Here is a draft letter. Let me know what you think and thank you for your continued help with this.
Dear Lewisham Council,
I am writing to formally challenge the above-referenced Penalty Charge Notice issued for a perceived yellow box junction contravention at Westwood Hill / Sydenham. I am contesting this PCN on the following grounds:
1. The Contravention Did Not Occur: No Statutory Purpose
At the time of the alleged contravention, the location did not function as a "junction" as defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).
Due to extensive roadworks, the side road and the oncoming traffic lanes were completely obstructed by cones and barriers. As a result:
No vehicles could emerge from the side road.
No vehicles could turn right into the side road.
The box junction markings served no traffic management purpose.
The purpose of a yellow box junction is to prevent the obstruction of a junction to crossing or turning traffic. Where a road is closed, the box junction ceases to serve its statutory purpose. I draw your attention to the London Tribunals Costs Decision 2240295228, where the Adjudicator ruled that enforcing a box junction when roadworks render the junction unusable is "wholly unreasonable."
Furthermore, as the markings extended through a section of road that was effectively sealed off, they were not "at a junction of two or more roads" at the material time, rendering the enforcement invalid (see Case 2090257179).
2. Procedural Impropriety: Defects in the PCN Paperwork
I make a collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN itself. The document is non-compliant with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Missing Mandatory Information: The PCN fails to state the mandatory information required under Section 4( 8 ) (a)(v) of the Act, specifically in relation to the statutory timeframes for the service of a Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice.
Payment Options: The PCN fails to clearly offer a "payment by post" option as required for a valid notice of this type.
Legal Uncertainty: The wording regarding the 28-day period for payment is conflated and fails to provide the clarity required by the High Court (as per the Hackney Drivers ruling). It incorrectly suggests that the period begins from the date of the notice rather than the date of service, which is a significant legal error.
Given that the "junction" was physically non-existent due to the road closures and the paperwork contains significant legal defects, I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.
Should you choose to reject these representations, I will not hesitate to take this matter to the London Tribunals and will be applying for costs on the basis that enforcement in these circumstances is "wholly unreasonable," as established in previous case law.
Yours faithfully,
