Free Traffic Legal Advice

Stopping due to the presence of stationary vehicles doesn't mean they have to be directly ahead of the vehicle. It's clear here that there wasn't room for the car to squeeze past. Against that is the fact that the YBJ extends beyond the junction of the roads, in fact one does wonder why the stop line and traffic lights are so far back for the opposite direction. There is no reason at all for the YBJ to be so close after the stop line.

Hopefully the recipient can at least show there's sufficient uncertainty from Barnet's evidence on this fact to throw it out

Here's what I've drafted.  For sure Barnet will reject, following which a tricky decision for the recipient!

The contravention did not occur

1)   Clear exit space

A box junction contravention only occurs if the vehicle “has to stop” within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The exit to the box junction contains sufficient space for two vehicles (it is the same width as the two lanes marked out in the carriageway for vehicles travelling in the opposite direction). The video footage shows that after a brief pause on the approach to the box junction to check there would be sufficient space to accommodate my vehicle and the vehicle in front, I slowly advanced my vehicle into the box and then directed it into the vacant right hand space.  On the approach to this space, I adjusted my angle of approach best to ensure my vehicle would be aligned with the vacant exit lane which was relatively narrow and akin to a regular parking space.  While I acknowledge my vehicle eventually came to rest with part of it within the box junction, my front right wheel can be seen to be aligned with my chosen route into the exit space, and I am confident that there was sufficient clear space beyond it for my vehicle to move into. At the very least Barnet’s video evidence does not sufficiently demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that my exit was not clear and that I could not have completely cleared the box junction (to this end Barnet could check the following ten seconds or so of footage beyond what was made available to me, so that my eventual path out of the box junction could be mapped relative to the other stationary vehicles – should it reject these representations I request that these are provided for my subsequent appeal to London Tribunals to enable me to prove my case). The reason I stopped my vehicle where I did was because I was under the impression I had already cleared the majority of the box junction, was not going to be an obstruction to any vehicles having cleared the junction with the side road (see my second point below) and could see the vehicles ahead starting to move off meaning there was no need to pull fully alongside the vehicle to my left.

2)   Box junction markings extend substantially beyond road junction

This sort of box junction only exists under the relevant legislation to the extent the markings are situated at a junction of two or more roads.  The box junction markings within which my vehicle stopped are laid well beyond the junction with the side road (Bath Place) and the junction with St Albans Road further to the northwest.  As such the box junction markings I stopped within are not technically part of the enforceable box junction and it should not be a contravention to stop there.

I have been arguing for some time that it is a road and if that goes away my win in tribunal case 2190038219 which has been followed a dozen times might become less persuasive.

The locus of the contravention is correct. The junction box is sited on Barnet High Street and has junctions with Bath Place and St Albans Road. The Penalty Charge Notice states the contravention occurred at High Street, junction with St Albans Road. I am satisfied the Penalty Charge Notice adequately detailed the location of the alleged contravention.

A box junction must be located at ‘a junction between two or more roads.’ The purpose is to ensure vehicles have unrestricted access at the junction and traffic flow is not impeded. However, plainly a box junction must not extend beyond the junction as it would serve no useful purpose and would not achieve the statutory objective. A box junction need not be inch perfect and may, depending on the road layout, extend beyond the junction. If a box junction extends beyond the junction and a vehicle only stops within the extended portion of the box junction it may be the case that no contravention has occurred. Any extension would not, in my view, render the whole of the box junction unenforceable. Each case is highly fact specific.

This box junction in this case is sited at a junction of two or more roads. The box junction substantially complies with the statutory specification up until it appears to extend about a car length or so beyond the junction. The appellant’s vehicle was within this extended portion.

The issue was raised by the appellant. The Enforcement Authority addressed this matter as follows:

“The Council can confirm that the junction is compliant with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 (Evidence Category J).”

The Enforcement Authority provided copies of the 2016 Regulations but provided no argument as to how this junction is compliant. It is the Enforcement Authority's role to present evidence and submissions to prove their case.

On the state of the evidence in this case I am not persuaded that the contravention occurred. On this basis, and this basis alone, I allow this appeal.