Here's one (pretty sure there will be others, but the search functionality on London Tribunals isn't the greatest). In this case, the original appeal was dismissed, but then overturned on review by a more experienced adjudicator purely due to the council taking longer than 3 months to reject and not giving any justification for the delay.
PCN GX0883096A
Contravention date 20 Jul 2023
Contravention time 16:57:00
Contravention location HANGER LANE / EALING VILLAGE W5
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 May 2024
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle entered and stopped within the box junction there owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle. It is a contravention if a person causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
To stop means to come to a stand as in the course of a journey, to halt or to cease moving.
The contravention was created by statute: Paragraph 11 of Part 7, Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).
The contravention does not apply to any person
a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right: and
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.
The appellant has stated the markings need to be removed from the location; Ealing Village is not a road. Transport for London responded to the appellant’s representations after the 56 days deadline.
I have considered fully the representations of both parties and I have examined carefully the video evidence provided by the local authority.
Did the appellant cause their vehicle to stop on the box junction because of the presence of another stationary vehicle?
I am satisfied by it that the appellant’s vehicle followed another vehicle onto the box junction. The first vehicle stopped and it prevented the appellant’s vehicle from clearing the box junction. Consequently, the appellant’s vehicle entered and stopped on the box junction owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle in front of it in circumstances other than the one permitted statutory exemption. Crucially the appellant’s vehicle did not wait outside the entrance to the box junction before entering the box junction. Had it done so and waited for a definite clear space there would have been no contravention. . It is not uncommon for traffic to proceed in a line onto the box junction but this is what box junctions try to prevent.
The appellant has asserted that the contravention did not occur.
As stated, had the appellant’s vehicle waited for clear space before entering the box junction then it would not have been affected by whatever occurred on the other side, such as a change of colour of traffic lights or pedestrians crossing the road or vehicles suddenly stopping.
A Box Junction is defined in Paragraph 11(6) of Part 7, Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). It means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which there has been placed the road marking shown in the diagram at item 25 of Schedule 9, part 6 of the TSRGD.
I am satisfied that the box junction in this case complies with paragraph 5 of Part 8 of the TSRGD.
A road is defined by section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as any length of highway, or of any other road to which the public has access. I am not persuaded that the roads are not roads within the said definition.
I must find that the local authority was entitled to issue the penalty notice. The penalty notice in this case was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The local authority is entitled to issue the penalty notice to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle concerned.
Paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act 2003 states that it shall be the duty of the local authority to consider the appellant’s representations and serve on that person notice of their decision.
There is no statutory time limit, within which the local authority must serve the notice.
I am satisfied that the penalty notice expressed the correct penalty amount, a fixed penalty, fixed by law. It did not therefore exceed the relevant amount in all the circumstances of the case.
It follows that I must refuse the appeal.
Decision Date 07 Aug 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Previous decision Appeal refused
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This application by the appellants for review of the decision of the adjudicator made on 21/05/24 to refuse the appeal is listed before me today for determination they setting out the grounds in support thereof in their letter of 03/06/24.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle at the junction of Hanger Lane and Ealing Village entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited.
The appellants assert that the adjudicator failed to address their claim that Ealing Village was not a 'road'.
I note in passing that on 05/06/24 the parties were directed to make submissions on the definition of a road by reference to Bowen v Isle of Wight Council [2021] EWHC 3254 (Ch).
Neither party has complied with that direction and as I am unassisted by that lack of response I make no determination as the application of that decision.
The adjudicator in his decision stated: 'A road is defined by section 142 of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as any length of highway, or of any other road to which the public has access. I am not persuaded that the roads are not roads within the said definition'.
He therefore I find considered that matter and I am, in any event, satisfied on the authority's submissions of 26/06/24, made in response to the application, that Ealing Village is a 'road' within the definition of the 1984 Act.
In respect of the second ground for the application as to delay in service of the notice of rejection the appellants having raised that issue on appeal they making reference to guidance on the point provided on the tribunal's website.
The adjudicator correctly stated that there is no statutory time limit within which the authority must serve its notice of rejection.
The 56 day time frame in which it is required to do so only applies to parking penalty charges. It does not apply to box junction penalty charges such as this.
Whilst however there is no requirement that an authority respond to representations made on a box junction PCN within any set time limit it is on the decided cases required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. Representations were received by the authority in this case on 29/08/23 it issuing a rejection notice letter on 08/02/24 well over five months later. That to my mind amounts to an inordinate delay and in the absence of any explanation being provided by the authority for it, and in the context of the guidance given on the tribunal's website, I am satisfied that the criteria set out above were not met and find that enforcement may not therefore be pursued. I allow the appeal.
