box, and so (unless they do have a photo of you IN the box AND that stop in the box is contrary to the HC guidance, i.e. you stopped in the box junction when your exit was not clear and there was no oncoming traffic stopping you moving) surely no contravention occurred, since that photo does not show your car stopped in a box junction...

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say so... They need to prove the contravention exists, or at least show it (c.f. several photos with other PCNs).

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm slightly confused because that picture is awful - I don't see at all how it can show you in a box junction, the front wheel is only just in front of what looks like the stop line, behind the refuge and the box is even after the refuge. If that's your car stopped, surely it isn't in the box, and so (unless they do have a photo of you IN the box AND that stop in the box is contrary to the HC guidance, i.e. you stopped in the box junction when your exit was not clear and there was no oncoming traffic stopping you moving) surely no contravention occurred, since that photo does not show your car stopped in a box junction...

 

Since the offence is a 'moving traffic' contravention its impossible for any photo to show a vehicle contravening which is why they use cctv, there is no requirement for any photos on a PCN let alone one that shows the vehicle contravening the photo has been added to identify the keepers vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the offence is a 'moving traffic' contravention its impossible for any photo to show a vehicle contravening which is why they use cctv, there is no requirement for any photos on a PCN let alone one that shows the vehicle contravening the photo has been added to identify the keepers vehicle.

 

how should i proceed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the offence is a 'moving traffic' contravention its impossible for any photo to show a vehicle contravening which is why they use cctv, there is no requirement for any photos on a PCN let alone one that shows the vehicle contravening the photo has been added to identify the keepers vehicle.

The offence is stopping in a box junction, isn't it? If that's the case, surely a still from the CCTV showing the car actually stopped in the box junction would be better than a photo of the car with its front wheel marginally over the stop line and no part of the vehicle in the box. The CCTV is time stamped presumably, so you could send with the pcn a still of the car stopping and a still of just before it moves off indicating it had stopped in the box for that time. They haven't even shown the car was in the box at all.

 

You can ask for images to appeal with speeding tickets and as both stopping in a box junction and speeding are illegal surely before you accept guilt you need to be shown what you are being charged with? Personally if I didn't recall stopping in the box, and they didn't show me evidence of doing it, then I'd appeal the ticket and say that I didn't believe the contravention occurred because that does not show any evidence of stopping in a box junction. If you did, and they had the evidence to match, they'd simply have to show a time period of you being stopped in there, at which point it is showing a contravention hence no point appealing.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

.... unless they do have a photo of you IN the box AND that stop in the box is contrary to the HC guidance,.

 

ForestChav please lets not do the thread on people being in contravention of HIGHWAY CODE GUIDANCE again!

 

The contravention would be contrary to the TSRGD regs section 10(1) and 29(2) as shown below HC rule 174

 

 

 

 

174

 

Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.

 

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

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No its not, it is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited! It is not against the law OR the highway code just to stop in a box junction.

Learn to read. For someone who is such a nit picker I'm surprised you can't. In the second post on this thread, I said the contravention is stopping in a box junction when your exit road is not clear and your movement is not blocked by oncoming traffic. You have taken that sentence completely out of context, making you look like an idiot.

ForestChav please lets not do the thread on people being in contravention of HIGHWAY CODE GUIDANCE again!

Uhh, I did say it was against the law. There can't be a contravention if it is not... In this case the "HC guidance" also corresponds directly to a law, in this case TSRGD so you are driving illegally and in violation of the driving practices shown in the HC if you break that rule.

(unless)you stopped in the box junction when your exit was not clear and there was no oncoming traffic stopping you moving surely no contravention occurred

 

The OP needs to see the CCTV footage or appropriate images showing where he is stopped. If there was no unauthorised stopping in the box which has not so far been shown to be the case, there is no contravention hence appeal. If there is, and they've just not shown the photo, then no grounds to appeal. Simple as. Which is exactly what I said. I don't see why you're being so argumentative over totally nothing at all.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Learn to read. For someone who is such a nit picker I'm surprised you can't. In the second post on this thread, I said the contravention is stopping in a box junction when your exit road is not clear and your movement is not blocked by oncoming traffic. You have taken that sentence completely out of context, making you look like an idiot.

 

except the offence IS NOT "stopping in a box junction". The offence is more correctly as stated by G&M. "ENTERING and STOPPING in a box junction".

 

i.e. the offence only occurs if your exit is not free PRIOR to you entering the box. So if you enter the box with your exit clear, and something occurs beyond your control which now blocks your exit forcing you to stop within the box, then no offence has occurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

except the offence IS NOT "stopping in a box junction". The offence is more correctly as stated by G&M. "ENTERING and STOPPING in a box junction".

 

i.e. the offence only occurs if your exit is not free PRIOR to you entering the box. So if you enter the box with your exit clear, and something occurs beyond your control which now blocks your exit forcing you to stop within the box, then no offence has occurred.

Which is exactly what I said it was. It's stopping a box junction when your exit is not clear and no oncoming traffic is preventing you from leaving. You can't stop in it without entering. Either way, from that picture it's not even relevant - it doesn't show the car even stopped or in a box junction, it's slightly over the stop line, not yet in the box, which is allowed, you can cross the line on a green light and even if that junction has a box you can stop between the stop line (provided you didn't pass it on a red light) and not enter the box if it is not free. Quite why they think that picture shows any contravention at all, not least any demonstration of having entered a box junction...

 

OP it looks like you can view the images online http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/holding/PCNImages.asp

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

except the offence IS NOT "stopping in a box junction". The offence is more correctly as stated by G&M. "ENTERING and STOPPING in a box junction".

 

i.e. the offence only occurs if your exit is not free PRIOR to you entering the box. So if you enter the box with your exit clear, and something occurs beyond your control which now blocks your exit forcing you to stop within the box, then no offence has occurred.

 

Which is why I said the contravention could not be shown in a photo, even if the photo showed the OP parked in the middle of the box junction it would not show him entering when his exit was not clear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what I said it was. It's stopping a box junction when your exit is not clear and no oncoming traffic is preventing you from leaving. You can't stop in it without entering.

 

You still don't get it do you!!? You can stop in the box junction provided when you entered the exit was clear!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You still don't get it do you!!? You can stop in the box junction provided when you entered the exit was clear!!!!

But he isn't even stopped in a box junction is he?

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is not entering the box junction either is he? Which is why for the 3rd time I will point out that a photo a) cannot show the contravention and b) is not required to show the contravention on the PCN.

So what's the point of a photo which isn't even showing an offence (presuming the car passed the line on a green light) being on the PCN, which isn't even required to be there or can't show the offence anyway?

 

You would have thought they would use a photo of him actually stopped on the box junction or crossing the line onto that.

 

And as I said, actually, you can show the contravention with photos. 1 of him entering, and 2 of him stopped on it (i.e. in two different points in time showing no movement of the car) and a photo of the exit being clear. They have lines on the road next to some speed cameras for this and in any case they will have timestamps either in the metadata or on the screen image itself which will show this, failing that, they will have the cctv video (which is only a sequence of still images anyway) recorded of when the offence allegedly took place (which is how they have issued the notice anyway).

 

None of this matters. The OP does not recall entering the box junction - understandable as it's one he uses regularly, several times, and they often send the PCNs out a while after the offence anyway. The photo on the PCN does not show the OP's car in a box junction regardless of whether it can/should be there so the only thing that shows as a memory jogger is that he went there at that time. Are you seriously suggesting that he should just pay the fine (as it seems you are arguing with the investigate whether he did/appeal approach) when he doesn't even remember committing an offence?

 

Several choices here:

1. presume you did it and pay the fine even though you can't remember and they haven't shown you have

2. no review, appeal saying no contravention and support with "the PCN does not show entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited" (your words not mine) and see what comes back

3. write to them and ask for cctv evidence or more photos to reinforce whether or not an offence was committed and then decide whether to appeal (if they don't show an offence) or not (if they do)

4. view the cctv on their website if it is up and then decide as per 3.

It's quite simple.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such offence as 'stopping in a box junction when your exit is not clear'. Green & Mean is correct, the offence is ENTERING and stopping in a box junction when your exit is not clear

 

The purpose of the photograph is to identify the vehicle. It is not to show evidence of the actual offence otherwise it would need moving pictures. How else would a single or even a series of pictures show whether you were stopped, nearly stopped, going backwards etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And as I said, actually, you can show the contravention with photos. 1 of him entering, and 2 of him stopped on it (i.e. in two different points in time showing no movement of the car) and a photo of the exit being clear.

 

That would show that there had been no contravention.

There is no such offence as 'stopping in a box junction when your exit is not clear'. Green & Mean is correct, the offence is ENTERING and stopping in a box junction when your exit is not clear

It's not even that.

The contravention is

. . . 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.

 

Refer to Jennings v Transport for London (PATAS case no. MV0285GT01) which says

“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 contravention is only established when the subject vehicle stops due to the presence of stationary vehicles. In this case the vehicle stopped in order to comply with a red light. The contravention was therefore not established.

There are many other reasons why a vehicle may enter and stop in a box junction without there being stationary vehicles present some of them may involve the exit not being clear and some may not.

Edited by Bernie_the_Bolt

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is exactly what I said it was. It's stopping a box junction when your exit is not clear and no oncoming traffic is preventing you from leaving. You can't stop in it without entering.

 

.. but you can ENTER the box when your exit is clear, and then be prevented from leaving because something now occurs AFTER you have ENTERED the box causing you to STOP WITHIN THE BOX which means no contravention occurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such offence as 'stopping in a box junction when your exit is not clear'. Green & Mean is correct, the offence is ENTERING and stopping in a box junction when your exit is not clear

Technically it's just entering but it's not relevant if no offence took place whatever it is. It might be entering, doing a triple lutz whilst blowing the blue danube on a vuvuzela but if you didn't do it, it doesn't matter ;)

174

 

Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.

 

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

 

The purpose of the photograph is to identify the vehicle. It is not to show evidence of the actual offence otherwise it would need moving pictures. How else would a single or even a series of pictures show whether you were stopped, nearly stopped, going backwards etc.

The same way as it would with anything else. Two photos a time of a couple of seconds apart with the car in the same place shows it has not moved in those two seconds.

 

What do you think moving pictures, or video evidence is? Just a series of photos changing over. TV is 50 Hz, that's still images changing 50 times every second.

 

Also, PCNs do come with photos or the councils have more evidence available for viewing. Another thread with a parking PCN the OP posted several pictures (presumably downloaded from the council) of the car with the PCN in, the location, the signage at the location, etc. This council offers the opportunity to view PCN images on the web via the address I pasted.

 

Regardless of the intricacies of what the actual offence is, or what should be on a PCN, or anything else which isn't relevant only for the purposes of being pedantic (yeah, they're not exactly the same, but how relevant really is that when we don't even know if he did break the law), he needs advising whether or not to appeal. The photo didn't help show any entering or stopping in a box - a single still wouldn't show this anyway - he can't recall doing it, there's probably more supporting evidence, they usually allow you to see it if there is, which is exactly what I would do. Anything else really isn't helpful...

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically it's just entering . . .

 

Wrong again!

 

If I enter and my exit is blocked by stationary vehicles and I creep over while at the same time the stationary vehicles start moving again and I exit without stopping, there has been no contravention.

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That would show that there had been no contravention.

I obviously meant "not being clear" :p

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong again!

 

If I enter and my exit is blocked by stationary vehicles and I creep over while at the same time the stationary vehicles start moving again and I exit without stopping, there has been no contravention.

 

I meant as opposed to "entering and stopping". That would come under either stationery vehicles in front waiting to turn right, or the exit becoming clear the split second you enter.

174

 

Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.

The above post constitutes my personal opinion on the facts in the post compared with my personal knowledge of the applicable legislation. I make no guarantees of its legal accuracy. If you are in doubt seek advice of a legal professional specialising in the area concerned.

 

If my post has helped you please click my scales!

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1976 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...