There does seem to be an issue with the right turn here with the caveats that the layout may have changed and adjudicators are not bound by previous decisions.
Note case 2230304887:
“Half boxes, in which only half the area of the junction is marked are appropriate at T junctions and other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Half boxes should be used only on the minor road side of the main carriageway to allow emerging traffic to turn right where the queue of traffic in the major road is to the left. A half box on the side of the road opposite a T junction generally serves no useful purpose. Even though it will create a gap in a queue of traffic, drivers turning right from the minor road will not be able to enter the box as the exit will be obstructed.”
It is abundantly clear from the guidance that a half-box on the side of the road opposite a T-junction generally serves no useful purpose and will cause an unnecessary obstacle for drivers turning right from the minor road. In my judgement, the guidance is clear that the only box marking that will normally be appropriate at a T-junction is a half box on the minor side of the road in a situation where the traffic blocks back from one direction only.
--------
----------
Case reference 2230267259
Appellant Nassir Hussain
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EK16SDX
PCN Details
PCN AF97213304
Contravention date 20 Apr 2023
Contravention time 18:12:00
Contravention location Cambridge Park
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Jul 2023
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Hussain, for the appellant, appeared before me today via telephone.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. Upon Mr Hussain submitting that the box was too large. I was satisfied on the council's online footage of the incident, which I viewed, that this box was marked well beyond the junction shown thereon it thus not I find being marked at the junction of two roads as required under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. I inferred that had the box been marked at the junction itself the appellant's vehicle in stopping would not have stopped within box junction markings. I was not satisfied against this background that this box was marked in compliance with the TSRGD 2016 and I accordinlgy found that the contravention had not been proved.
------------
Case reference 2230448945
Appellant Ferzana Patel
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM VO65LKY
PCN Details
PCN AF97656101
Contravention date 10 Sep 2023
Contravention time 14:09:00
Contravention location Cambridge Park
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Nov 2023
Adjudicator George Dodd
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant’s Authorised Representative, Mr Mohammed Asif, attended the hearing of the appeal in person. He was also the driver of the vehicle at the time. The Appellant did not attend. The Authority did not attend, nor were they represented.
It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction on Cambridge Park J/W Blake Hall Road on 10 September 2023. They rely in evidence on CCTV footage which shows the vehicle enter the box junction and turn right (the junction is a T-junction) and come to a halt on the junction owing to stationary vehicles ahead. They also rely on photographs taken from within Blake Hall Road that show the view of the junction at various points.
Under the relevant regulation the prohibition is defined as follows: “...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.” This means that before a driver causes their vehicle to enter the box junction there must already be a clear space waiting to receive their vehicle on the other side. An exemption applies to a person who causes a vehicle to enter a box junction for purpose of turning right and stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
It is the Appellant’s case that, first, he is entitled to benefit from the turning right exemption; secondly, the configuration and size of the box junction is such that, on approaching the junction on Blake Road, it is not possible to see the boundary and exit point of the junction when turning right and that one cannot see this until one has entered the junction, by which time it is too late. The Appellant maintains that the box is simply too large for the junction and that it should not be larger than the width of Blake Hall Road.
The Appellant has produced in evidence an image from Google Maps showing the view of the junction on the approach from Blake Hall Road and a further image showing another junction where the box is much smaller and simply spans the mouth of the side road. In addition, the Appellant seeks to rely on the decision of another adjudicator (2230448945), which related to the same junction. The decision was as follows:
“The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. Upon Mr Hussain submitting that the box was too large. I was satisfied on the council's online footage of the incident, which I viewed, that this box was marked well beyond the junction shown thereon it thus not I find being marked at the junction of two roads as required under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. I inferred that had the box been marked at the junction itself the appellant's vehicle in stopping would not have stopped within box junction markings. I was not satisfied against this background that this box was marked in compliance with the TSRGD 2016 and I accordingly found that the contravention had not been proved.”
The right-hand turn exemption does not apply in this case because the junction is a T-junction rather than a crossroads and therefore it is not possible for vehicles turning right at the junction to be prevented from doing so by an oncoming vehicle. Therefore, the Appellant’s appeal cannot succeed on this point.
As regards the configuration and size of the box junction I take the view that it is large and extends beyond the junction itself, such that a motorist’s view, on approaching the junction, of the boundary and exit point on the right-hand side of the junction, is compromised. I am not satisfied that the box is contained within the junction of the two roads, as required by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. This case is very similar, if not identical, to the case referred to above and I follow the said decision in that case. It follows that I am not satisfied that the contravention has been proved and I allow the appeal.
------------
Case reference 2230304887
Appellant Nojrul Askaari
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM N4AOJ
PCN Details
PCN AF97208778
Contravention date 19 Apr 2023
Contravention time 16:20:00
Contravention location Cambridge Park
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Oct 2023
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons This is a reserved decision following the reconvened hearing on 29 August 2023. Mr Askaari attended that hearing in person and he also attended the previous hearing on 25 July 2023.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The box junction is located in Cambridge Park Road at the junction with Blake Hall Road.
Paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that a person must not 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.
The CCTV footage shows that Mr Askaari’s car made a right turn out of the minor road and then stopped in the box behind another vehicle which was still in the box and stationary in a line of traffic. It is not in dispute that there was no clear exit for Mr Askaari’s car at the point of entry into the box or that the car was caused to stop in the box due to stationary traffic.
At the hearing on 25 July, Mr Askaari submitted images of the approach to the box junction where he made the right turn from Blake Hall Road onto Cambridge Park Road. These images show that there is a bend in the road so that the traffic lights and junction are not in view from a distance. Mr Askaari's evidence was that a driver going through the lights on green does not have time to see the box junction until it is too late. He said that only a driver stopping at the lights when they are red will see the box junction markings in time.
I did not have any images showing the driver's view as the corner was turned and what the visibility of the junction then was. I adjourned the hearing on 25 July for the Council to comment on this evidence. I also invited the Council’s comments on the measurements of the box and on Mr Askaari's ground of appeal that the markings of the box extend beyond the junction.
The Council submitted further evidence on 9 August, including three still images showing the approach to the traffic lights in Blake Hall Road. At the reconvened hearing on 29 August, Mr Askaari maintained his position that it is very difficult to see the box markings unless the lights are red and the driver is stopped.
In relation Mr Askaari's ground of appeal that the markings of the box extend beyond the junction, the Council maintains that the box meets the definition of a box junction in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 as being “an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads.”
Mr Askaari also says that the Department for Transport states that implementing this type of box junction at a T junction serves no useful purpose so that such boxes should not be used or enforced.
I have considered firstly the evidence as to the visibility of the box markings on the approach to the junction. The aerial view from the camera shows a clear view of the box markings. However, the Council’s still images of the approach to the lights show that there is not a clear view for the driver approaching the lights. I agree with Mr Askaari that a driver going through the lights on green may well not have time to see the markings and safely stop until it is too late.
In my judgement, the box markings do extend beyond the junction and do not meet the definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9. The junction is the width of the carriageway of the minor road which meets the major road and these markings extend well beyond that width, to the extent that a driver stopped at the lights has no visibility of the end of the box to the right.
The Council does not address Mr Askaari’s ground of appeal that the use of this type of box junction at a T junction is contrary to DfT guidance.
The Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, paragraph 8.3.2. (Road Markings 2018) makes it clear that only half-boxes are appropriate for use at T-junctions and other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Paragraph 8.3.2. reads as below.
“Half boxes, in which only half the area of the junction is marked are appropriate at T junctions and other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Half boxes should be used only on the minor road side of the main carriageway to allow emerging traffic to turn right where the queue of traffic in the major road is to the left. A half box on the side of the road opposite a T junction generally serves no useful purpose. Even though it will create a gap in a queue of traffic, drivers turning right from the minor road will not be able to enter the box as the exit will be obstructed.”
Mr Askaari has provided a copy of Sam Wright's review of Councils' plans to enforce yellow box junctions, commissioned by the RAC. The review includes a detailed consideration of boxes covering the far side of T-junctions. The Council’s case summary provides no comment on this review.
Sam Wright’s report provides a very useful commentary on boxes that cover the far side of T-junctions. Under the old TSRGD, boxes that covered the far side of a T-junction were not permitted and required DfT approval. The report refers to FOI requests revealing that, in 2007, the DfT stopped authorising these kinds of boxes, stating: “We were no longer prepared to authorise full box junctions at a T-junction when Transport for London reviewed their box junctions in 2007. Our reasoning was that we saw no traffic management benefit in the use of full box junctions at this type of junction.”
In spite of this clear statement of the DfT’s position in 2007, there is no doubt that the position has been relaxed by TSRGD 2016. However, TSRGD 2016 does not, in my judgement, provide full flexibility for a full box marking at T-junctions. The change is that DfT approval is no longer required for a full box marking. That does not, however, give Councils carte blanche to introduce full boxes as they wish. If it did, then the statutory guidance in Paragraph 8.3.2 would be rendered meaningless. It is abundantly clear from the guidance that a half-box on the side of the road opposite a T-junction generally serves no useful purpose and will cause an unnecessary obstacle for drivers turning right from the minor road. In my judgement, the guidance is clear that the only box marking that will normally be appropriate at a T-junction is a half box on the minor side of the road in a situation where the traffic blocks back from one direction only.
Clearly, there is no longer a requirement for DfT approval for the use of a full box marking at a T-junction but, in my judgement, paragraph 8.3.2 requires that the use of such a marking is justified, especially given the clear impediment resulting for drivers attempting to make the right turn out of the minor road.
If the Council seeks to enforce PCNs against such drivers, then it needs to produce evidence showing the reasons for which it has both introduced and retained the use of the full box marking and, in this case, it has not done so. Although the Council refers to this ground of appeal in the case summary, it produces no evidence of why a full box was installed at this junction.
I allow the appeal for all of these reasons.
------------
Case reference 2240319723
Appellant Besmire Dvorani
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM WH15HBZ
PCN Details
PCN AF9848565A
Contravention date 10 Apr 2024
Contravention time 12:31:00
Contravention location CAMBRIDGE PARK
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 24 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited.
Paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that a person must not 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. It is an offence to enter the box without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to stationary vehicles in front.
Paragraph 11(3) states that this prohibition does not apply to any person causing a vehicle to enter a box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of making a right turn out of the box and stopping the vehicle for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary waiting to complete the right turn.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage. This shows Mrs Dvorani's car entering the box to make a right turn out of the box. The car then stops in the box due to the car in front becoming stationary in traffic. The car in front was also making a right turn.
I am allowing the appeal because Mrs Dvorani's car stopped within the box to make a right turn out of the box and was prevented from completing the right turn by the car in front which had also made the right turn. The car in front was also waiting to complete its exit from the box.
--------
Case reference 2250397133
Appellant Deborah Knights
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM M9OES
PCN Details
PCN AF20276221
Contravention date 06 Jun 2025
Contravention time 16:19:00
Contravention location CAMBRIDGE PARK
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Dec 2025
Adjudicator Kavita Kumar
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Introduction
1. This is an appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the London Borough of Redbridge Council, the Enforcement Authority, in respect of a contravention namely, entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
2. The hearing took place via Teams, as per the Appellant’s preference.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
3. The Enforcement Authority states the vehicle was observed by an authorised enforcement camera which observed the vehicle enter and subsequently stop within a box junction at the junction of Blake Hall Road and Cambridge Park on 6th June 2025.
4. The Enforcement Authority have provided video evidence of the contravention along with maps and additional photographs showing the junction in more detail.
5. The Enforcement Authority have also provided information which confirms that the Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
6. The Enforcement Authority state that the PCN was issued lawfully, by post. To date, no payment of the PCN has been made.
Appellant’s Case
7. The Appellant (via her authorised representative Mr Knights) accepts that she is the registered keeper of the vehicle and that on the day of the contravention, the vehicle did enter and stop within a box junction as alleged.
8. Immediately prior to the hearing, the Appellant had uploaded a number of previous tribunal decisions and a substantial document from Sam Wright, a “Yellow Box Guru”. I informed the Appellant that I had been able to briefly consider this evidence but that if the Appellant wished me to consider anything in detail, they should direct me to the specific document they wished to rely on.
9. The Appellant appeals on two grounds. The first being that the box junction itself is not lawful in that it extends beyond the parameters of the junction. As such, any drivers turning from the minor road (Blake Hall Road) on to the major road (Cambridge Park) are required to traverse a greater area than lawfully required, which in turn results in drivers inadvertently contravening the box junction. The Appellant states that if the box junction was a lawful size, the contravention would not have occurred.
10. The Appellant relies on a previous decision of this tribunal namely, Sam Yorke v Camden (20th June 2009). Whilst I considered this decision, I noted that this decision was made in respect of a different box junction and was of some age.
11. Secondly, the Appellant states that vehicles turning right from the minor road into the major road have their view of traffic on that major road obscured. Drivers are unable to see round the corner in order to determine whether or not their exit is clear and can only make this observation once they have passed the stop line before the pedestrian crossing.
12. The Appellant states that if the vehicle passes the stop line in order to determine whether or not their exit is clear, the vehicle is then stopping on a pedestrian crossing, which is dangerous.
13. The Appellant relies on a previous decision of this tribunal of Nojrul Askaari (19th April 2023) where this issue was raised and a decision was made in the Appellant’s favour.
14. The Appellant did also raise concerns about the legality of the box junction on the basis that it was a half junction which covered the far side of the T junction only. I noted from the PCN footage that the box junction is now a full box junction, which covers the entire carriageway of Cambridge Park and is therefore, no longer a half box junction.
Findings and Conclusion
15. The burden of proof for proving the contravention lies with the Enforcement Authority who must satisfy me, on the balance of probabilities that a contravention has occurred.
16. It is agreed by all parties that the Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle and that the vehicle entered a box junction on Blake Hall Road/Cambridge Park on 6th June 2025. Therefore factually, I am satisfied that the contravention has occurred and the PCN correctly issued to the Appellant.
17. The issue for me to determine is whether or not the box junction is compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (Schedule 9, Part 7, Paragraph 11). This regulation states that a box junction can be placed at a junction between two or more roads. However, in this instance, the issue is whether or not the extension of that box junction beyond the parameters of the carriageway of the junction is permitted.
18. Whilst there is nothing within the legislation which prevents the box junction from extending beyond the carriageway of the junction, doing so creates a box junction which is unnecessarily large. In this instance, the box junction markings extend well beyond the limits of the carriageway of Blake Hall Road.
19. The result of this is that drivers who make a right turn from the minor road to the major road find that even though they have cleared the junction, their vehicle is still within the box junction and as such, this results in contraventions.
20. I note the decision made by this tribunal in the case of Nojrul Askaari in April 2023 and whilst I am not bound by this decision, I agree with the findings made therein. I find that this box junction extends beyond the carriageway of the junction and as such, creates a larger than necessary box junction which drivers are more likely to fall foul of.
21. The Enforcement Authority in response to this representations imply say that the box junction is “substantially compliant” and provide no further comment. I am dissatisfied with this explanation. I cannot comprehend, nor has it been explained to me how it is possible for a box junction to be “substantially compliant”. Either the box junction is compliant or it is not and in the absence of any explanation or comment from the Enforcement Authority, I am not satisfied the box junction is compliant.
22. Further, the Appellant made representations that visibility at the location makes it difficult to see whether or not the exit to the major road is clear until the driver has already committed to the turn. I accept the Appellant’s representations. The photographic evidence provided shows that in order to make the turn and to assess whether or not the exit from the right turn onto Cambridge Park is clear, drivers have to cross the “stop” line and essentially wait on the pedestrian crossing in order to avoid contravening the box junction.
23. Therefore, I am satisfied that due to poor visibility, the Appellant was unable to determine if their exit was clear until they had already committed to making the right turn,
24. For the reasons stated above, I allow the appeal.
Decision
25. The appeal is therefore allowed.
Case reference 2230459828
Appellant Mohammed Chowdhury
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EF65FSU
PCN Details
PCN AF97656010
Contravention date 10 Sep 2023
Contravention time 14:08:00
Contravention location Cambridge Park
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Nov 2023
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant attended by telephone and confirmed receipt of the Authority's evidence pack. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected to.
The Appellant explained that he is a driving instructor and it was a student driving on the date of the alleged contravention. The Appellant explained that the box junction is wider than the junction by about 2 metres and that it was not possible to see the exit of the box junction from the junction itself, when you are performing a right turn, as they were. The Appellant has provided a photograph of the view from behind the cycle box, which is just before the traffic lights, and the end of the box junction is not visible. The Appellant commented that this is due to its size and also because the metal railings obscure the view. The Appellant told me that his submission is that they were not able to see the exit until they were already committed to the manoeuvre and in the box.
The Appellant has also provided an image from google maps, which shows the box junction from the satellite view. The box continues substantially past the junction on the right hand side, as opposed to the left hand side of it.
The Authority has also provided images of the view of the box junction from Blakehill Road. In my view, the first of these photographs supports the Appellant's submission that the end of the box is obscured by the railing and not clearly visible from the junction. The second photograph shows the view from the footway and is not an accurate depiction of how the road would have appear to a motorist. The final photograph is also from the footway, but again I am not satisfied that the end of the box junction is clearly visible - this seems really to be an issue relating to the size of the box markings - they appear to extend beyond the junction itself.
In my view, considering the evidence as a whole, the motorist's view on 10 September 2023 at 14:08 was compromised until he was already committed to the manoeuvre. I am not satisfied that the box is contained within the junction of the two roads, as required by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
For the reasons set out above I allow this appeal.
