Adamou v Haringey: 2060381000
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2060381000
Appellant Gina Adamou
Authority London Borough of Haringey
VRM Y733GVX
PCN Details
PCN HY72193896
Contravention date 05 Jul 2006
Contravention time 16:17:00
Contravention location High Road N22
Penalty amount GBP 100.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 Oct 2006
Adjudicator Hugh Cooper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 7. This provides as follows.
"7 (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, [box junctions] shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
(2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) 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."
In this case the Council served a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on Mrs Adamou alleging that the vehicle of which she was the registered keeper had contravened this regulation "in High Road N22".
Mrs Adamou says that she telephoned the Council on receipt of the PCN and asked them about this contravention. She was told that it had taken place at the junction of Ewart Grove and High Road N22. She pointed out to the person she spoke to that there was no box junction at that location. When the Council served photographs with their Notice of Rejection they made no mention of Ewart Grove.
The Council finally stated in their Case Summary that the box junction is actually at the junction of High Road and Bounds Green Road; the junction with Ewart Grove is simply where the camera is located. In a letter subsequent to her Notice of Appeal Mrs Adamou argues as to whether or not the events recorded on the video recording actually amount to a contravention.
However I do not have to decide that issue, because the confusion that has evidently arisen in Mrs Adamou's communications with the Council clearly demonstrates that the original PCN failed to comply with the requirements of Section 4(
(a)(i) of the London Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This provides that the PCN "must…state…the grounds on which the council… believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".
The Council's own evidence shows that they have no fewer than 9 cameras in High Road N22, 6 of which are located at junctions. Whether or not all are devoted to monitoring compliance with box junctions, it makes clear that this is a long road with a considerable number of junctions. It is evident from Mrs Adamou's case that she did not know on receipt of the PCN where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.
Had the PCN specified "High Road N22 at its junction with Bounds Green Road", then Mrs Adamou would have known where to look. As it was, by simply stating "in High Road N22", I find that the PCN did not state the grounds on which the Council believed that the penalty charge was payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred.
I find therefore that no valid PCN was served on Mrs Adamou, and so the Council cannot enforce this penalty charge.
[I would add that there is considerable doubt in my mind as to whether the layout of the box junction markings in this case actually comply with the requirements of Diagrams 1043 or 1044 in Schedule 6 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, neither of which appears to allow for box junction markings opposite the mouth of a T-junction, as opposed to across it. Furthermore it appears that there is a right turn filter lane on the main road, so that the box junction markings only cover one lane. However I do not make a formal determination on this issue. It maybe that in future cases the Council will feel the need, and be able, to clarify how this layout complies with either of the diagrams.]
Also: 2240084051.
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240084051
Appellant susan Strank
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM NJ17BFK
PCN Details
PCN QT08637767
Contravention date 18 Dec 2023
Contravention time 09:42:00
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 May 2024
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
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.
The appellant has stated that the location expressed on the penalty notice is ambiguous; there are four Kingston Roads across the borough.
In the case of Hackney Drivers Association Limited v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire County Council CO/7565/2012 on 31st October 2012 Mr. Justice Raynor when considering a penalty notice asked at paragraph 11 of his judgment, "what was fairly conveyed by the penalty notice, read as a whole?" The recipient requires certainty.
I agree with the appellant; she did not receive certainty. As stated above, a box junction must be at the junction of two roads; there is no mention of the road at the junction of Kingston Road where the box junction is situated.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
