3. TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31  (Read 1045 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« Reply #30 on: »
Yes, that is true, but it shows how overprovision is made to cater for infrequent events. So I would go for the excessive size, that if it had kept to the definition in the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. would have meant your car wasn't in contravention.

See Schedule 9 Diagram 1045 and the section on box junctions in Part 7 para 11
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made
Logged
Agree Agree x 1 View List
Re: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« Reply #31 on: »
Sorry, not had a chance to get back involved with this one.

Is there a reason you aren't raising the location issue? I could draft a paragraph on this if you will use it.
Logged
Re: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« Reply #32 on: »
Quote from: MrChips on February 11, 2026, 03:58:31 pm
Sorry, not had a chance to get back involved with this one.

Is there a reason you aren't raising the location issue? I could draft a paragraph on this if you will use it.

Please join in ! Remind me what the issue is with location.
Logged
Re: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« Reply #33 on: »
As I recall, the box junction location on the PCN is stated as Kennington Lane / Albert Embankment. 

However the video evidence shows a box junction at the junction of Kennington Lane and South Lambeth Place.

Logged
Re: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« Reply #34 on: »
Quote from: MrChips on February 11, 2026, 03:58:31 pm
Sorry, not had a chance to get back involved with this one.

Is there a reason you aren't raising the location issue? I could draft a paragraph on this if you will use it.

Well, here is what I am thinking.

Is there another YBJ at the junction of Kennington Lane/Albert Embankment? (I can check this)

If yes, then that must either use a different location name, or this one has been sent with the wrong location name.

If no, then I think that "Kennington Lane/Albert Embankment" is the name that is used for this YBJ, and therefore technically the correct location has been identified but it's just not named correctly?

I guess what I am trying to say is, does the ACTUAL location being wrong matter, or is it about them identifying the incorrect YBJ whose name would be the identifier for a different one?

That said, I will use it, but does it make sense to argue on the basis of location and the alleged contravention at the same time?
Logged
Re: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« Reply #35 on: »
If Google Maps is up to date, then Albert Embankment and Kennington Lane only meet in one place, just to the west of the railway bridge.

The box junction is not sited at the junction of those two roads.  It is sited close by where Kennington Lane meets South Lambeth Place. If you stop in the box junction, you are not blocking access from Albert Embankment, you are blocking access from South Lambeth Place.

Now, there is no strict legal requirement for the PCN to specify the location to any particular detail, but it must specify the grounds on which TFL believe a PCN is due.  Grounds is generally deemed to include the offence they believe you have committed (i.e. 31J - stopping in a box junction when prohibited) and also where and when this occurred.

Your PCN accuses you of stopping in a box junction at Kennington Lane/Albert Embankment.  You can make representations to say you did no such thing as the video evidence they included is not of a box junction sited at a junction with Albert Embankment.  That contravention inherently did not occur.  You may or may not have committed a box junction offence but not the one your PCN states.

TFL will 100% not accept this argument (they may accept the other one you are making in parallel - but almost certainly not that either).  So, if you decide to fight on, you will be relying on an adjudicator to accept this in your favour.  Will they do so? I cannot say - certainly I've seen cases won on incorrect or overly vague location, but they could say this junction is close enough to Albert Embankment that it makes no odds.  Or they could say it's simply incorrect and the contravention as stated on the PCN did not occur.

There are over 60 cases listed on London Tribunals at this location.  I've been through a few of the more recent ones but cannot see anyone having brought this up before.
Logged
Re: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« Reply #36 on: »
Quote from: MrChips on Yesterday at 11:12:03 am
If Google Maps is up to date, then Albert Embankment and Kennington Lane only meet in one place, just to the west of the railway bridge.

The box junction is not sited at the junction of those two roads.  It is sited close by where Kennington Lane meets South Lambeth Place. If you stop in the box junction, you are not blocking access from Albert Embankment, you are blocking access from South Lambeth Place.

Now, there is no strict legal requirement for the PCN to specify the location to any particular detail, but it must specify the grounds on which TFL believe a PCN is due.  Grounds is generally deemed to include the offence they believe you have committed (i.e. 31J - stopping in a box junction when prohibited) and also where and when this occurred.

Your PCN accuses you of stopping in a box junction at Kennington Lane/Albert Embankment.  You can make representations to say you did no such thing as the video evidence they included is not of a box junction sited at a junction with Albert Embankment.  That contravention inherently did not occur.  You may or may not have committed a box junction offence but not the one your PCN states.

TFL will 100% not accept this argument (they may accept the other one you are making in parallel - but almost certainly not that either).  So, if you decide to fight on, you will be relying on an adjudicator to accept this in your favour.  Will they do so? I cannot say - certainly I've seen cases won on incorrect or overly vague location, but they could say this junction is close enough to Albert Embankment that it makes no odds.  Or they could say it's simply incorrect and the contravention as stated on the PCN did not occur.

There are over 60 cases listed on London Tribunals at this location.  I've been through a few of the more recent ones but cannot see anyone having brought this up before.

So we may be better off arguing with regards to the contravention, or lack thereof?

I suppose it doesn't matter too much at this point as TFL will reject whatever reps are made.

That said I would like to submit an informal challenge sooner rather than later. If you look at one of my posts above, the status of the PCN is still on hold, so I am kind of in the dark regarding the discount period at the moment.
Logged
Re: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« Reply #37 on: »
Your PCN is postal, so any reps would be formal. There is only one facility to submit reps, the next stage is London Tribunals.
Logged
Re: TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31
« Reply #38 on: »
Okay so they don’t operate like councils, informal > formal > tribunal.

But are you re offered the discount after the first reps? Have not dealt with a TfL PCN before.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »
  3. TFL Yellow Box PCN - CC 31