Thanks all.
There is a helpful website which actually has a pretty perfect photograph of the exact junction in question, gate and all, which I've included in my appeal for review:
https://www.yellowboxes.co.uk/1-the-box I've submitted this:
---
Following the decision of Adjudicator Mr John Lane, in which my appeal was refused, I now wish to apply to the adjudicator for a review of the decision under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. I am making this application within 14 days of the date of the adjudicator’s decision.
I am seeking review on the following ground(s): The interests of justice require a review.
My reasons for applying for a review are as follows:
1. The adjudicator failed to address and consider the very specific fact that the second alleged "road" is private and gated to which the public does not have access. It is therefore not a "road" as per the Road Traffic Act 1988 definition and the yellow box is therefore not in a permitted location. This was detailed in the original appeal to TfL, but does not appear to have been considered by the adjudicator. I enclose a photograph below of the supposed “road” in question, and the yellow box. This is clearly private, gated, closed, and thus the “road” is not at all accessible to the public. It therefore fails to meet the legal definition of “road”. It should be noted that the gate was closed at the time of the alleged contravention.
I quote below some legal cases, and also a London Tribunals adjudication, that further confirm this viewpoint. There is no information/detail as to how the adjudicator came to his conclusion. TfL also failed to provide any evidence that it is a "road" to which the public have access.
London Tribunals case 2220655535 (Kate Gardener vs London Borough of Croydon):
This is a case in which a box junction has been placed at a junction between a private driveway and a road. The appeal was allowed. The junction above, Ealing Village, is also a private driveway, and so this case sets an important precedent.
“Second, I find that the box junction in this particular case extends beyond a junction, it appears to extend for some distance in front of the driveway of a private building. Whilst the TSRGD 2016 has relaxed the law in relation to box junctions, such as the need for Departmental approval and to touch the kerb. They did not dispense with the requirement for box junctions to be at junctions (or outside police or fire stations); they cannot be placed anywhere.”
From
https://www.londondrinkdrivingsolicitor.co.uk/-What-is-a-road-anyway:
"Mrs Justice Rafferty held in Hallett v DPP that the presence of a sign or barrier lends weight to a claim that the land is open only to a special class of the public and thus that it is not a road to which the public has access."
"The Divisional Court, presided over by Lord Widgery, heard the case of Deacon v AT (A Minor) and concluded that the land must be open to the public in general and not merely a special class of the public, such as residents or visitors."
2. TfL took 5 months to respond to representations. The adjudicator seems to have ignored the fact that (as quoted on London Tribunals own website:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process) "the adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations within 3 months." In this case, TfL have given no explanation to justify the undue delay in sending their Notice of Rejection.
