Bernini - The Rape of Proserpina

Force of Destiny
Philosophy,
Music,
Logic.

2000+ Free world Best Books A-Z Aeschylus, Aesop, Alcott, Andersen, Antonius, Aristotle, Aristphanes, Augustin, Austen, Bacon, Bastiat, Baum, Behn, Berkeley, Bible_1, Bible_2, Bronte_C, Bronte_E, Shakespeare.
Shakespeare

Logic Law
Fighting illegal motorist parking tickets,
Statutes & Laws

Bernini - The Ecstasy of St. Teresa

Steve's yellow box Junction Issues Just in date Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:41:47

Comments by Medusa.
List of cases at PATAS where APPEALS were UPHELD.
Many show not merely procedural errors, but the 'mens rea' that goes with 'actus reus' that renders the pursuit as fraudulent.

Case 1, case 2, case 3. Fraudulent case

The first PATAS RULING could not be clearer, and they clarify what is commonly misunderstood where the prohibition of entering a yellow box junction is wrapped in the misleading

1. Contravention code 31.

   1. “Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited.”

   2. The contravention IS NOT the contravention CODE 31, which is semantically written to deceive you, and is grossly misleading. That can often be 'yellow box junction, boxed language', misleading and fraudulent.

      Take care, it has a 'fused contrary pair of gerunds', and makes an 'assumption that if you don't verify, is often FALSE, hence fraudulent.

      Simply put, it is NOT entering and stopping … when prohibited.

      It is entering when prohibited (IF and only if there is a stationary vehicle present) THEN stopping, this means if you enter when not prohibited, IE; when stationary vehicles are ABSENT, then stopping afterwards, is NOT a contravention.

      'When prohibited' MEANS IF there is the presence of a stationary vehicle WHEN you ENTER, NOT afterwards.

2. The actual statute that shall be fully explained in unambiguous detail.

   1. “to 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.”

3. Hence the prohibition IS NOT SIMPLY 'entering and stopping', and the ASSUMPTION “ when prohibited “ has to be proved as a fact.

   ============================ Analysis coming soon from Tony.

1. The grammatical structure in 2.1 is: A very partial grammatical analysis. This has many pages to be published here soon.

2. ALSO TfL are arguing a new rule, that reLIES on the Highway code. The use of this argument is a standard informal Fallacy of, irrelevant thesis, missing the point, ignorant refutation, 'Ignoratio Elenchi'. It is clearly fraudulent, and untenable.

   1. A substantial case is being brought against TfL that disclose the major fraud being accomplished here by the use of spin, Neuro Linguistic Programming where language is used and abused to deliver thought forms without concrete nouns, the contravention code itself is the basic argument used, and is flawed in the most disgraceful manner. Simply it is code 31, “entering and stopping” when prohibited. The construction / constriction is itself anti-logical that contains two clear fallacies.

   2. Update on the above case... TfL took several months of arguing, and during this period all was on HOLD. Then one day in a telephone call, for what is going on, they informed the victim, the HOLD was taken off, and the case was progressing. He asked what was the argument and was told the Highway Code – IRRELEVANT theme, that is NOT in statute.

   3. The next day, They were asked ONE question by email and fax. The question went to the heart of the fraud, that was related to the Highway code. Within 48 Hours, the 'off hold' went back on hold, the case stalled and went into remission. Eventually the PCN was cancelled with the usual legalese muck of a gesture of goodwill. That question caused the concern that it was going to a court, and they did NOT want their Highway code argument challenged and defeated... THAT SIMPLE.

   4. CAN YOU THINK of the question that did it? You need your DVD evidence to understand it. Examine it with only the Highway code argument in mind, and its consequences, The writer no longer posts on the forums, but one person who is on the loop, knows the argument. He is Bama, and posts on pepipoo. If you are prepared to take TfL out, NOT for supper, he can provide it privately, its not for gamers and people who just want one PCN cancelled. It's for serious appeals who want this fraud stopped for innocent citizens. If they try it on this motorist here again, having been warned it will go to the High court instantly with the Mayor involved, then it will come back so fast they won't catch their breath. It is ready with fraud and harassment allegations well proven.

   5. The statutory rule and the Highway code rules are like the rules of a chess board, bishop moves,the rook or castle. Think about the HC rule and what it would earn, it is better by some 3000 per cent in revenue. PATAS are involved with bias up to their teeth in INDEPENDENCE – FROM JUTSICE that is! See they love that word, it has nothing to do with the meaning of impartial, it is not even a 'sufficient condition' for impartiality, namely one can be dependent or independent and still be impartial if only they had a scrap of ethics. The ethics they do have, is merely to cherry pick cases to satisfy the requirement of having some to cover the rest that are backing their council CEO brothers in law.

   6. A similar Case has just been brought against Westminster, in an illegal collection, they were given two weeks days to refund with costs, or get taken to a special type of 'caught' red handed. They offered a full refund in ten days, and it was accepted. All coming out soon, when the Upper Tribunal case gets an airing, and the special forms they use for appeals gets exposed for breaching our Human Rights. Oh you surely didn't think the mere fact we criticize other nations for HR breaches doesn't mean we are not hard at it, but at the psychological level sub-limenally, its easier with students and professors working out special fallacies (some 100) to deliver to people who are not grammatically or logically aware. It's like taking sweets from babes, a disgrace.

   7. “We are seeking to be well placed to enable economic recovery.” See it! “Recovery” the main lexical verbal noun, has its complement in the catenative adjunct phrases, seeking, well placed, and enabling. The logical centre of gravity is shifted away from the action verb to the posture / stance verbals. All they need is corridors of rooms for seeking people, and enabling people. To hell with actually DOING anything, it's all in the subjunctive mood. Clever isn't it? It enhances the NHS bill for mental illness, because it gives people labyrinthitis in trying to work out the rubric cubes of anti-logical reasoning specially designed to cover the fallacies, then they give you a time out for appeals, so that by the time you unravel the fraud it's too late, also the smart move. Next they like to use legalese, in 'Ignorance of law is NO EXCUSE' and omit to tell you that such a shibboleth requires its rebuttal, in 'Knowledge of the law prohibits its abuse'. Remember, the system is adversarial, if you do NOT dispute then you are deemed to have consented. Simply make some presumptions up of your own, and put them to the other side, you will hear the wonderful sound of 'recusance in concordant silence' that disclose you were right, then tell them THEY did not dispute it, and you have your admission. It's all coming out in the course of events as

      1. 'Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides, Who covers faults at last with shame derides.' Shakespeare, Lear. He knew all this special language of '...authority, though it err like others, Hath yet a kind of medicine in itself, That skins the vice o' the top.' Measure for Measure, over 300 years ago.

      2. Want a brief laugh, an UPRIGHT JUDGE in one of the tribunals, was provided with a declaration that “£X” was paid in to a fund BY the appellant. Think about this one! The appellant declared that, then the upright JUDGE produced a 'decision Notice' as upright as justice could be, that stated. The appellant DID NOT dispute that £X was paid in. NOW that's what is called adversarial thinking in the farce of the Liar Liar, the appellant is EXPECTED to dispute his very own testimony, and badger himself as a witness. The smart move eh!. Its called reason......sorry, t reason.

      3. Entering and stopping: these are two words (verbals) ending in 'ing' that are either gerunds (noun verbals) or participles (adjective verbals). They are disguised by leaving out the obvious concrete nouns (the subject in vehicle's – note the possessive use for gerunds – 's) hence the possessive form of a gerund now makes it recognisable as nouns, they are required to have their subject – noun, in language with sound ethic. But TfL do not use sound ethics. Here is the anti logical part, clear and incontrovertible.

      4. Entering involves movement, stopping is the contrary. The conjunction 'and' is weak but nevertheless binding and the result is that they are saying entering ie – MOVING and STOPPING both of which cannot be carried out simultaneously... is that perfectly clear? It is NOT possible to move and stop at the same time, ONLY MOVE THEN STOP. See it now? This horrendous muck is being used to milk the boxes fraudulently and the scale of the fraud is substantial indeed. Entering then stopping would be grammatically correct as well as logical rather than anti-logical.

      5. The next clause. 'When prohibited' is the standard informal Fallacy of 'begging the question', affirmation assumptive, circular reasoning to avoid proving what is assumed and is the issue to be tested, 'Petitio Principii'. For the contravention to occur, there MUST be the presence of a stationary vehicle in the path of the vehicle which is 'caused to enter the yellow box junction'

      6. It is ASSUMED that one has entered, WHEN there is the presence of a stationary vehicle. BUT many do not do so, a vehicle can become stationary after entering, where the law is silent on that issue, for obvious reasons... The highway code argument has been exploded as catastrophic in its alternative rule. TfL have been asked under FOI legislation one question that strikes at the vein of the fraud, and they shut down all communications. Hence a court case is looming. Millions of vehicles enter yellow box junctions daily precisely when there is NO stationary vehicle present THAT IS LAWFUL, WHEREAS THE ASSUMPTION OF GUILT IS AWFUL AND unlawful.

      7. For a PCN to be lawful, the statutory conditions for its issue MUST be met, else it becomes a nullity and no liability is the result, see the Barnet V Moses case, Justice Jackson on this simple issue, he also states the penal authorities must be scrupulous in exercising their powers, but they interpret this as meaning un-scrupulous of course.

      8. Look at the 'Description;' that word underneath the contravention code, in the writers own PCN it is not filled in. IT MAY NOT BE BLANK...

         1. ONE is ENTITLED to know the allegation when a PCN is sent out, and these people relie on the persuasive force of semantics in the contravention code, to do the work, leaving out their duty in TORT LAW to describe the allegation sufficiently for the recipient to be able to accept or deny the ALLEGATION, also note that apart from their PCN which states 'alleged' every subsequent letter uses the terms location of or date of contravention, converting the 'allegation of contravention' into a concrete fact before it ever reaches any kind of ruling body or court, in breach of all their ethics and lawfulness, perhaps awfulness, and lawlessness is more apt.

         2. The code is hence a fused gerund – entering and stopping, illegal grammatically, and anti logical, due to its unrecognisable form, looking like participles. Totally illegal! But watch out, they use the standard philosophy of 'admit nothing and deny everything', but have been caught out here. The writer knows the person who argued this, and they cancelled the PCN like a hot brick, delivering false semantics as damage limitation arguments afterward. Worse ethics have yet to be found, this is bad enough, and much more to come.

         3. Dozens of pages of this issue are coming, bookmark it.

         4. BUT MEANTIME, exactly as behavioural science indicates with accuracy – As seen in the Speaker and others, when asking a simple question even under the FOI act, IF the reply is not unhesitating and with clear unambiguous language, THEN you know the reply is actually a repLIE.

         5. SIMPLE ASK the council to send you ONE STILL that shows your vehicle being caused to enter the YBZ. THAT means anterior to actually entering the box, and this will be some distance BEFORE the YBJ, where the foreseeable decision is made to enter due to the absence of stationary vehicles or else NOT cause it to enter due to the PRESENCE of the stationary vehicles. There is a far more focussed question to ask, that will usually get them to cancel immediately, BUT it is not for the fainthearted who cannot argue in the alethic mood and understand how that works. It requires framing the question as a rebuttable presumption, so the default is no either answer or no dispute. If you cannot think or see what that question is, then you are unlikely to be either grammatically, psychologically or logically aware sufficiently to corner the mendacity. Also you must be prepared to take it to the High Court. PATAS adjud'as know this, therir languege expresses the mens rea of known culpability. They are reLYING on the SUB-LIMENal arguments to do the trick below the threshold of perception. A case is sitting just waiting for TfL to make one mistake then it will go to the High Court, or Magistrates court INSTANTLY, they are being watched, and they are getting away with major fraud here, pretending to be obtuse. Shakespeare says it right to the point. MfM, Angelo to Isabella... 'Either you are ignorant, or seem so craftily, and that is not good' (2^nd law of thought Aristotle Either P or NOT P, [~P ^ ~P]), the play on words between ARE and SEEM is clear,

         6. FALSE seeming is the clue to what ALL the linguistic professors, who serve the forces of power, corruption and Machiavellian ethics, not Nicomachean ethics, are playing at. The problem is that half the public & workforce are too busy, or lack the finance to deal with this, and the other 49 percent are controlled in their frames of reference and matrices of clear free, unbound thoughts. (Think out of the box, the modern terms for shed the frames of reference they put you in.)

         7. As we are ... prisoners of the words we pick, we had better pick them well. --Giovanni Sartori THEY pick them well to imprison YOU and OTHERS.

            1. These are the obvious necessary and sufficient conditions of causation, and hence the foreseeability in the main clause; before the subordinate co-complex - two subordinate clauses, the by-cause clause – – protasis and the result clause – apodosis.

            2. Watch them NOT give you the evidence that exonerates you, while only giving you their economic economy of truth showing when you stopped. YOU have your answer, they are as trutworthy as you have seen at the top, they follow those examples...

Grammar: Rule 2. Use active voice whenever possible. Active voice means the subject is performing the verb. Examples: Active: Barry hit the ball. Passive: The ball was hit. Notice that the responsible party may not even appear when using passive voice. See that? 'The contravention occurred.' By whom, what? And what were the antecedents? Clever stuff eh! Just forget about the road works ahead, or they overlooked sending YOU the renewal form, appeal form, and jumped to a charge certificate. Forget about the fact that an accident pushed YOU into a box junction or the congestion charge. Road works compelled you to ignore a sign? JUST UNJUST 'The contravention occurred.' Nolan principles, code of ethics? For goodness sake, we're here to target revenue, sorry, baseline performance in-dictators. Isolate the effect, separate it from the cause, forget the cause and make YOU pay for fraudulent semantics. Leaves out the culpable parties, usually THEM. Leaves out all causation... Grammar: Watch their language... They use two tenses to construct their sentences to avoid sentencing themselves... TfL to a claimant.. I would like to apologise for …. Primary tense.. I would like... expressing wish. Secondary tense to apologise... supine infinitive has no tense. What is being expressed? SIMPLY I would like... to BUT will not be doing so. MP in latest scandal I think it is important to apologise... See it? THINKING is important but he is NOT apologising. The only fact is the primary tense, the rest is spun to the supine infinitive.

Back to the statutory wording.

“the prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the yellow box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles”

2. The 'collocation of words' that is notably without punctuation; for reasons that are not difficult to guess at, is an 'extended sentence complex' in the statute; that is almost a classic structure of PRINCIPLE + COORDINATE SUB COMPLEX, that is causal. The coordinate sub complex has itself a primary clause with a dependant clause, and these two must be resolved prior to relating them to the main principle clause. The draft shows word prominence and shifting of clauses to give a causal thrust to the opening principle clause. This is not handled according to the principles of necessary and sufficient conditions in scientific methodology, that shows crafted preparation.

3. The grammatical structure is the statute, and no other 'PURPOSIVE interpretation is to be taken, other than the Literal rule, unless it is absurd, THIS is NOT absurd, although it is wrapped in word prominence, ellipse, and willfully without punctuation to hide the three clauses. A grammatical analysis has been completed some time ago, with the logical analysis that shows standard causal principles in used in scientific method.

4. Because another interpretation gives rise to considerably more revenue, this is being set aside, and the other is beuing argued, as the common informal fallacy known as Fallacy of, irrelevant thesis, missing the point, ignorant refutation, 'Ignoratio Elenchi'.

5. The untenable argument derives from the Highway Code, which is a 'purposive interpretation' that when examined shows with utter precision, that it is not only untenable, but would lead to civil war and gridlock for motorists rapidly. IT IS incapable of being maintained or supported. and all is being exposed, but due to a proceeding that may go directly to a High Court, it is guarded from full exposure at this time.
   MEANTIME, look at the PATAS rulings and use them where you can, this is serious fraud otherwise.

The key phrase is very very simple... Use it in your appeal, and if your case gets dismissed, then it will be likely the adjudictator has reLIED on an informal fallacy such as that in 4.

HERE is your argument form...

The video tape shows that when the vehicle entered the yellow box junction, there were no stationary vehicles in front of it which meant that it had to stop in the yellow box. It did, in fact, stop in the yellow box - but this was due to ( reasons X, Y, and Z,the PATAS one is below. ) after the vehicle had entered the yellow box.

Accordingly, the contravention did not occur.

See an example that may be close to yours.

This is from a PATAS review, Martin Wood – adjudicator re yellow box junction EVIDENCE.

The terms of the prohibition refer to causing the vehicle to enter the box. The evidence produced by Transport for London in support of its case does not, however, show the entry of the vehicle into the box; it commences later, when the vehicle is already stopped in the box. It seems to me that in order properly to consider whether the contravention has occurred the video recording needs to show the entry of the vehicle into the box since that is the start of the events that will or will not lead to there being a contravention. In the absence of this evidence, bearing in mind that the burden is on Transport for London to prove the contravention, I cannot find that it has discharged this burden of proof. I accordingly allow this appeal.

Martin Wood – 22 September 2004

Comment: re this box junction. SINCE 2004 TfL continues to serve evidence in this manner, That is a false representation of whether the contravention factually took place, and of the legal situation under the Fraud Act 2006, see the Fraud Act 2006 on the main pages, left nav bar. Ask for a picture of the box junction showing the ENTRY of the vehicle, and watch how TfL resists providing it, showing clear 'mens rea' (intentionality and guilt) of the act in showing the stopping (actus reus), and the omission in showing entry... Culpability in the Fraud Act includes omissions.

Note also, each letter following the allegation' contains the words, “Location of contravention” This is the informal fallacy of begging the question, affirmation assumptive, circular reasoning to avoid proving what is assumed true BUT is the issue to be tested, 'Petitio Principii'. It is hence a false representation under the Fraud Act repeatedly for each letter. The PCN is an allegation and cannot become a contravention UNTIL ruled by a court, especially where the allegation is rebutted or denied.

MUCH MORE COMING... bookmark.

The Highway code argument rule 174? that is being used in a variety of forms is totally untenable, and will be exposed shortly.

But for starters; IT refers back to the TSRGD2002 terms of reference NOT VICE VERSA, hence the TSRGD 2002 IS the ONLY term of reference that is applicable, any other is the irrelevant thesis above, ignoratio elenchi. One simple question will bring that argument down in a 'reductio ad absurdum' test showing it is completely unarguable.

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended

I certify this to be a true copy of an entry in the register

R Reeve(Proper Officer)

Yellow Box Contravention

Jennings v Transport for London (PATAS Case no. MV0285GT01)

The local authority issued a Penalty Charge Notice, asserting that the vehicle entered and stopped in a yellow box junction when prohibited.

The local authority relied on contemporaneous videotape, which did show the vehicle approaching the box junction and substantially crossing it, so that the vehicle could draw up at the lights beyond the box as the first vehicle in the queue. However, because of the length of the vehicle, part of it was left in the yellow box.

The Regulations provided 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 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.

The Adjudicator was not satisfied that the local authority had accurately asserted in the Penalty Charge Notice the contravention. The function of a Penalty Charge Notice was to make an allegation so that the recipient was aware of the allegation against them and in a position to deny or accept it. Here the local authority failed to assert an essential element of the allegation, namely that the vehicle stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Where there are other reasons for stopping (as here) the allegation was not made out. It was vital that an allegation was correctly stated – otherwise a recipient might well concede an allegation where an essential element was not made out.

Appeal allowed.

Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended

I certify this to be a true copy of an entry in the register

R Reeve(Proper Officer)

CASES DIGEST

Yellow Box Contravention

Jennings v Transport for London (PATAS Case no. MV0285GT01)

The local authority issued a Penalty Charge Notice, asserting that the vehicle entered and stopped in a yellow box junction when prohibited.

The local authority relied on contemporaneous videotape, which did show the vehicle approaching the box junction and substantially crossing it, so that the vehicle could draw up at the lights beyond the box as the first vehicle in the queue. However, because of the length of the vehicle, part of it was left in the yellow box.

The Regulations provided 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 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.

The Adjudicator was not satisfied that the local authority had accurately asserted in the Penalty Charge Notice the contravention. The function of a Penalty Charge Notice was to make an allegation so that the recipient was aware of the allegation against them and in a position to deny or accept it. Here the local authority failed to assert an essential element of the allegation, namely that the vehicle stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Where there are other reasons for stopping (as here) the allegation was not made out. It was vital that an allegation was correctly stated – otherwise a recipient might well concede an allegation where an essential element was not made out.

Appeal allowed.

Moving Traffic Violations

The 2003 Act made provision for local authorities to adopt civil enforcement of twenty-

one moving traffic contraventions relating to failing to comply with specified traffic signs.

These include, for example, yellow box junctions, entry to a pedestrian zone, and

prohibited turns. A full list is set out in the Appendix to this report.

A number of local authorities have commenced enforcement under these powers. Most

appeals have related to the enforcement of yellow box junctions. The basic prohibition is

that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box so that it has to stop within the box

due to the presence of stationary vehicles. So if the vehicle has to stop for other

reasons, there will be no contravention. A vehicle, however, that enters the box to turn

right (other than one at a roundabout) may stop within the box for so long as it is

prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles that are

stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn. Place Invaders Ltd v TFL concerned

this exception to the prohibition.

A particular issue that has arisen is that Adjudicators have seen numbers of appeals

where it has transpired that the box has not complied with the detailed specification

specified on diagram 1043 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

Non-compliant road markings mean that the prohibition cannot be enforced.

There have been some appeals relating to other contraventions. Bancroft-Hendricks v

Croydon concerned blue directional arrows. The Adjudicator found that the signage was

unlawful.

It seems likely that there will be other cases where the Adjudicator will be required to

examine the lawfulness of the signage. In this respect moving traffic contraventions differ from parking contraventions in that the motorist will commonly be in the position of

having to observe and decipher signs rapidly whilst on the move. It is therefore all the

more important for the signage to be readily comprehensible.

Kasap v TFL (PATAS Case. No. MV0008GT01)

The contravention alleged was causing a vehicle to enter a yellow box junction so that

the vehicle had to stop within the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The

Penalty Charge Notice described the location of the contravention as “Upper

Street/Islington Green”.

The Adjudicator said that the three still images put in evidence by TFL were not sufficient

to establish that the contravention occurred, since they did not show that the vehicle was

stationary at any point. It was not sufficient that they showed the vehicle in “roughly the

same positions”, as TFL submitted.

Furthermore, contrary to the Penalty Charge Notice, the vehicle was in fact seen at the

junction between Upper Street and Berners Road. The London Local Authorities and

Transport for London Act 2003 required the Penalty Charge Notice to state the grounds

on which Transport for London believed a penalty charge was payable. The location of

the yellow box was an essential part of those grounds.

Appeal allowed.

Moving Traffic

Place Invaders Ltd v Transport for London (PATAS Case No. MV0001GT01)

The contravention alleged was causing a vehicle to enter a yellow box junction so that

the vehicle had to stop within the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The

appellant had entered the box to turn right. TFL said that in its view one factor was that it

considered the vehicle was causing an obstruction to the flow of traffic. The Adjudicator

said that that was irrelevant as the terms of the prohibition made no mention of it and it

was therefore not an element in the contravention. On the evidence TFL had not proved

the contravention.

Appeal allowed.

Patel v Lambeth (PATAS Case No. 2070359722)
The PCN in this case alleged that the vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction "in Eardley Road". The box junction in question was not in Eardley Road, but in Streatham Vale. The Adjudicator said that the grounds on which the council believes that the penalty charge is payable must include an accurate description of the location of the alleged contravention. Whilst he was satisfied that a box junction contravention occurred, he was not satisfied that the car entered and stopped in a box junction in Eardley Road.

Appeal allowed

Inadequate description of contravention in PCN: location insufficiently identified

Adamou v Haringey (PATAS Case No. 2060381000)

The contravention alleged was entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The Penalty Charge Notice alleged that the contravention occurred "in High Road N22".

Mrs Adamou telephoned the Council on receipt of the PCN and asked them about this contravention. She was told that it had taken place at the junction of Ewart Grove and High Road N22. She pointed out to the person she spoke to that there was no box junction at that location. When the Council served photographs with their Notice of Rejection they made no mention of Ewart Grove.

The Council finally stated in their Case Summary that the box junction was actually at the junction of High Road and Bounds Green Road; the junction with Ewart Grove was simply where the camera was located.

The Council had no fewer than 9 cameras in High Road N22, 6 of which were located at junctions. High Road was a long road with a considerable number of junctions. It was evident from Mrs Adamou's case that she did not know on receipt of the PCN where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.

Had the PCN specified "High Road N22 at its junction with Bounds Green Road" Mrs Adamou would have known where to look. As it was, by simply stating "in High Road N22", the PCN did not comply with the requirements of Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, that the PCN "must...state...the grounds on which the council... believe that the penalty charge is payable". Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allowed the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred.

No valid PCN was served on Mrs Adamou, and so the Council could not enforce the penalty.

Appeal allowed

MOVING TRAFFIC CONTRAVENTIONS

Place Invaders Ltd

-v-

Transport for London

Case No: MV0001GT01 PCN No: GT10415644

At the hearing of this appeal today Mr Boland appeared before me for Transport for London. The appellant did not appear.

The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 7. This provides as follows:

7 (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, [box junctions] 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.

(2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person

1. who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right: and

2. (b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.

Transport for London accepted that the vehicle had entered the box junction for the purpose of making a right turn. It contended nevertheless that the prohibition had been contravened. Mr Boland said that one factor in its view was that it considered that the vehicle was causing an obstruction to the flow of traffic. That may or may not be, but it is irrelevant, since the terms of the prohibition make no mention of it and it is therefore not an element in the contravention.

The terms of the prohibition refer to causing the vehicle to enter the box. The evidence produced by Transport for London in support of its case does not, however, show the entry of the vehicle into the box; it commences later, when the vehicle is already stopped in the box. It seems to me that in order properly to consider whether the contravention has occurred the video recording needs to show the entry of the vehicle into the box since that is the start of the events that will or will not lead to there being a contravention. In the absence of this evidence, bearing in mind that the burden is on Transport for London to prove the contravention, I cannot find that it has discharged this burden of proof. I accordingly allow this appeal.

Martin Wood – 22 September 2004

LORRY BANS

Stage Truck Ltd

-v-

Association of London Government Transport & Environment Committee (ALG-TEC)

Case No: LB59 PCN No: LB00008309

The London Local Authority and Transport Act 2003 (“the Act”) section 4(1), provides that where the issuing Authority “have reason to believe” that a penalty charge is payable, they may serve a Penalty Charge Notice on the operator and/or driver. Section 4(8) provides that a Penalty Charge Notice issued under section 4 must state “the grounds on which [the Authority (sic)] believe that the Penalty Charge Notice is payable”.

The language of the Statute requires that the Authority shall not issue a Penalty Charge Notice until it has a belief that a contravention may have occurred. That a vehicle is seen on a restricted road, during restricted hours, and displaying a permit, does not of itself suggest that a contravention has occurred.

Costs and expenses awarded: £90

Briggs v Westminster (PATAS Case No. 2040330437)

The allegation was that the vehicle was re-parked in the same parking place within 1

hour of leaving. On its face the Parking Attendant's record looked full and impressive. It

showed the vehicle at 10.36 parked at meter bay M1385 where the meter showed 3

minutes unexpired time. The Parking Attendant then recorded that at 10.54 the vehicle

was parked at meter bay M1386 where the meter showed 63 minutes penalty. The

notebook extract then shows a diagram depicting the 2 adjacent meter bays.

The Appellant was represented by solicitors. He produced in evidence CCTV footage

from a camera operated by a business in the road. This showed the vehicle parked

initially on the far side of the road from the camera. The vehicle is seen to drive off and

shortly afterwards to park on the near side of the road to the camera. The Parking

Attendant is seen to attend the vehicle and to go through the process of issuing the

PCN. During this he walks away towards the meter bay the vehicle was initially parked

in. He then returns and issues the PCN.

The Adjudicator said that on the face of it the CCTV footage showed the fraudulent issue

of a PCN. He was satisfied that the contravention did not occur and allowed the appeal.

The Appellant subsequently applied for an order against the local authority for his

solicitors’ costs and disbursements of £3,772.56. 92

The Adjudicator said this was a proper case for an award of costs.

As to quantum, he was satisfied that the Appellant's case could have been conducted by

a Grade 3 fee earner. He awarded costs at the rate of £13 per 10-minute unit as follows.

1. £247 for 19 units of correspondence and telephone attendance.

2. £130 for 10 units of pre-hearing preparation.

3. £520 for 40 units for travel to and conduct of the hearing.

4. £65 for 5 units for preparation of the costs schedule.

4. £78.88 for disbursements.

Costs and expenses awarded: £1,040.88.

Here are two pictures taken from a case, where the THIRD vehicle; after the taxi, got a PCN.
The pictures are just two seconds apart to prove movement. They have been saturated with colours to protect the identity of the contributor.
The question to ask is simple...
SHOW ME the presence of stationary vehicles (in the relevant lane of course) (return to top)
Something happened a few seconds later, BUT The contravention did NOT occur.

3rd car being caused to enter.

3rd car entering... Too late now!