Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Firstly, I would like to thank everyone for their help in this matter. Since my last post I have received a reply from Plymouth Council Insurance Team concerning my wife’s accident (please see enclosed letter and photo of the offending Badminton post) which they deny any responsibility for the said accident. I feel that the Council is in breach of their statutory duties under the following acts: The Leisure Centre was negligent in its duty of care and therefore, in breach of the statutory duty owed under section 2 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (the Act) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees, and others who might be affected by its undertaking, e.g. members of the public visiting the Leisure Centre to use the facilities. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 that requires employers to assess risks (including slip and trip risks) and, where necessary, take action to address them. The Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations (PUWER) require the risk to people’s health and safety from equipment that is used at a Leisure Centre be prevented or controlled. I would like some advice to see if my assumptions are correct and my approach to obtaining satisfactory outcome to this matter are accurate. Many thanks   PLM23000150 - Copy Correspondence.pdf post docx.docx
    • Talking to them does not reset the time limit, although they will probably tell you it does, they'd be lying. Dumbdales are the in-house sols for Lowlife, just the next desk along. If Lowlifes were corresponding with you at your current address then Dumbdales know your address. However, knowing that they are lower than a snake's belly, you would be well advised to send them a letter, informing them of your current address and nothing else. Get 'proof of posting' which is free from the PO counter, don't sign it, simply type your name. That way then they have absolutely no excuse for attempting a back door CCJ.   P.S. Best course of action, IGNORE them, until or unless you get a claim form......you won't.
    • A 'signed for' Letter of Claim has been sent today so they have 14 days from tomorrow... Lets wait and see what happens but i suspect judging by their attitude they wont reply 
    • I am extremely apprehensive about burning our files.... I do not know why, so it is becoming an endless feedback loop. Scared to pull the trigger to speak in the desire not to mess up my file. 
    • Hi All, So brief outline. I have Natwest CC debt £8k last payment i made was 7th November 2018 Not a penny since. So coming up to the 6 year mark. Can't remember when i took out the  credit card would be a few years before everythign hit the fan. Moved house 2020 - updated NatWest as I still have a current account with them. Then Lowells took over from Moorcroft and were writing to me at my current address. I did get a family member to speak to them 3 years ago regarding the debt explained although it may be in my name I didn't rack it up then went contact again. 29th may received an email from overdales saying they were now managing the debt. I have not had any letter yet which i thought is odd?  Couple of questions 1. Does my family member speaking to lowell restart statute barred clock? 2. Do you think overdales aren't writing to me because they will back door CCJ to old address even though Lowells have contacted me at current address never at previous? ( have no proof though stupidly binned all letters  ) Should I write to them and confirm my address just incase? Does this restart statute barred clock? 3. what do you think best course of action is?   Any help/advice is appreciated I am aware they may ramp up the process now due to 7th December being the 6 year mark.   Many Thanks in advance! The threads on here have been super helpful to read.  
  • 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

Yellow Box Junction PCN - Video proof is here


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3951 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

Hi everyone,

 

Its been a while since I had PCN, but I think July month is not so good for me, I had a Fixed penalty from police on sunday for stoping on a laybay near heathrow and today in post from westminister council for yellow box junction.

 

I won't say alot about yellow box ticket bcoz its my first and I have no clue how to deal with it.

 

So I am just posting the video.

 

 

 

 

Do you pros think I have any chance to challange this?

 

Berkely Street is a side street and I was emerging onto picadilly which is a main street.

 

Please ADMIN let me know if its not right to post video here.

Edited by innocent_man
Link to post
Share on other sites

Video is fine if you don't mind your reg plate being seen.

 

I believe box junctions say 'do not enter box unless exit is clear' so on that basis, you have no challenge.

 

If something further up had stopped them moving, you would have been blocking any further movement of traffic.

 

Mind you, going by the speed with which the camera zoomed in on your plate, they were sitting there waiting for this.

 

Also, as you didn't impede anything and were only stopped for seconds, I think you should appeal anyway.

 

See, this says to me that this just for making money, did you see these threads ?

 

http://consumeractiongroup.co.uk

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2373711/Barnet-Council-parking-permits-price-hike-ruled-illegal-stealth-tax.html

 

The second one especially shows (and the courts says so) that it is just for profit.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for quick reply. I will read the links now.

 

about the number plate thing, I blv people who come to this site are not to do plate scaming or cloning. they are also people like me who have been biten by the local authorities. So i guess its ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link dosn't work for me.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link dosn't work for me.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

have a look now

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Conniff I'm afraid. They will say you didn't leave sufficient space between you and the silver car in front which appears to be slowing down before you entered the box.

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree there looks little room for appeal against that PCN as it seems clear that you could not proceed completely through the box before you entered it. The only thing in that video that surprises me is that the operator didn't also zoom in on the silver car who also failed to judge correctly that they could clear the box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The box looks non compliant its too big and should be to the corners of Berkeley st and not several meters before the corner on the approach up Piccadily.

 

One can argue that, on this junction vehicle turn right also from berkeley street to piccadily. So they cover the whole right hand turning too. As you can see here on street view.

 

Street View Link

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just joined this thread as I too have been given a penalty notice at the same Box Junction, Berkley Street into Piccadilly. I can't believe that the local authority is allowed to get away with this.

 

I happen to work very near to both this junction and the Arlington Street intersection into Piccadilly and both have exactly the same issue. Throughout most of the day, the traffic volume along Piccadilly is so severe that on nearly every change of lights at these junctions it is almost impossible to turn left out of Berkeley Street or right out of Arlington Street without stopping in the box junction.

 

If you follow the letter of the law, you simply wouldn't be able to make the manoeuvre. needless to say, you would also have a line of infuriated motorists backing up behind you. The traffic lights and the flow along Piccadilly mean that just about every change of lights, the cameras will focus in on one or more vehicles and issue penalty notices. They must know that it is impossible for motorists to make the turn into Piccadilly, yet they still issue the fines. There must be some recourse surely???

 

Anyone tried a FOI request to determine how many motorists are fined each day at this junction? I was so annoyed, that I went and photographed 8 changes of lights yesterday just to prove my point. See

 

Box junction nightmare, penalty notice in the post! and Box junction nightmare, penalty notice in the post!

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course they know it's impossible, they obviously studied the junction and decided this was the setup that would make them the most money.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

The car in front appears to be a relatuively new Jaguar, so I'm sure they don't just pick on expensive cars. I am not sure about the link to allowed appeals as this seems to focus on the wording of the law, points which i'm sure would be clear and well knownon a forum such as this.

 

The car in front of the jag had stopped as you commenced the manouvre so it should of been clear you wouldn't be able to clear the junction, the jag almost did so may have been let off.

 

I suggest following advice as to checking legality of junction and/or paying

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, Picadilly does not exist as it is written on the graphics generated name on the footage, it's Piccadilly. There is no Picadilly and Berkeley Street junction in the UK. Check the PCN to see if the primates have made the same error.

 

The junction shown goes from two lanes into three lanes on turning left, and so there should really have been some volume spare for everybody entering to complete. You could have been attempting to exit from lane two and enter lane two or three on Piccadilly, the car in front of you had already committed to lane three, but did not clear the yellow box exit completely, preventing you from turning into lane three, but more importantly lane two, where there appears to - just about - be a clear car's length.

 

You could also appeal on the moving image not showing the full junction at the time you commenced into the yellow box, as anything could have been happening elsewhere in the box (broken manhole, pedestrian losing control of a dog/child, or aliens landing at the start of an invasion). Unless they can give you unedited/raw footage showing everything from all positions (which may involve a different viewing angle) then you should take it further.

 

Dont forget the cameras are put in specific positions that cloud the true dimensions of a junction, the vehicles movement and the intentions of the driver, they are there not to ensure full clarity or enhance traffic flow, but to raise revenue for the council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
First off, Picadilly does not exist as it is written on the graphics generated name on the footage, it's Piccadilly. There is no Picadilly and Berkeley Street junction in the UK. Check the PCN to see if the primates have made the same error.

 

The junction shown goes from two lanes into three lanes on turning left, and so there should really have been some volume spare for everybody entering to complete. You could have been attempting to exit from lane two and enter lane two or three on Piccadilly, the car in front of you had already committed to lane three, but did not clear the yellow box exit completely, preventing you from turning into lane three, but more importantly lane two, where there appears to - just about - be a clear car's length.

 

You could also appeal on the moving image not showing the full junction at the time you commenced into the yellow box, as anything could have been happening elsewhere in the box (broken manhole, pedestrian losing control of a dog/child, or aliens landing at the start of an invasion). Unless they can give you unedited/raw footage showing everything from all positions (which may involve a different viewing angle) then you should take it further.

 

Dont forget the cameras are put in specific positions that cloud the true dimensions of a junction, the vehicles movement and the intentions of the driver, they are there not to ensure full clarity or enhance traffic flow, but to raise revenue for the council.

 

sorry for late reply, was away for week.

thanks for reply. The word Piccadilly is written on the PCN so we cant argue on that.

 

my grace period of £65 is over anyway, so I will go ahead at least until adjudicator reject my appeal. I have 100% success record with adjudicator until with the help of you guys. So let see.

 

any advice writting a letter might help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...