I've tried to abbreviate it to make it more appealing to read for an adjudicator, and moved the case summaries to an appendix to better maintain the flow. When the case is this straightforward, I don't think it's necessary to split it into multiple sub-paragraphs and summaries of points already made. Just hammer it home in one go. I'm also rather torn about including your second ground as I, personally, don't think it holds any weight, but you can keep it in if you wish (I've left it there for now). I think it's better to either remove it (as I think it serves to undermine the impression of your judgement to follow your strong first ground with a second one which makes it sound like you don't understand what you are talking about) or to redraft it to focus instead on a de minimis offence (only stopped for 6 seconds and a vacant exit lane which you would have taken if you hasn't been prevented from doing so by moving, i.e. non-stationary, vehicles on your right). I can draft something on that to replace what you've got it you confirm you'd like that instead.
1. Introduction
I wish to appeal against the Notice of Rejection issued by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in respect of Penalty Charge Notice HZ96242257 (entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited). Key dates as follows:
Date of alleged contravention: 27 December 2025
Date of PCN: 9 January 2026
Date representations submitted: 11 January 2026
Date of Notice of Rejection: 27 April 2026
My appeal is brought on two grounds:
(a) Primary ground: The Authority acted with inordinate delay in responding to my representations which it has failed to justify, in breach of the guideline of 3 months established by this Tribunal for moving traffic offences. This constitutes a collateral challenge and the PCN should be cancelled, consistent with previous decisions (three such examples listed below).
(b) Secondary ground: The alleged contravention did not occur.
2. Primary ground: inordinate delay in issuing the Notice of Rejection
I acknowledge that the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 does not prescribe a statutory time limit within which an enforcement authority must serve a notice of rejection in moving traffic cases (unlike parking cases, where a 56-day limit applies). However, this Tribunal has consistently and repeatedly held that an enforcement authority is nonetheless required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. To this effect, the Tribunal has published on its website a statement that "The adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations within 3 months". In this case, it took the Authority around three and a half months to respond to my representations, and the Notice of Rejection received included no acknowledgement, explanation or justification for this delay.
From reviewing recent Tribunal decisions involving this authority, I can see earlier in the same month that my representations were rejected at least two appeals were decided against it on precisely the same grounds (2250654961 and 2250663918 - case summaries included below for convenience). I am also aware of a further case from 2024 where a delay in excess of 3 months was agreed by the Tribunal as sufficient grounds for overturning a refused appeal on review (2240112496).
On that basis, the Authority should have been fully aware of the Tribunal's expectations and the consequences of non-compliance but nonetheless issued a Notice of Rejection.
3. Secondary Ground: The Contravention Did Not Occur
Without prejudice to my primary ground, and for completeness, I maintain that the alleged contravention did not occur as a matter of law.
The prohibition is set out in Schedule 9, Part 7, paragraph 11(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which provides that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
At the time my vehicle entered the yellow box junction, the video recording shows that there were no stationary vehicles in front of me. The traffic ahead was flowing and I had a reasonable expectation of being able to exit the box junction at the time of entry. The vehicles ahead of me subsequently came to a halt due to a red traffic light — a circumstance which I could not have foreseen or anticipated at the moment of entry, particularly given the short distance between the traffic light and the box junction and the fact that I was the fourth vehicle in the queue.
I acknowledge that the Authority's rejection letter takes the view that the driver's intention is not relevant and that the contravention occurs as soon as a vehicle stops on the box junction when the exit lane is not clear. However, I respectfully maintain that the question of whether stationary vehicles were present at the moment of entry — as required by the statute — is a matter of fact which the video evidence should be examined to determine. I preserve this ground for the Tribunal's consideration.
4. Copies of relevant decisions previously referred to
Case reference 2250654961
Appellant Lloyd Jantuah
Authority London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
VRM YN67SZL
PCN Details
PCN HZ93508551
Contravention date 04 Jul 2025
Contravention time 11:46:00
Contravention location Hammersmith Rd j/w Shortlands
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Performing a prohibited turn
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Apr 2026
Adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mr Jantuah appeals on the basis that the enforcement authority breached the guidance issued by decisions of adjudicators of this tribunal, that in moving traffic cases, authorities should issue notices rejection within three months.
The Enforcement Authority acknowledges that Mr Jantuah made his formal representations on 26 July, and the notice of rejection was not sent until 12 November. I therefore find that the authority did take over three months to send the notice.
It is true that the relevant Act lays down no actual time limit for service of a notice of rejection in moving traffic cases. However this tribunal has consistently decided that it is reasonable to expect an authority to do so within three months, and to take longer than that is unacceptable, and will be regarded as a successful collateral challenge, unless an adjudicator decides otherwise on the individual facts of the case.
I can see no good reason on the evidence before me why the authority could not comply with the three month guidance. It is for the benefit of everyone, including the enforcement authority, to have a clear time limit in mind, because this will ensure that cases are dealt with in a reasonably timely manner, whereas an expectation that an authority will do something within an undefined 'reasonable time' will have the opposite effect.
I therefore allow this appeal on the basis that the authority has failed to issue the notice of rejection within the clearly indicated three month guideline. The appeal is allowed on the basis of that successful collateral challenge.
Case reference 2250663918
Appellant Shanye Hazel-Marriott
Authority London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
VRM LY74HNB
PCN Details
PCN HZ93906157
Contravention date 27 Jul 2025
Contravention time 14:19:00
Contravention location Imperial Rd NWbnd - NW of Fulmead St
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Apr 2026
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Upon the appellant complaining about the delay that occurred in her receiving a response from the council to her representations.
The 56 day time frame in which the council is required to serve a notice of acceptance or rejection only applies to parking penalty charges. It does not apply to moving traffic penalty charges such as this. Whilst, however, there is no requirement that the council respond to representations made on a moving traffic PCN within any set time period, it is on the decided cases required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. Representations were received by the council in this case on 09/08/25, it issuing a rejection notice letter on 11/12/25, over four months later. I am satisfied given that delay that the criteria set out above were not met, and find that enforcement may not therefore be pursued. The appeal must accordingly be allowed without consideration of any of the other issues raised by either party to the proceedings.
Case reference 2240112496
Appellant Jain and Jain Ltd
Authority Transport for London
VRM AF72TFO
PCN Details
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.
