Jump to content

Penalty Charge Notices [box junction and rye lane] - Peckham


Recommended Posts

On a recent trip (first trip) to Peckham in the car to the peckham pulse soft play with a screaming baby in the back (doesnt help) I manage to pick up not one but two PCNs. Bearing in mind I have never had one before, this was really bloody annoying. They were as follows:


1. Peckham High St/Peckham Bus Station (West Box) (Contravention code 31)- entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (My two back wheels were captured in the junction for about five seconds)


2. Rye Lane (Contravention code 33j) (Using a Route restricted to certain vehicles)


Has anyone been successful in appealing these PCN's?

If so would love to hear how you managed it.


It just seems ludicrous that my trip to a ?1.60 soft play session, turned into a ?121.60 one! Being on mat leave I dont have the cash to pay for this v easily


thanks

What was the 33? Driving in the bus lane?


Both could be contested on the grounds that the 'legal' highway was blocked by something untoward (traffic doesn't count). You'd need evidence.


However, if you were driving in the bus lane I haven't got much sympathy, and if you were trying to gain advantage by hopping the box junction it's also hard to feel too sorry either.

I've seen so many people in that bus lane outside my flat - lost and not sure what to do


The bus behind beeps them .... and they drive straight throught it, they may have a bus or two in front too (blocking the view). Some actually reverse back, but its difficult once something gets behind them.


No excuse once you know it's there - but newcomers to the area seem to see it late southbound - I'd put a sign 'left only at bottom' or similar a bit further up the road.

My mum got a ticket at that yellow box by the bus station, but managed to get off it on appeal as when she entered the box her exit was clear, but a bus dangerously pulled out in front of her when she was halfway across the yellow box, therefore blocking the exit.


I got a charge notice at the end of rye lane as well by driving through the no entry at the end onto Rye Lane instead of turning left onto the one way system like you're supposed to, ended up paying it as I'd just simply made a mistake, annoying though, seems a bit silly that rather than just drive straight across and onto peckham rye with the buses you have to turn left and go all the way round the one way system again!

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Not silly at all....if cars were to drive down

> that bit it would be costantly jammed.


fair point, I thought there were traffic lights there to regulate the flow of cars though?

?60 and I always feel that the punishment does not fit the crime.


The soul purpose of these moves by the council and/or government is to harvest the motorist as an easy target.


It is all too easy to gather these charges as one drives around albeit with good intent.

+1

And don't get me started on parking... how difficult can they

really make it! I don't mean lack of spaces either. I get that.

What i really mean is the confusing array of different 'zones'

and charging structures on any given single street.

Business/ disabled/ peak/ off-peak/ resident/ loading bay etc...


Takes me about half an hour just to read all the signs post before

i'm confident enough to pull the hand break!!

Can't do the time, don't do the crime.


Motorists are not the boss of the world. Park and drive where you're supposed to and stop whining.


As for "harvesting" motorists, ah if only: just think of the greenhouse gases we'd save. Truly that would be a harvest for the world.

Not in the least Mick, an excellent day. Just returned from a screening of a film about demonstrating on climate change.


Just p1sses me off when soft jesses whine on about how terribly unfair it all is.


Derrr, there's a simple solution f-cknuts. Don't park or drive where you're not supposed to, innit.

RosieH Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Derrr, there's a simple solution f-cknuts. Don't

> park or drive where you're not supposed to, innit.


------------------------------------------------------

Don't get me wrong, i'm not complaining about being fined for being in the wrong.

I'm just saying they're making it harder for me to be in the right.

For sure, my look out :)

Well, to be fair they don't make it easy.


I'm the first to fess up if i've messed up.

But they truly make it very difficult to stay

in the right with all the confusing messages and zones.


Not complaining, just wondering why they can't just

simplify everything. That's not too contentious surely?

A case in point is when they closed the right turn round to victoria station to cars. Westminster made 1 million pounds a month in fines because drivers were confused by the signage. The authorities don't always do good job of making things clear for motorists.

The system only works because the majority play along by paying the penalties promptly.


This is just a gedankenexperiment: If the majority ignored the PCN, Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery but instead filed an Out-of-Time Statutory Declaration (on the grounds that no PCN had been received) on receipt of a bailiff?s letter advising the issue of a Warrant of Execution (and continued to do so), I reckon the system would collapse within a couple of months and would never be reinstated in its present form again.


However, the replacement could be worse: the offences might be re-criminalised.

Thanks all for your comments. I am appealing the box junction PCN on the basis of lack of evidence, failure to correctly allege the contravention and on the basis that no contravention in fact occured. What we have to realise I think is that Councils/TfL do get it wrong occasionally and therefore it is always worth investigating if you have the time to do so.


What pisses me off and what is unfair is that they can take advantage of motorists who havent got the time or inclination to fight/investigate these things further.


I also maintain that Peckham is an absolute minefield with all the restrictions and distractions and I shall be getting the bus there in future...


I will see how far I get.

  • 3 weeks later...

I challenged the yellow box PCN on a number of alternative grounds(and some technicalities) and was successful - yey! It has been cancelled and saved me ?60. It is not clear why they decided to cancel it but just shows that it is worth a challenge if youve got the time and any reason to think that the PCN may be unjustified for whatever reason


If anyone wants to borrow my letter...its not my best effort but it clearly was enough to scare Transport for London into submission!

You might what to check out the latest parking tribunal judgements

on this thread regarding box junctions contraventions.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=39246

The letter of the law regarding this offence: ........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.


In a nutshell, if traffic is moving when you enter a box junction

and you stop in box junction for what ever reasons, then no contravention has happened.


the local authority will try scare you by quoting the highway code that you cannot stop

in a box junction under any circumstances (yea lets just run over the kid running for the ball

or lets just crash into the back of that 1971 volkswagon beatle thats has just died in the middle of rush hour traffic)

but the highway code is not law.

>In a nutshell, if traffic is moving when you enter a box junction

>and you stop in box junction for what ever reasons, then no contravention has happened.


That's very far from my reading of the reproduced case summaries shown in the March 2009 thread you've cited.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...