Jump to content

JBond

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About JBond

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Update: PATAS - did get it wrong! PATAS have confirmed the first Adjudicator (Andrew Harman) made a mistake, although they refer to it as a 'misdirection' Certainly worth a read, paragraph 38, refers to the misdirection by Andrew Harman. The other cases are also worth a read as it states there is no defence for painted YBJ which are not correctly painted, if you cannot prove this confused your judgement. Anyone attending PATAS should air on the side of caution if they have Andrew Harman as their adjudicator. I have no legal background, but I have something which i
  2. Khan V TFL* Case no. 2130261437 The main question to be considered is whether the appellant caused his car to enter the box junction so that the car had to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The appellant says that he did not cause any congestion or delay at the time that his car was stationary in the box junction. The case of the authority is that the car entered and stopped in the box junction. I find as fact that:**the car entered the box junction at a time when there were stationary vehicles at the intended exit point; the car stoppe
  3. Gillingham V L.B of Newham Case no. 2130193949 Decision: The contravention occurs if a person causes 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. Mr Gillingham denies the contravention. He states that his car was not stopped in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles because the exit on the nearside lane was clear.** I have seen the CCTV footage. It shows the appellant's car entering the box junction and stopping. However it is clear from the footage that the appe
  4. My case decision: The appellant, who appeared before me today, explained that on entering the box his exit lane was clear a vehicle in front (a van) changing lanes without indicating it pulling into his lane and coming to a halt he having to do the same. I accepted that the appellant had no intention of stopping in the box and that he could not have predicted the behaviour of the van driver but I was satisfied that his vehicle having as I found entered this box had to stop in it due to the presence of stationery vehicles and I found the contravention proved.**The appellant's submissions
  5. I've heard back from PATAS,* They have decided to review the decision that the Adjudicator made regarding my appeal.* They stated that the proceedings raise common questions of law and would like the hearing to proceed along with two other cases.* I would be very interested to hear from the other parties; Gillingham V L.B of Newham Case no. 2130193949 Khan V TFL* Case no. 2130261437
  6. This is the response from PATAS; The appellant, who appeared before me today, explained that on entering the box his exit lane was clear a vehicle in front (a van) changing lanes without indicating it pulling into his lane and coming to a halt he having to do the same. I accept that the appellant had no intention of stopping in the box and that he could not have predicted the behaviour of the van driver but I was satisfied that his vehicle having as I found entered this box had to stop in it due to the presence of stationary vehicles and I found the contravention proved. The appellan
  7. I should have made this point a bit clearer. They did provide video evidence, but it's impossible to pause the video at the moment that I entered the box and more to the point the screen shot (due to the camera angle) does not show the starting point of the box.I was hoping to get this as I was also using this point as a defence and expected they would send in a snap shot picture of me entering the box junction. The Adjudicator didn't seem interested in my entry and exit path of the box junction, but kept going on about me stopping in the box junction - which at the time I thought was complet
  8. Thank you all for you replies, Ericsbrother – I will certainly use the wording ‘Necessity’ when I appeal the Adjudicators decision. Jamberson - I have 14 days to do this, at which point a different Adjudicator will review the case.Green and Mean – It’s very hard to slow the video down to the point when I enter the box junction and even though I pointed this out in my appeal to the LA, they did not provide evidence of me entering the box junction only photos of when I was stationary in the box junction. All this was discussed with the Adjudicator, which he dismissed. I found his attitude a litt
  9. Have PATAS got it wrong?This morning I went to the Parking & Traffic Appeals Service, which I thought was going to be a straight forward win for me. Box junction offence. (Enfield Council) Upon entering the box junction my exit was clear (I was in lane 1), the van in lane 2 move across into my lane without indication and this resulted in me having to stop behind the van in the box junction. Vehicle Registration Number xxxx Penalty Charge Notice xxxxxxxx https://parking.enfield.nslservers.co.uk/TicketDetails.aspWhen watching the video please allow for stopping distances, at the time
  10. Are there any rules regarding there being a dropped kerb in place or road markings so we can tell where the start and end points are?
  11. I've been helping a friend to appeal a parking ticket, for being parked across a dropped kerb (access to a drive way to private flats). The dropped kerb has no start and end reference points as the height of the kerb is the same along the street and there are no road markings. From the photos which they sent to him, you could not see he was parked over the dropped kerb. So I wrote asking for clarification on where the dropped kerb starts and finishes. Standard line came back about waiting for Notice to Owner to make a formal challenge. At the bottom of the letter, they let me
  12. Any information to help would be greatly appreciated. Basically I have a tree outside my house and the roots have pushed my front garden wall back, to the point where it could potentially fall over. After submitting my claim to the LA they have written back to me with this: We confirm that we have no objections to works commencing in accordance with the estimate provided by Mem’s Building Contractors. Having consideration to the considerable age of the existing front garden wall, the inadequate foundation and the considerable betterment that will be achieved in having the works carr
  13. Point taken about the view for pedestrians...I'll pay the ticket. Thanks for all replies.
×
×
  • Create New...