Free Traffic Legal Advice

(Apologies for coming here part-way through the process - was recommended via another site.)


Status:

• PCN dated 15/8/24
• Appealed on the basis that the driver's destination was the ambulance station and they had to stop to give way to pedestrians crossing the entrance.
• Appeal rejection received 6/11/24, quoting TSRGD Paragraph 11: "11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the marking provided for at item 25 of the table in Part 6 (“a diagram 1043 marking”) conveys the prohibition 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."
• Started formulating an appeal (draft below), but recommended to come here for help.
• Rejection received 6/11/24, so 28 days from that is 4/12/24.
• TfL do not participate in the Environment & Traffic Adjudicators online service, so the appeal has to be by post.

Draft of possible appeal against the rejection (not sent yet):

Overview:

1. Transport for London (TfL) issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for allegedly "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited".

2. An appeal was submitted stating that the destination was the Ambulance Station at the site and the vehicle was prevented from moving forwards to one of the vacant parking spaces in front to the building by pedestrians crossing in front of the vehicle.

3. An appeal rejection was received quoting the "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD) Schedule 9, Part 2, Paragraph 11" as the contravention and stating "It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued".



Facts:

1. The quoted law, TSRGD Paragraph 11 states: "11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the marking provided for at item 25 of the table in Part 6 (“a diagram 1043 marking”) conveys the prohibition 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."

2. The rejection includes 3 photographs which each show people crossing in the vehicle's would-be path.

3. The rejection states that the vehicle was "stationary for a total of 8 seconds" for the duration of which there were always pedestrians blocking access.

4. The photographs show 2 empty parking spaces in front of the destination building.

5. The photographs show the exit of the box junction to be clear and a number of vehicles passing by and proceeding on through.

6. The TfL rejection states "It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued".

7. The rejection states that "we do not consider the mitigating factors present give reason to cancel".



Analysis:

1. The law states that a vehicle must not enter the box junction if its egress is prevented by stationary vehicles: this was simply not the case, with TfL's supplied photographs showing (a) that there were no stopped vehicles in-play and (b) other vehicles were freely proceeding on through the box junction.

2. The vehicle had to stop to give way to crossing pedestrians who are not criteria of the stated law because: (a) they were not stopped and (b) they are not vehicles.

3. The PCN stated "when prohibited", but the criteria for the alleged contravention were not met.

4. The rejection's statement that "It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued" is not borne out by the facts.

5. (Arguably the mitigating factors of the pedestrians preventing progress forwards into a vacant parking space at the destination should have been a reasonable basis for cancelling the notice, but the fact that no law was broken makes that point moot.)



Conclusion:

TfL have issued the PCN incorrectly and then rejected it by quoting a law which was not broken; thus there is no basis for the fine and the PCN mst be cancelled.

Original PCN pg.1




Notice of Rejection pg.1-7












Thanks very much for your time!

The TfL rejection is total tosh (as usual !!). The offence is entering the box then having to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Only thing is, you would seem not to have asked for the video, so I suggest you do so now, because that is what the adjudicator will view at London Tribunals. If you want our advice on going to LT, it is essential we see the video. The photos show a vehicle in the entrance to the ambulance station. Could it be that you couldn't have driven in because this vehicle was preventing you doing so ? If so then the contravention is made out, but I have to say there does seem enough room to drive behind it and into the station.

So the bottom line is, are you willing to take them to London Tribunals ? They have re-offered the discount so you'd be risking an additional £80, hence our need to see the video to give best advice.

The TfL rejection is total tosh (as usual !!). The offence is entering the box then having to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Only thing is, you would seem not to have asked for the video, so I suggest you do so now, because that is what the adjudicator will view at London Tribunals. If you want our advice on going to LT, it is essential we see the video. The photos show a vehicle in the entrance to the ambulance station. Could it be that you couldn't have driven in because this vehicle was preventing you doing so ? If so then the contravention is made out, but I have to say there does seem enough room to drive behind it and into the station.

So the bottom line is, are you willing to take them to London Tribunals ? They have re-offered the discount so you'd be risking an additional £80, hence our need to see the video to give best advice.

I hadn't asked for the video - how do I do that, please?
I think the photos show there's enough space to get in, but if the video helps then there's no harm in including it.

You call TFL and they post the video to you on a DVD, which is laughably silly these days but is what they do.

If you're going to appeal this the video is what the adjudicator will judge the case on so you must see it first.

That is ridiculous!
All part of their strategy to make things as drawn out as possible and to eat into your appeal time, so that you might just give up and accede to their demand for payment.
I don't know what it will show, but their rejection states that the duration stationary was 8 seconds and their 3 pictures show different pedestrians preventing access over that time.
Presumably anything outside of those 8 seconds isn't part of the offence and so is out of scope.

To be fair they put the case on hold while they send the DVD usually for at least 14 days. If you log on to the PCN portal you can also monitor the status.

From mrmustard to me: cccorrespondence@tfl.gov.uk

If you wish to appeal, you can scan the form and send by email to queries@londontribunals.org.uk  and put the PCN and VRM details in the header.

So, today is day 28 from receiving the appeal rejection.


The requested video has not arrived and TfL didn't issue an acknowledgement of the request.


The status now shows "Charge Cerificate Batched".


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


The right to appeal says "You have 28 days from receiving the Enforcement Agency's Notice of Rejection" and also "If you do not send within 28 days, you must explain why", so do we go ahead and file the appeal, or blindly wait to see if TfL do send the video?


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

OP, you really are going at this the wrong way. No point dancing around the matter.

All you need to do before expiry of the 28-day period is to register your appeal, not write War and Peace. It's a simple, two-minute process.

Pl get on with it. Nothing else to do for now, just register your appeal. If you want to add anything, simply state I rely upon my representations.

A Charge Cert has been issued but not served, so get on with it before you're timed-out of making any appeal.

No more questions just actions, then come back.