28 days appeal deadline so must get this out today! ( received 28.04.2026)
As it's a Bank Holiday I won't be able to run this down to the P.0 (and obtain proof of postage) so will submit it online for him. Please can someone just cast an eye over this - and let me know if it's sufficient?
The place where the alleged contravention happened is approx 30miles away so will ask him to (if poss) drive up on a rainy evening to take photos before the hearing date.____________________________________________
I respectfully submit this appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Brent in relation to the alleged yellow box junction contravention at Salisbury Avenue / Hartland Road.
At the time of the alleged contravention I was unfamiliar with the area, as I do not live locally and had not previously driven through this junction.
The incident occurred during darkness and in heavy rain. Although street lighting was present, the weather conditions significantly reduced visibility of the carriageway markings. The yellow box junction markings were not sufficiently visible to me on approach and I genuinely did not see the full extent of the box before entering it. Had I seen the markings clearly, I would have exercised greater caution and waited before proceeding.
I also did not observe any illuminated advance warning signage drawing attention to the box junction. In conditions of darkness and heavy rainfall, reliance is placed primarily on the visibility of the road markings themselves. Due to the wet road surface, glare from headlights and reflections from street lighting, the box markings were difficult to distinguish.
This can also be seen from the CCTV footage provided by Brent Council, which shows the heavy rain, darkness, reflections from lighting, and the generally poor visibility conditions at the time of the alleged contravention.
In fact, when reviewing the council’s own evidence photographs, I personally had to look carefully and double check to distinguish that a yellow box junction was even present, as the markings are extremely difficult to see in the images provided. This further demonstrates the reduced visibility conditions that existed at the time.
I submit that these conditions materially affected my ability to identify the junction markings in sufficient time to safely assess whether my exit was clear. This was not deliberate misuse of the junction or an attempt to gain advantage in traffic. I was driving cautiously in poor weather conditions in an unfamiliar area.
I would also respectfully ask the Adjudicator to consider previous tribunal decisions where visibility and road conditions were found relevant to the enforceability of yellow box junction markings. Adjudicators have accepted that darkness, rain, worn markings, and reduced visibility may impair a driver’s ability to properly identify a box junction and judge the available exit space.
In the circumstances, I respectfully request that the appeal be allowed and that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
___________________________________________________
Should I add the below in (for good measure?) I found this looking back on this helpful forum:Also, the wording of the PCN incites confusion and fails to clearly convey the mandatory information required under Paragraph 4(
(v) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, namely that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the relevant 28-day period, an increased charge may become payable.
The legislation distinguishes between two separate time periods:
1. Payment of the penalty charge, which must be made within 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; and
2. The submission of representations, which are calculated from the date of service of the notice (deemed to be two working days after the date of the notice).
However, the PCN 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.”
This wording is unclear because it conflates the two separate statutory periods into one. The use of the word “or” combines payment and representations, despite the fact that each is governed by a different starting date under the legislation.
As a result, the PCN creates confusion as to the correct deadline for payment. A motorist reading the notice could reasonably conclude that payment is also calculated from the date of service, when the legislation states that payment runs from the date of the notice itself.
Further confusion arises because the PCN omits the mandatory statutory wording relating specifically to payment before the end of the 28-day period beginning with the date of the notice.
Accordingly, the PCN fails to clearly and accurately communicate the recipient’s legal obligations and time limits, rendering it non-compliant with the requirements of the 2003 Act.
________________________________________
Any help appreciated - don't want to mess this up!
Please let me know if I should add/ omit/ amend anything?
Thanks a lot
