PCN - Box Junction - PLS HELP!

[AnnaN10]

Hello all.

 

Newbie here and needing your help.

 

I went through some of the older topics but couldn't find an answer.

 

Got PCN, I appealed it stupidly *without* checking the law wording and/or websites like this one first.

 

My appeal was that I thought I could clear the junction but something happened *after* I entered which caused me to stop.

 

They rejected it saying that "the law says there must be enough space for you to clear before you enter".

 

After reading quite a few posts on quite a few websites, I think that my appeal should've been on the grounds of "the offence being recorded live, i.e. someone not going back over the video" and/or due to the fact that the pic/s showing the contravention don't show my reg no or the full car actually commiting the offence. My car reg can only be seen in the blacked photo.

 

Do you think I can take this to the adjudicator with any chance of success?

 

video is here remove the ...

...https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YP2sL4cEgjY&feature=emb_logo

 

 

 

 

pix.pdf

[BazzaS]

The Highway Code says you must not enter unless your exit is clear*.
The law doesn’t say the same, the offence is stopping on the box junction*

It is possible to enter while your exit is clear, and then another car block you, you stop on the junction, and commit the offence* even though you complied with the Highway Code**
 

(or, even, breach the Highway Code by entering when your exit isn’t clear, but not commit the offence as long as you don’t actually stop, and your exit becomes clear in time!)

 

 

* = absent the defence of you wanting to turn right and the only thing preventing you doing so being oncoming traffic (/ other vehicles turning right)

 

** = in which case you appeal, not on grounds of the contravention not occurring, as it did, but on the grounds that given you had made all efforts to comply, and another driver’s bad driving caused you to have to stop so as not to cause an accident, it isn’t in the public interest to pursue it.

 

 

Looking at the video : the silver car and black car that stopped in the right hand lane both committed the offence. The silver car in the left hand lane that had the black car pull in front of them from the right:

a) may not have stopped at all. If it didn’t actually stop, no contravention ocurred!

b) if it did actually come to a complete stop, rather than just slowing : Ask for a discretionary appeal on grounds that the exit was clear when they entered, and the only reason they stopped was another vehicle causing them to have to do so to avoid causing an accident.

 

Edited November 13, 2019 by BazzaS

[BazzaS]

Which was your car?

1st Silver? Black? 2nd silver??

[AnnaN10]

Hello and thanks for your answer.

My car is the dark grey, at the back of the black one.

It was my rear 2 wheels that stayed in the box, as I had to break suddenly.

 

[AnnaN10]

 

Hello and thanks for your answer.

 

My car is the dark grey in the right lane, at the back of the first black one and in front of the other black one (that stopped right in the middle of the box and then moved to the left lane). 

It was my rear 2 wheels that stayed in the box, as I had to break suddenly.

 

I said in my appeal that the traffic was freeflowing and it was only after I'd entered the box that something happened ahead, hence why I had to stop suddenly in order to avoid causing an accident.

 

I think I won't be able to contest it on the law/highway code.

Hence why I'm asking whether the issue of the recording/photos of the reg, is something I could use instead.

 

I normally wouldn't bother contesting it but I've been driving on this road frequently for the last 20 years and this is the first time this has happened to me and it was genuinely because I had to break suddenly.

If the traffic is stationary, I wait by the traffic lights *before* I enter the box.

 

Do I have grounds to contest it on anything?

[BazzaS]

10 hours ago, AnnaN10 said:

I said in my appeal that the traffic was freeflowing and it was only after I'd entered the box that something happened ahead, hence why I had to stop suddenly in order to avoid causing an accident.

 

I think I won't be able to contest it on the law/highway code.

 

"something happened ahead" : yes, traffic built up, which is why your exit wasn't clear (because of the black car in front of you) when you entered the box.

 

 

10 hours ago, AnnaN10 said:

Hence why I'm asking whether the issue of the recording/photos of the reg, is something I could use instead.

 

I normally wouldn't bother contesting it but I've been driving on this road frequently for the last 20 years and this is the first time this has happened to me and it was genuinely because I had to break suddenly.

If the traffic is stationary, I wait by the traffic lights *before* I enter the box.

 

Do I have grounds to contest it on anything?

 

I doubt it. You gambled that the black car in front of you would clear the box, and leave enough room for you to do so too ; it didn't, your exit wasn't clear when you entered the box, and you stopped in the box.

 

I disagree you "had to break suddenly', it wasn't like the black car in front of you suddenly pulled into your path (like the black car behind you later did to the silver car on the left).

 

Regarding the technicalities, I can't see a loophole here: unless you are saying it wasn't your car ..... can you explain in more detail what grounds you are hoping to use? that the person viewing the offence saw it 'live?, That they didn't see it 'live'? That they used a different camera angle to prove the car's registration mark?.

I think that that approach is about as grounded in reality as saying "I had to brake suddenly" (the video doesn't seem to reflect that as accurate..............)

 

 

 

[AnnaN10]

3 hours ago, BazzaS said:

 

 

 

 

 

On the first point, yes, but I now know that the "traffic building up beyond my control after I entered the box" is not an acceptable defence due to the rules.

 

Re second point, well I *did* have to break suddenly, otherwise I'd have hit the black car in front of me. I understand now that this is not "defence enough" on the contravention.

 

Re loophole on pics/video:

I read in another post somewhere (not sure it was here or someplace else) that your reg must be clearly seen in the pics/videos at the *time* it's committing the offence ("captured live" I think it was the expression used) and that it's not permitted for someone to go over the footage in order to zoom in your number plate.

 

So, what I'm saying is:

from the pics/video (except the really dark pic that's zooming on my reg only), you *cannot* see the reg of my car.

 

Hence why the pic zoomed on my reg doesn't show the full car *actually commiting* the offence.

 

They're trying to *infer* that it's my car. (*I* know it is, but don't they have to prove the offence actually being committed by *my* car with pics that show the full car/position *and* reg? aka, not just a random zoomed in pic that could've been anywhere, hence the argument about "not being allowed to go over footage in order to capture offence/details").

 

Thanks for your time in answering btw

☺

 

 

P.S. Found the bit about the live footage thing. It's "point 20" in this page:

 http://www.appealnow.com/parking-tickets/yellow-box-junctions/

 

[BazzaS]

33 minutes ago, AnnaN10 said:

 

Re second point, well I *did* have to break suddenly, otherwise I'd have hit the black car in front of me.

 

could / should have anticipated and braked earlier. You only had to brake suddenly to avoid colliding because you chanced it, and didn’t “not enter until your exit was clear”.

 

If you really believe you had “no other choice than to brake suddenly” (and late), then unless you adjust the manner of your driving : I’m surprised it has taken this long before a ticket, and you can expect more.

 

You still seem to believe you did nothing wrong. Guess we’ll have to disagree, neither of us has persuaded the other.

[Michael Browne]

39 minutes ago, AnnaN10 said:

not just a random zoomed in pic that could've been anywhere,

Except that the  location reference nosare te same in both the still of your reg no. and video.

 

The reg no. is capture by a separate infra-red camera.

 

The only grounds I can see is 'de minimis', in that you are only stationary at the very edge of the box for circa 7 seconds. The council won't agree and you would need to go to adjudication, at which point the full poenalty is payable if you lose.

 

TBH 7 secs is at the edge of what an adjudicator might allow

[AnnaN10]

3 minutes ago, BazzaS said:

could / should have anticipated and braked earlier. You only had to brake suddenly to avoid colliding because you chanced it, and didn’t “not enter until your exit was clear”.

 

If you really believe you had “no other choice than to brake suddenly” (and late), then unless you adjust the manner of your driving : I’m surprised it has taken this long before a ticket, and you can expect more.

 

You still seem to believe you did nothing wrong. Guess we’ll have to disagree, neither of us has persuaded the other.

No, no not all. That's not what I'm saying. I *did* have to break suddenly but I understand now that this is not a defence when it comes to the rules on this issue and that it was indeed because I chanced it.

I know it's hard to believe but it's never happened to me before (the having to break suddenly *within* a box) because, either through luck or whatever else, I judged the traffic correctly.

Anyway, I'm not saying I'm not in the wrong when it comes to the rules/law. 

I just wanted to check if there's a loophole I could use on this occassion only because money is super tight this month and I have to pay them the £65 in 10 days.

That's all.

[AnnaN10]

3 minutes ago, Michael Browne said:

Except that the  location reference nosare te same in both the still of your reg no. and video.

 

The reg no. is capture by a separate infra-red camera.

 

The only grounds I can see is 'de minimis', in that you are only stationary at the very edge of the box for circa 7 seconds. The council won't agree and you would need to go to adjudication, at which point the full poenalty is payable if you lose.

 

TBH 7 secs is at the edge of what an adjudicator might allow

Oh ok. Wasn't sure about all the technical details.

 

I think I might chance it with the "de minimis" and keep my fingers crossed that the adjudicator will take into account my clean licence of 23 years, if I don't manage to find the £65 in the next few days, or that even if he finds against me, I'll be able to set up a payment plan for it then.

 

Thank you for your time and answer.

[Michael Browne]

1 minute ago, AnnaN10 said:

keep my fingers crossed that the adjudicator will take into account my clean licence of 23 years, if I don't manage to find the £65 in the next few days, or that even if he finds against me, I'll be able to set up a payment plan for it then.

He won't care whether you've got a clean licence or otherwise or even if you have a licence at all.

 

They don't do payment plans, if you lose you have 28 days to pay

[AnnaN10]

3 minutes ago, Michael Browne said:

He won't care whether you've got a clean licence or otherwise or even if you have a licence at all.

 

They don't do payment plans, if you lose you have 28 days to pay

Oh dear. 

In that case, I must decide whether I should beg steal and borrow to pay £65 within the next few days or hope that the appeal will be scheduled to be heard after Christmas, by which time I'd have saved £130.