Gobbledygook from Ealing Council

“A man thinks that by mouthing hard words he understands hard things.” (Herman Melville)

At base level, this just comes down to holistic asset time-phases. You really can’t really fail when you facilitate third-generation paradigm shifts. But, you might want to consider transitioning relational collaborative infrastructures as well.

We all know that the Notices of Rejection are produced by stitching together stock paragraphs on a word processor. Since some of Ealing Council’s yellow box junctions have been ruled unenforceable at PATAS they have had to come up with some new esoteric wording to justify their continued highway robbery activities.

It’s all done by scaling standardized dynamic content in order to mesh extensible normalized resources, you understand.

Joking aside, this latest effort from Ealing Council is very telling. It demonstrates that the Parking Department is enforcing laws that are simply not understood by the people working there. Whoever approved this letter and let it out into the public domain is in need of some serious retraining.

Possible candidates are Philip Burns, Head of Parking or John Ioannou, Technical Services & CCTV Manager.

Let’s look at the best bits:

Your vehicle was observed entering and stopping in a yellow box junction.

So what? You can drive into the middle of a box junction and stay there all day so long as there are no other stationary vehicles around that prevent you from moving.

The regulations state that you must not enter a yellow box junction until your exit is clear.

No they don’t. This is the advice given in rule 174 of the Highway Code. This is not the same as the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 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”. I can’t see the words “exit” and “clear” anywhere there.

Those road markings are in section 150 of the Highway Code and you must comply with them.

Please get up to date. It was rule 150 in the previous edition of the Highway Code. It was updated on 28th September 2007; five months ago. The road markings are actually prescribed in Diagrams 1043 and 1044 of Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2003.

Now comes the piece de resistance. The appellant had obviously said that the box junction needed to be authorised by the Department for Transport.

In response to your point in your correspondence, the authority given by the Secretary of Transport is given within the London Local Authority and Transport far London Act 2003.

The Secretary of Transport? Ruth Kelly won’t thank you for that. Perhaps that should be Secretary of State for Transport. And while we’re at it that should be Local Authorities, not Local Authority. If you are going to cite legislation then get it right.

The SoS for Transport does not confer any authority to use unlawful road signs in this Act. In fact, any authority given to legally extort money from the general population comes directly from Parliament.

In this Act it outlines that Traffic Management Orders are in place to allow Council Boroughs to enforce particular areas within their jurisdiction.

What are they talking about? A Traffic Management Order is not required for a box junction. Sure you can enforce loads of things as a result of this Act including “Failure to comply with notice requiring works to prevent soil or refuse escaping onto street or into sewer”. Wow!

Within this Act it states; “All road markings placed on a highway or road to which the public have access must be either prescribed by regulations or authorised by the Secretary of State for Transport…”

They just don’t geddit do they? What this says is that if your road markings do not comply they are unenforceable. A perfect own goal if ever I saw one.

This was obviously written by a Technical Enablement Leader who was trying to transition semantic standardized precision in order to obfuscate the reality of the incomprehension.

If you ever get one of these Notices of Rejection from Ealing you can be assured that it is a complete load of rubbish.

This article was written with the assistance of the Gobbledygook Generator on the Plain English Campaign website. It must be similar to the one used by members of the Ealing Council Parking Department.

Advertisements

11 Responses to Gobbledygook from Ealing Council

  1. BATS says:

    I’ve just had a rejection letter from Ealing which has remarkable similarities to your text above….. It’s amazing, but in their rejection, they have completely ignored my representation and stated the Highway Code definitions and of course the usual threats about payment; hey ho, PATAS here we come……

  2. Comstock says:

    “This is not the same as the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 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””

    This is interesting. So if the traffic ahead is moving when you enter the box junction you are not committing an offence, unless you are expected to have 20/20 foresight to be able to predict the future?!?

    I am thinking of cases where motorists are behind buses/large lorries in particular.

  3. Sal says:

    Just had a letter of rejection from Ealing Council, stating i entered the “Yellow Box junction without your exit being clear, causing you stop in the yellow box” as i recall i was behind a bus which cleared the juction, i almost cleared the junction before the bus stopped and i had to stop leaving half a metre of my cars back end in the junction, my vehicle did not obstruct any traffic in any way.

    They have sent me photographs 10 seconds apart, in the first photo my brake lights are on and i can see the wheels of my car in the junction box, in the second photo all i can see number plate, and the tailgate which shows my brakelights off, so in theory i could have been moving.
    Which is the best way forward with this?

  4. Matt says:

    Being so vexed about my ticket, I google’d hey presto instant representation..Thanks MBJ .
    Now going for the PATAS.

    Can I claim back for Administration expenses fighting this injustice?

  5. Ahmer says:

    To MBJ,

    I just wanted to say a big thankyou as I’ve just had both my PCNs cancelled through PATAS regarding the South Road/St Josephs Drive and South Road/Cambridge Road yellow box junctions. I followed and challenged exactly as was advised by MBJ and just wanted to give encouragement to those who are indecisive about appealing.

    Brilliant! Thanks Again

  6. denis c says:

    I have file a N244 after my stat dec was declined. I am due in court tomorrow. The timeline is as follows . Feb 2007 alledged incident in a bus lane . Within 14 days requested viewing. Took 3 months to give 2 day notice of the viewing 12pm on a Wednesday. Called to say this was unreasonable and can they give me more time.Heard nothing for 8 months ’til baliff on the door. Council claim they sent out order for recovery Dec 2007. Never received also no proof /copy it was sent from them.
    Is there a reasonable statute of limitation to which the council need to respond . Surely 3 months to wait for a viewing ;then 6-8 months for an order to recover is too long. Also if my N244 hearing is rejeected can I appeal the original PCN or will it be back to the baliffs Thanks

  7. Raj says:

    Dear MBJ,

    To my complete shock I was issued with a PCN dated 17/2/09 for the “alleged traffic contravention of 31J – Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited in The Broadway/Herbert Road, Southall (3) on 08/02/2009 at 14:16”

    Before I found your excellent site, I had already requested to view the CCTV footage twice; once on 12/03/09 and again on 19/03/09 – thus far no reply.

    I now have a hearing scheduled with PATAS for 28th April 2009.

    I had gone shopping with my mother in our vehicle (disabled vehicle class) and was only briefly in the box junction, as the lights changed and a driver 2 cars ahead stopped rather than proceed, as I incorrectly anticipated.
    Another car was immediately behind our car so I could not reverse out.

    I have seen several comments regarding The Broadway/Herbert Road and was wondering about the legality of this particular box junction?

    Please kindly advise.

    • zaki says:

      dear Raj

      Just got a PCN in exactly the same spot as yours !! did you have any luck with the appeal?

      KInd regards, Zaki Hassan

  8. eunice says:

    I recieved a penalty charge for intering into a box junction at Archway RD/Shepherds hill and stop on 1/11/09 I wrote to the Transport explaining that at the time of enterting the box junction the trafffic were moving. A car pulled out from the side without looking causing ther car in front of mine to stop, henc, I too had to stop to avoid running the the back of the car. The Transport time of calculation of the time I was in the box was approx 5 seconds. They refused to concil and ask me to apperal. can you help me with letter of appeal. thank you.

  9. Dave Cannon says:

    Hi,

    I have been appealing a penalty charge for entering in a junction box at Archway Rd/Shepherds hill. The date of this was 17/10/09, now I know that it took me nearly an hour to drive up that section of road due to road closures as Arsnel were playing that afternoon. Also on the afternoon in question there was road works 10mtrs after the junction box which cut everything into one lane without prior warning. I was caught in the box for 18secs but as the road was closed to traffic either side of me I was not blocking anything, in fact there 5 other vehicles caught in the box also along with me. I have appealed this and stated that the road works were not announced prior to us entering this box. I have been told that I by someone in the TFL that I would probably be ok, but have now received a £185 fine! can anyone please help me with this as I’m getting very frustrated. Do these road closures during Arsnel games affect the rules of these boxes?

  10. Lose Weight says:

    Everything is very open with a clear description of the issues.
    It was truly informative. Your website is useful.

    Thanks for sharing!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: