Author Topic: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane  (Read 5861 times)

0 Members and 307 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #15 on: »
In case there's anything useful on there, here's the case I was recalling from pepipoo

Also involved a company secretary

http://www.pepipoo.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t135162.html

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #16 on: »
@MrChips that case was a case of a private individual where the name field was swapped out for "the company secretary".

For instance if your car is registered to Mr Chips with DVLA at 123 High Street, and TFL sends a PCN to "The Company Secretary, 123 High Street", that PCN is obviously invalid.

If on the other hand TFL send a PCN to The Company Secretary, Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd, 123 High Street (as they frequently do, even though they never get paid), that's perfectly acceptable because they've served it on an actual company.

In this case the car is registered to a limited company and the limited company has been served, so none of the issues in the case you've highlighted apply. Also see sections 1139 and 1140 of the Companies Act 2006.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #17 on: »
Many thanks everyone.

I didn't realise the "junction" in question is not actually at the Hanger Lane roundabout. I posted "Hanger Lane" because that's what the PCN says!

In addition to the Pepipoo thread referenced by MrChips, I've found this website which references the exact same yellow box as an example of a non-junction: https://www.yellowboxes.co.uk/1-the-box

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #18 on: »
It seems the TFL website is undergoing maintenance so you probably won't be able to make representations until tomorrow. When you do, don't forget to get a screenshot of the confirmation screen.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #19 on: »
I have embellished the content slightly, in the hope that some more detail might increase the 1% chance that TfL won't force this to a Tribunal.

Quote
The alleged contravention did not occur, and the box junction markings need to be removed from this location.

Schedule 7, Part 9, 11 (6) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 sets out the permitted locations for yellow boxes. In addition Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 defines a "road" as: “any highway and any other road to which the public has access”. Ealing Village is not a road to which the public have access; it is a gated drive to which there is no public access.

The box junction markings are not at the junction of two or more roads. Thus, no contravention can ever occur at this location.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #20 on: »
As expected, NoR has now been received (more than 5 months after submission of reps).

The only line refuting the matter of my appeal says that the 'road is TfL property.' I don't think that makes any of the appeal reasoning invalid, and think I should take this to a tribunal.


Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #21 on: »
Well, it is a total no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals as there is no re-offer of the discount, plus their extremely tardy response to your reps.  5 months is really quite ridiculous, and you should emphasise this in your reps to LT. Yes, it is LLA & TfL Act 2003, and not the TMA 2004, which imposes 56 days max for response.  Any adudicator worth his pay should regard 5 months to respond as abuse of process.

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #22 on: »
I bet Mr cp8759 would love this job.  ;)
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #23 on: »
They have reoffered the discount but the wording in the letter is hopelessly confusing.

Nevertheless, the other points stand. I'll take it to a tribunal.

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #24 on: »
The adjudicator didn't find either point in my favour. Very disappointing and means that TfL now have a precedent with respect to what I feel is clearly an illegal box junction.

--

Quote
The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle entered and stopped within the box junction there owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle. It is a contravention if a person causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

To stop means to come to a stand as in the course of a journey, to halt or to cease moving.

The contravention was created by statute: Paragraph 11 of Part 7, Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).

The contravention does not apply to any person

a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right: and

b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.

The appellant has stated the markings need to be removed from the location; Ealing Village is not a road. Transport for London responded to the appellant’s representations after the 56 days deadline.

I have considered fully the representations of both parties and I have examined carefully the video evidence provided by the local authority.

Did the appellant cause their vehicle to stop on the box junction because of the presence of another stationary vehicle?

I am satisfied by it that the appellant’s vehicle followed another vehicle onto the box junction. The first vehicle stopped and it prevented the appellant’s vehicle from clearing the box junction. Consequently, the appellant’s vehicle entered and stopped on the box junction owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle in front of it in circumstances other than the one permitted statutory exemption. Crucially the appellant’s vehicle did not wait outside the entrance to the box junction before entering the box junction. Had it done so and waited for a definite clear space there would have been no contravention. . It is not uncommon for traffic to proceed in a line onto the box junction but this is what box junctions try to prevent.

The appellant has asserted that the contravention did not occur.

As stated, had the appellant’s vehicle waited for clear space before entering the box junction then it would not have been affected by whatever occurred on the other side, such as a change of colour of traffic lights or pedestrians crossing the road or vehicles suddenly stopping.

A Box Junction is defined in Paragraph 11(6) of Part 7, Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). It means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which there has been placed the road marking shown in the diagram at item 25 of Schedule 9, part 6 of the TSRGD.

I am satisfied that the box junction in this case complies with paragraph 5 of Part 8 of the TSRGD.

A road is defined by section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as any length of highway, or of any other road to which the public has access. I am not persuaded that the roads are not roads within the said definition.

I must find that the local authority was entitled to issue the penalty notice. The penalty notice in this case was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The local authority is entitled to issue the penalty notice to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle concerned.

Paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act 2003 states that it shall be the duty of the local authority to consider the appellant’s representations and serve on that person notice of their decision.

There is no statutory time limit, within which the local authority must serve the notice.

I am satisfied that the penalty notice expressed the correct penalty amount, a fixed penalty, fixed by law. It did not therefore exceed the relevant amount in all the circumstances of the case.

It follows that I must refuse the appeal.

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #25 on: »
I'm very surprised at this outcome.  The London Tribunals own website emphasises "The adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations within 3 months."

Did you emphasise this point and that Ealing Village is a private and gated?

Case number is 2240112496 if anyone wants to look in more detail.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2024, 04:50:07 pm by MrChips »

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #26 on: »
Seems to me that a review should be requested, as the adjudicator has totally ignored advice on their own website which woul encourage anybody reading it, to register an appeal if a response is delayed well over that period, plus ignored the fact that the road in question is gated, so not a public road.

Like Like x 1 View List

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #27 on: »
Agreed, the public clearly does not have access to a private gated road. No evidence that point was considered.

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #28 on: »
@NotFair did you attend the appeal or was it done on the papers?

Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
« Reply #29 on: »
@NotFair I did offer to represent you but I never heard back from you. I'm willing to try a review if you're interested in still pursuing this, but I have to say you've made it significantly harder by trying to argue the appeal yourself.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order