Appeal refused
2230464056
The hearing took place by telephone today. Mr Allen represented Mr Williams. Mr Williams did not attend.
Mr Allen raises a number of matters on behalf of Mr Williams.
Firstly, he argues that the contravention did not occur at the location stated on the Penalty Charge Notice. The Penalty Charge Notice stated that the grounds on which the Penalty Charge Notice was issued were for entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The Penalty Charge Notice states that vehicle LV21MUC was seen in Catford Road/Rushey Green.
Mr Allen states that the box junction is not at the junction of Catford Road and Rushey Green. He provides an aerial view photograph from google street view. The appellant states that the box junction is in Catford Road at the junction of an unnamed bus only street. His photograph Fig 2 in his skeleton argument shows Rushey Green and a bus only route.
During the hearing I looked at google street view. I am satisfied that this shows that the box junction is located between Rushey Green and Catford Road. I find that the Penalty Charge Notice does indicate where the contravention took place notwithstanding that there is no requirement for the location to be stated on a Penalty Charge Notice.
Secondly Mr Allen argues that the box junction does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 because the box is not at the junction of two or more roads.
The footage shows the box junction markings and it shows carriageway on the right. The carriageway is a bus gate for the use of buses and cycles and taxis. The appellant argues that the bus gate is not a road within in the definition of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
Schedule 9 Part 7 11 (6) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 defines a box junction as an area of carriageway where the markings have been placed and which is at the junction between two or more roads.
Section 142 of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines a road as ‘ in England and Wales, means any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access…’
Mr Allen argues that because only certain vehicles are permitted to use the bus lane this means that it is not a road because the public does not have access to the road. There is a pedestrian crossing over the road. There is a footway on each side of the carriageway. The location has the appearance being a road. The fact that only certain types of vehicle are permitted to use the carriageway does not in my view mean that the bus lane is not a road. Members of the public can use the road not withstanding that only certain vehicles are permitted to use the carriageway. Buses and taxis carry members of the public.
I am satisfied that the bus lane is a road and so I find that the box junction markings are at the junction of two roads.
Mr Allen also argues that the box junction is not compliant because it extends beyond the junction of two or more roads. He refers to decisions of other Adjudicators including one of my own decisions. The decision he refers to do not relate to the box junction in Catford Road.
I am satisfied that the box junction is at the junction of two or more roads. There is nothing in the definition of a box junction that states that a box junction ceases to be a box junction if it extends beyond the precise point where the two or more roads meet. Mr Allen argues that only part of the box junction is enforceable. Figure 1 on his skeleton argument is marked to show a white line. Mr Allen argues that the whole of the box on the left of that line is not enforceable because it is not at the junction of two or more roads.
The google street view images show that the current box junction markings have been in place since at least May 2017. The box junction was differently marked in August 2016.
I find that the box junction complies with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
Thirdly, Mr Allen argues that Transport for London cannot enforce the Penalty Charge Notice because they did not consider Mr Williams’ representations. Mr Williams made representations on the basis that the box junction extended beyond the junction and that it was not at the junction of two or more roads.
The Notice of Rejection referred to the representation in the first paragraph. The writer referred to the CCTV footage which is the primary evidence of the appeal. The Notice of Rejection stated that Transport for London had considered the representation.
I am bound by the decision in the High Court decision of R (Halton Borough Council) v Road User Charging Adjudicators and Damian Curzon (interested party) 2023] EWHC 303 (Admin). The decision stated that a complete failure to consider representations would be a “procedural impropriety”, anything less would not. The ground of appeal of procedural impropriety does not apply to Penalty Charge Notices issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The argument that the Penalty Charge Notice is not enforceable because Transport for London failed to consider the representations is pursued as a collateral challenge. I am not persuaded that Transport for London wholly failed to consider Mr Williams’ representations.
I find that the Penalty Charge Notice is enforceable.
The contravention occurs if a person causes 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. The Enforcement Authority does not have to prove that the vehicle caused any obstruction to other road users.
I am satisfied that the CCTV footage shows that the contravention occurred. I refuse this appeal.
Authority Response
This is the HC case she followed it will make things harder if every adjudicator interprets it as she did
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.html