Author Topic: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited (Read 1996 times)

LemonTootski · « **on:** July 28, 2025, 02:46:09 pm »

Hi there, I wonder if anyone can shed some light on this?

I was filmed by a traffic camera turning into a road at this yellow box junction on Friday 18 July at about 20:56. I was just following normal traffic into the turn like any other driver, not being able to see if the turn to the right would be blocked.

I understand that cars are allowed to enter a yellow box junction when turning right, but if you enter the box and are then blocked by oncoming traffic or other vehicles waiting to turn right, you may not be fined, as this is an exception to the rule.
As I say, I was generally following the flow of traffic, and would not have known I was blocked until later, but have now recieved a PCN wqith a notice date of 24 07 2025.

You can see the video here - the second to last White Hatchback car in the video at 00:10:

So I wonder if I have a case to make?

I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, whether there have been any past precedents, and - do check - but I believe I must make representations to the council by Wed 6 August.

Thanks so much

Hippocrates · « **Reply #1 on:** July 29, 2025, 08:44:07 am »

I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it does not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v) of

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not valid as it is missing mandatory information.

Furthermore, the PCN limits to one ground whereas the legislation states "one or other grounds". In fact, your statements in this regard are also contradictory and are followed by a further conflationary statement which is meaningless in light of the missing information. I refer to :"If you fail etc. "

LemonTootski · « **Reply #2 on:** July 29, 2025, 09:47:36 pm »

Hi @Hippocrates.

Thanks for this advice. - I've looked at the PCN and the legislation you're referencing.

Ground 1:
While I understand your thinking on Ground 1, the mandatory information from section 4(

(v) about increased charges is actually included in the notice. On page 1, it clearly states "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable." The council has included the required warning about the £240 increased penalty - it's just worded slightly differently than the statute. So unfortunately, i'm not sure this ground will succeed because the mandatory information is present, even though the wording isn't identical to the legislation.

Ground 2 would definitely have a case. I could draft something like:

Ground 2 Rep:
The Penalty Charge Notice is invalid as it fails to comply with the statutory requirement under the LLAT(FL)A 2003 s.4(

(b), to specify the form in which representations are to be made.
The notice contains contradictory and prejudicial instructions, stating first that "one or more" grounds may apply, yet immediately after, directing the recipient to "Please tick one of the set grounds listed below". if the legislation does not require choosing only one ground for representations, then artificially limiting this could be considered a procedural defect.
This ambiguity is fatal to the validity of the notice. The PCN is therefore unenforceable. Accordingly, the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Just wanted your thoughts on whether this is ok, whether I'm missing something with Ground 1, and if there are any other substantive (over procedural) errors anyone else has spotted with this PCN/Incident that could bolster my argument.

Thanks in advance.

Hippocrates · « **Reply #3 on:** July 29, 2025, 10:04:44 pm »

Tomorrow much later. Going to the beach to catch shingles.

LemonTootski · « **Reply #4 on:** July 31, 2025, 01:53:23 pm »

Hi @Hippocratews, @b789, @DWMB2, @H C Andersen et all ...

Just wondered what your thoughts were. Do you see any other anomally with this PCN ?

Hippocrates · « **Reply #5 on:** July 31, 2025, 02:07:46 pm »

I stand by my draft as abpve.

Chaseman · « **Reply #6 on:** August 01, 2025, 02:30:42 pm »

OP it's rather an arcane point but there is a technical flaw in the wording on the PCN i.e.

"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable."

What LLATL 2003 4(8)(v) specifies is that there should be a warning that an increased charge may apply if the PCN has not been paid [or appealed] within 28 days from the date of the PCN, not the date that it was served. Due to a quirk in the wording, the LA can't send out a Charge Certificate until 28 days after the deemed date of service of the PCN but nonetheless the added penalty that the LA can apply comes into force 28 days after the date of the PCN itself.

Hippocrates will tell me if I have got this right but that is what I think he is getting at when he says he stands by his original draft. And yes, you have picked up that the wording isn't identical to the legislation and that is where the problem [for the LA] lies. Look up case 2250161512 on the London Tribunal register of cases.

LemonTootski · « **Reply #7 on:** August 01, 2025, 04:14:56 pm »

Thanks @Chaseman ... and Hippocrates (apologies for the name typo - i hope you did not catch shingles.)

I get it .. but my head hurts lol! But here goes. Shoot me if i'm wrong:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am making a formal representation to challenge the validity of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that it is procedurally improper and legally non-compliant. I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it does not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not valid as it is missing mandatory information. The PCN incorrectly warns that an increased charge may be payable 28 days from the "date of service" ("If you fail...etc). The governing legislation, (LLATL 2003 4(

(iii)), stipulates this period runs from the "date of the notice". This is a failure to include mandatory information and as such, this misstatement of the legal position is prejudicial.

Furthermore, The PCN is invalid as it fails to comply with the statutory requirement under the LLAT(FL)A 2003 s.4(b), to specify the form in which representations are to be made.The notice contains contradictory and prejudicial instructions, stating first that "one or more" grounds may apply, yet immediately after, directing the recipient to "Please tick one of the set grounds listed below". If the legislation does not require choosing only one ground for representations, then artificially limiting this is a procedural defect, as ambiguous instructions prevent proper compliance with statutory rights.

Given the significant procedural improprieties detailed above, These ambiguities are fatal to the validity of the notice; the PCN is therefore unenforceable.

Accordingly, the penalty charge must be cancelled.

-----

Do let me know what you think of my representation and feel free to make any amendments.

Thanks...

Hippocrates · « **Reply #8 on:** August 01, 2025, 07:59:51 pm »

Quote from: LemonTootski on August 01, 2025, 04:14:56 pm

Thanks @Chaseman ... and Hippocrates (apologies for the name typo - i hope you did not catch shingles.)

I get it .. but my head hurts lol! But here goes. Shoot me if i'm wrong:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am making a formal representation to challenge the validity of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that it is ~~procedurally improper and legally~~ non-compliant. I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it does not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not valid as it is missing mandatory information. The PCN incorrectly warns that an increased charge may be payable 28 days from the "date of service" ("If you fail...etc). The governing legislation, (LLATL 2003 4((iii)), stipulates this period runs from the "date of the notice". This is a failure to include mandatory information and as such, this misstatement of the legal position is prejudicial.

Furthermore, The PCN is invalid as it fails to comply with the statutory requirement under the LLAT(FL)A 2003 s.4(b), to specify the form in which representations are to be made.The notice contains contradictory and prejudicial instructions, stating first that "one or more" grounds may apply, yet immediately after, directing the recipient to "Please tick one of the set grounds listed below". If the legislation does not require choosing only one ground for representations, then artificially limiting this is a procedural defect, as ambiguous instructions prevent proper compliance with statutory rights.

Given the significant [s]procedural improprietie[/s]s collateral issues as detailed above, these ambiguities are fatal to the validity of the notice; the PCN is therefore unenforceable.

Accordingly, the penalty charge must be cancelled.

-----

Do let me know what you think of my representation and feel free to make any amendments.

Thanks...

LemonTootski · « **Reply #9 on:** August 01, 2025, 09:03:55 pm »

Thanks all. Will put in the rep to the LA tomorrow and keep you posted with the outcome ...
(that smiley though - (LLATL 2003 4(8)(iii)))

Hippocrates · « **Reply #10 on:** August 02, 2025, 09:31:58 am »

Smiley not intended.

Para. 4 (8 ) (v) One has to move the right hand bracket after the 8 by one space to the right to achieve redacting the guy with the glasses! Our moderator taught me this.

LemonTootski · « **Reply #11 on:** November 21, 2025, 08:05:08 pm »

Hi @Hippocrates. Still wonder if you caught shingles in the end ?!?
And hi @cp8759 and @Chaseman.

Just keeping you updated with this case.

Today I received this response to my representation. IT'S QUITE FUNNY. If you read their response letter, I don't think they've addressed my points made in any way shape or form regarding:

a) I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it does not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not valid as it is missing mandatory information. The PCN incorrectly warns that an increased charge may be payable 28 days from the "date of service" ("If you fail...etc). The governing legislation, (LLATL 2003 4(

(iii)), stipulates this period runs from the "date of the notice".

b) The PCN is invalid as it fails to comply with the statutory requirement under the LLAT(FL)A 2003 s.4(b), to specify the form in which representations are to be made.The notice contains contradictory and prejudicial instructions, stating first that "one or more" grounds may apply, yet immediately after, directing the recipient to "Please tick one of the set grounds listed below".

And also, drivers must not stop on a box junction. The only exception is if they are intending to make a right hand turn. However, they can only do so if their exit road is clear. I was turning right, but is impossible to determine if our exit is clear, if the one or two cars way ahead suddenly stop dead in front of you. But this may be a weak point.

Given the circumstances, what do you suggest is my next move? I have been given the option of paying the £80 before the end of the period of 14 days from the notice of this below rejection (21/11/2025) or £160 15-28 days from the date of this notice.

I'd be interested to hear what's your next move?

Thanks

LemonTootski

cp8759 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 21, 2025, 08:56:59 pm »

Quote from: Hippocrates on August 02, 2025, 09:31:58 am

Smiley not intended.

Para. 4 (8 ) (v) One has to move the right hand bracket after the 8 by one space to the right to achieve redacting the guy with the glasses! Our moderator taught me this.

I'm not sure I did, in the "Attachments and other options" dropdown when you reply to a post there's a tickbox for "Don't use smileys" which you can use.

Hippocrates · « **Reply #13 on:** November 21, 2025, 09:23:12 pm »

Failure to consider. The smiley appears if you do not use the space bar after the 8.

LemonTootski · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2025, 11:32:31 pm »

Hi

Just wondered if anyone had any advice about this?

Thanks

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited (Read 1996 times)

LemonTootski

3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

Hippocrates

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

LemonTootski

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

Hippocrates

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

LemonTootski

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

Hippocrates

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

Chaseman

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

LemonTootski

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

Hippocrates

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

LemonTootski

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

Hippocrates

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

LemonTootski

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

cp8759

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

Hippocrates

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited

LemonTootski

Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited