Free Traffic Legal Advice

The yellow box junction at the bottom of Westwood Hill coming into Sydenham, London SE26 has just got a camera having not ever had one before.


I got a PCN last week having not noticed it had gone up. On the face of it it looks like i'm bang to rights but does the fact that there are roadworks completely blocking the right turn and oncoming traffic make any difference to the issuing of this PCN?

The box junction cannot be used as nobody can turn right or come out of that road onto the junction so it is not currently a junction.


I would be really grateful if the experts can cast their gaze over the paperwork and see if anything is untoward (as it usually is) and whether the roadworks make any difference, before I pay it.


Thank you as always for your amazing help. Please let me know if I need to post any other information.




https://streamable.com/74vm5c?src=player-page-share - Video take from Lewisham PCN website

The video shows what would normally be a clear contravention, no doubt on that at all, but the situation was not normal, because the opposite lane was closed, and with it, the side road that allows vehicles to join the main road.

So basically this is a typical money-grubbing PCN and it has to be doubted if the video has been viewed before the PCN was sent out; I suspect not.

The law is that a YBJ must be at the junction of two or more roads, and with the closures that no longer applies, so I would submit representations on that basis and question why enforcement is being undertaken during the road works, because the YBJ has no purpose while they are in progress. One could say that the YBJ is not valid during the works because it is not at the junction of two or more roads. However, wait a bit a see what the others say.

The video shows what would normally be a clear contravention, no doubt on that at all, but the situation was not normal, because the opposite lane was closed, and with it, the side road that allows vehicles to join the main road.

So basically this is a typical money-grubbing PCN and it has to be doubted if the video has been viewed before the PCN was sent out; I suspect not.

The law is that a YBJ must be at the junction of two or more roads, and with the closures that no longer applies, so I would submit representations on that basis and question why enforcement is being undertaken during the road works, because the YBJ has no purpose while they are in progress. One could say that the YBJ is not valid during the works because it is not at the junction of two or more roads. However, wait a bit a see what the others say.

Thank you for your thoughts. It seems there is mixed messaging from doing some research online. I have seen quite a lot saying it does not matter how many roadworks are up, even if the entire other side of the road is sealed off including the right turn, the box junction and the 31J PCN would still be valid.

Then there are some who say it could be argued that the roadworks mean that this is no longer a junction of any kind so should not function as one.

No luck so far - I'll keep looking (hope I didn't imagine it).

Meanwhile, this blog post by Mr Mustard offers encouragement



There is also a key case on the London Tribunals website which sets out very clearly that box junction markings which extend beyond a road junction itself are not valid to enforce, and this seems to me to be analogous to your situation.

Extract as follows:

"The problem with the special authorisation is this. Part of the box that it purportedly authorises is not within the junction of the roads. At its southern side it includes a triangle of road that is not within the junction and is therefore not 'at a junction between two or more roads'. The prohibition, however, relates only to a box junction as defined. The special authorisation therefore purports to extend the prohibition outside the junction. It does not seem to me that the power to authorise signs empowers the Secretary of State to effectively redefine the prohibition prescribed by Schedule 19.

This is not an insignificant matter. The box as purportedly authorised extends for a significant distance beyond the junction itself. This increases the distance the motorist has to traverse without stopping, and therefore makes it more difficult for them to make progress without falling foul of the box. It is also difficult to see what the point of extending the box beyond the junction is, given that the purpose of the prohibition plainly is to stop stationary vehicles blocking the junction to crossing traffic. Clearly, stopping in the area beyond the junction would not block the junction.

I accordingly find that this yellow box is not a lawful road marking. Therefore the contravention did not occur. I allow this appeal."

The key case: 2090257179.

The PCN has issues too.



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. And so it follows that the statement beginning with "If you fail................." is not only conflated but also does not even mention the said information thus exacerbating the lack of clarity of this PCN. Whether the "or" is interpreted as conjunctively or disjunctively, is somewhat further complicated  by the missing information.  Therefore, it must be read as to be paid before the end of 28 days from the date of service, which is wrong. The High Court has ruled that there must be such clarity in Hackney Drivers.

Also, I cannot see if the PCN states payment by post option.

From The Maestro to me: 2240295228

This is an application by Mr Murray-Smith on behalf of the Appellant for costs, following the allowing of the Appeal on the 15th October 2024. After adjourning the hearing of the Appeal to give the Council the (further) opportunity to explain the traffic management purpose being served by the presence of the box junction markings when the cones were in place the Council indicated that the Appeal was no longer resisted. It wrote to the Appellant stating that the PCN should not have been issued.

The grounds of the application are clearly set out by Mr Murray-Smith in his written application of the 24th October, and these were the grounds put forward with some amplification on a telephone hearing on the 18th December 2024 following which I reserved my decision. No representations in response have been received from the Council but I am proceeding on the basis that the claim would be resisted.

It seems to me that the issue to be decided is whether the Council’s decision to reject the representations and/or the decision (initially) to resist the Appeal can be categorised as “wholly unreasonable” (I do not consider that this is a case where the Council could be said to have acted frivolously or vexatiously).

The representations were in the following terms:-

“The footage shows that the road was blocked-off due to cones across the carriageway, such that traffic could not turn right from Barking Road into 1 St. Bartholomews Road. As St. Bartholomews Road is a one-way road, no traffic could emerge from that road onto Barking Road, so at the material time the box markings served no purpose whatsoever and did not therefore fulfil their statutory purpose. It follows that the penalty charge should be cancelled”


The Council’s rejection notice, although quoting the representations, shows no sign that this issue was actually considered at all. It contains what are clearly a number of pro-forma paragraphs relating to box junctions generally, but the effect of the roadworks and the possible effect on the statutory purpose was not mentioned.

These representations were adopted as the initial grounds of appeal. The Council resisted the Appeal at that stage but out of nine points raised in response only one dealt in any way with the grounds relied on. The Council stated “ Roadworks does not stop the enforcement of box junction unless signs are present. In this instance no signs was (sic) present.


Having considered the matter carefully it seems to me that although the original representation did not contain the level of legal detail subsequently provided by Mr Murray -Smith in his skeleton argument of the 30th August, the essential point was made clearly enough and, in my judgement, demanded either an acceptance by the Council or some reasoned argument why the statutory purpose was fulfilled despite the presence of the cones. Rejecting the representations whilst maintaining silence on the matter was in my view a wholly unreasonable course to take. Likewise resisting the Appeal with only the most cursory (and in context incorrect) reference to the point, which the Council had by that stage ample time to consider was also wholly unreasonable.


I therefore find that the criteria allowing the making an order for costs are made out and I can see no good reason why such an order should not be made. The amount claimed, £84, seems to me to be reasonable and proportionate to the amount at stake in these proceedings and I make the order requested.

Brilliant - thanks for digging that out.

I knew I'd seen something similar before, but couldn't track it down either here or on LT.

I asked cp8759 earlier aka The Wizard of Norfolk aka The Clinician. 

LT does not appear to publish costs decisions occasionally?

Our leader should be on Mastermind.