Examples of adjudicators ruling that drivers did not stop due to stationary vehicles
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2230553462
Jack Noble
London Borough of Waltham Forest
27 Oct 2023 15:38:00
Lea Bridge Road / Argall Way
24 Jan 2024
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
Mr Murray-Smith, for the appellant, attended the hearing today via telephone. The council did not do so either via telephone or in person. The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. I was atisfied on the basis of Mr Murray-Smith's submissions as set out in his skeleton argument of 26/12/23 uploaded to the case on that date, to which the council had not responded, that this vehicle in stopping as it did on box junction markings stopped short. It did not I found do so due to the presence of stationery vehicles. I was accordingly satisfied that the contravention had not occurred. The appeal was allowed without consideration of any other issue raised by either party to the proceedings.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2160252038
alan branch
London Borough of Waltham Forest
24 Apr 2016 16:44:00
Hall Lane/Albert Crescent
11 Jul 2016
Gerald Styles
Appeal allowed
The Council did not send a representative.
The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.
