The link is better. They will reject of course but the quality of their response is the important point. In your defence, I would throw the Highway Code into the mix Rule 174 and see what they say to that.
https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html#:~:text=174%0ABox%20junctions,1)%20%26%2029(2)
Understood. I've updated my challenge statement to reflect the latest advice (courtesy of my friend Mr ChatGPT). Please let me know what you think. I wont send this on until I get the experts approval
:
Challenge / Representations
Grounds:
The Penalty Charge Notice is invalid missing mandatory information
The alleged contravention did not occur (in the alternative)**
1. The Penalty Charge Notice is invalid missing mandatory information
I make a collateral challenge to the validity of the Penalty Charge Notice.
Paragraph 4(
(v) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires a PCN to state:
that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.
This provision clearly refers back to paragraph 4(
(iii), which requires the PCN to state:
that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.
My PCN fails to comply with these mandatory requirements.
Instead, it states words to the effect of:
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 defective for the following reasons:
It fails to clearly state that the increased charge arises only if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day payment period, as required by paragraph 4(
(v).
It conflates payment and representations into a single statement using the word or, creating ambiguity as to what event triggers the increased charge.
It incorrectly refers to a period beginning with the date of service, rather than the date of the notice, contrary to paragraph 4(
(iii).
The omission of the mandatory information required by paragraph 4(
(v) exacerbates the lack of clarity.
Whether the word or is interpreted conjunctively or disjunctively, the PCN still fails to convey the required statutory information with clarity. As a result, the PCN cannot lawfully be enforced.
The High Court has confirmed, including in Hackney Drivers, that PCNs must convey statutory requirements clearly and unambiguously. This PCN does not do so and is therefore invalid.
2. The alleged contravention did not occur (in the alternative)
Without prejudice to the above, I also deny that the contravention occurred.
I entered the box junction in order to complete a right-turn manoeuvre. At the time of entry, I was not prevented from exiting the junction by stationary vehicles, which is the statutory test.
After committing to the turn, traffic conditions ahead changed and I became briefly stationary. The CCTV footage shows that my vehicle had substantially cleared the box junction, with only the rear wheels remaining within the marked area.
Any stop was minimal and momentary, occurring only after lawful entry. The prohibition applies to entering a box junction when the exit is blocked; it does not apply where a driver enters lawfully and subsequently has to slow or stop due to traffic conditions.
In addition, Highway Code Rule 174 confirms that drivers should not enter a box junction unless their exit is clear, which accords with the statutory test. In this case, that requirement was satisfied at the point of entry.
In the alternative, if a contravention is alleged, the extent of any encroachment was so trivial as to be de minimis, and enforcement in these circumstances would be disproportionate.
