cheers - I have amended as below:
I make representations against this Penalty Charge Notice on the following grounds.
Firstly, it is asserted the contravention has not occurred as alleged or at all. Having reviewed the CCTV footage provided by the council, the appellant’s vehicle did not come to a complete stop until it was alongside the white vehicle to its left at which point the appellant’s vehicle came to a stop in the box junction with no vehicle directly in front of it. Having measured the space available** to the appellant directly in front of their vehicle it is noted that the space available to the appellant was no less than 5.33m.
The Appellants vehicle’s length is 4.37.1 metres in length*.
It is clear therefore that there was more than sufficient space in front of the Appellant’s vehicle for the appellant to have completely cleared the box junction and therefore the appellant did not stop in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles***. It is noted that the still image provided by the council was taken whilst the appellant’s vehicle was still in motion and had not come to a stop. The provision and reliance of such an image by this council in issuing this penalty charge notice is clearly misleading and therefore of no evidential value whatsoever.
The second ground of challenge is that the box junction itself is of an unlawful size as the markings extend beyond the junction and therefore it does not meet the guidance laid down for councils by the Department for Transport, noting the definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD)****. The Appellant puts Redbridge council to strict proof as to why they have installed an oversized box junction in this location and requests that the council produces evidence to justify the introduction and retention of the full box marking.
Further, the Appellant in this case asserts that due to the illegal layout of the box junction, it was impossible to assess where the end of the box actually was when they turned right and were committed to entering the box.
There is a plethora of adjudicator decisions which indicate this box junction is of an illegal layout both in relation to its size and shape which makes it impossible for drivers to see around a corner as to where the box junction ends, the Appellant in this case makes grounds of appeal relating to both the illegal layout of the junction (it being too big for the purpose it serves) and the inability to see around a corner to assess where the box junction ends and therefore assess whether there is sufficient space on the other side of the box junction when lawfully entering the junction to turn right as the Appellant was so doing in this case. For the assistance of the enforcement authority, which no doubt will be ignored in their response to these representations, the Appellant outlines relevant decisions of this tribunal which the Appellant in this case relies on and adopts for the purposes of these representations:
1) The Appellant relies on the analysis and decision of Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne in the case of Nojrul Askaari V LB of Redbridge (case number 2230304887) which concerns the same box junction that the appellant has been sent this penalty charge notice for, Adjudicator Stanton-Dunne concluded the box junction markings extended beyond the junction and therefore do not meet the definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 and it follows therefore that the layout is unlawful. In Askaari, the Appellant highlighted that the Department for Transport states that implementing this specific type of box junction at a T junction serves no useful purpose so that such boxes should not be used or enforced. 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. The Appellant in this case asserts that this type of box junction at a T junction is contrary to DfT guidance, should not have been implemented and it is clear, that it is unlawful. The Appellant in this matter draws the council to the following from Askaari:
“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”
For that reason alone, unless the council can address this ground of appeal cogently and clearly (and they are, for the avoidance of any doubt, hereby invited to so), the PCN should be cancelled.
2) The Appellant relies on the analysis and decision of Adjudicator Harman in the case of Nassir Hussain V London Borough of Redbridge, (case number 2230267259) concerning this very box junction. In that case the Appellant argued that given the illegal size of the box junction, had the box junction been a lawful size the nuisance the enforcing authority complained of in their PCN would not have been committed. Adjudicator Harman accepted this reasoning, and allowed the appeal, stating that that he was “satisfied (from) the council's online footage of the incident, which (he) viewed, that this box was marked well beyond the junction shown thereon it” He continued that this box junction was, “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”.
3) The Appellant relies on the analysis and decision of adjudicator Kumar in the case of Knights V LB of Redbridge also concerning this box junction (Case reference 2250397133). In this case adjudicator Kumar concluded that they were “not satisfied the box junction is compliant”. The adjudicator also accepted that there was clear difficulty for motorists to assess if the box junction was clear on the otherside due to the illegal layout of the box. The Appellant in this case assets that they were also unable to determine if their exit was clear until they had already committed to making the right turn, because of the size of the box – consequently it was not possible to assess the end of the box until they had entered it.
4) Finally the Appellant relies on the analysis and decision of adjudicator Fantinic in the matter of Chowdhury v LB of Redbridge case number 2230459828 concerning this box junction. The adjudicator in this case agreed that they were not satisfied that the end of the box junction was visible to a motorist until they had committed to entering the box – this was due to the unlawful layout and road furniture surrounding the box.
For the above reasons, the Penalty Charge Notice must be cancelled.
