Author Topic: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV  (Read 249 times)

0 Members and 14 Guests are viewing this topic.

Here you go - also heed Hippocrates's comment.  i've slimmed it down a bit by removing stuff that's largely irrelevant and focussing on the two bits which I think are your strongest arguments.



I am writing to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice. I deny that a contravention occurred and request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled, for the following reasons.
 
1. The contravention did not occur — any incursion into the box junction markings was of a de minimis nature and, on balance of probabilities, there was sufficient space to receive my vehicle.

A box junction contravention only arises where a vehicle enters and has to stop within the box junction because there is insufficient space beyond it to receive the vehicle, due to the presence of stationary traffic. It is not in itself a contravention simply to be stationary within the box markings if the vehicle could otherwise have moved forward and exited the box.

From the council's evidence, my vehicle stopped with only the rear wheels resting on the extremities of the box junction markings. I believe this is of a clearly de minimis nature. Notwithstanding the trivial nature of the incursion, I believe in these circumstances my vehicle could have cleared the box junction by moving forward a foot or so into the gap to the car directly in front. If the vehicle could exit but the driver chose not to for whatever reason, then no contravention has occurred.

2. The contravention did not occur - the installation of roadworks have reduced the width of the junction with Kingsley Road

From the council evidence, there are roadworks in the left hand lane of Forest Road. These encroach into the junction with Kingsley Road including into the box junction markings. I have taken my own photograph (attached) which more clearly shows the level of incursion is not insignificant.

These roadworks themselves block the junction to a far greater extent than my own vehicle did.  Due to the relative position of the roadworks and the rear of my vehicle, there is no way my vehicle could have caused any obstruction as a vehicle would have had to drive through the roadworks first. There would seem to be no logic or justice in enforcing a stop on the far extremities of a box junction which itself is no longer part of the usable junction between two roads.

The box junction regulations themselves require that box junction markings must be installed at a junction or two (or more) roads and as such any markings situated at a point which is not at such a junction is not legally a box junction and so cannot be enforced.

For these reasons, I request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled. I look forward to your response.


Thats great, thanks so much for editing and reworking this for me. Also, the wording of the PCN issue that @Hippocrates has linked applies to mine too - Should i add it to the appeal? I've added a possible addition below


The Penalty Charge Notice itself does not comply with the statutory requirements

Separately from the above, I would draw the Council's attention to a procedural defect in the Notice itself. Page 3 of the Notice states that if the Penalty Charge is not paid or representations are not made within 28 days, an increased charge becomes payable, and that "at this stage it would be too late to make representations."

This wording does not accurately reflect the statutory scheme under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and its accompanying Schedule. An adjudicator at London Tribunals has previously found, in a case against this same Council involving materially identical wording, that conflating the increased-charge trigger with a stated cut-off for making representations is incorrect and renders the Notice non-compliant — and that this defect makes the penalty unenforceable regardless of whether the underlying contravention occurred, irrespective of whether the recipient suffered any actual prejudice as a result (citing the High Court's reasoning in R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin)).

I would ask the Council to review the wording of this Notice against that precedent and to confirm whether it intends to maintain that the Notice is compliant.

Check the website as it has a general box only I believe.

ETA Register of Appeals

Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

Case Details

Case reference 2220655455

Appellant Bysshe Wallace

Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest

VRM PK65WZA

PCN Details

PCN FR57211309

Contravention date 17 Jul 2022

Contravention time 14:12:00

Contravention location Forest Road / Russell Road

Penalty amount GBP 130.00

Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction

Referral date -

Decision Date 27 Oct 2022

Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade

Appeal decision Appeal allowed

Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons This decision has been amended under Regulation 15 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993.


At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented in person by Mr Morgan and her husband, Mr Emamally, also attended.

The Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.

Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction 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 marking due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('the 2003 Act') on the basis of information provided by a camera

or other device. There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.

The Appellant’s case is that she was trying to steer clear of a scooter rider who was cruising around on the main carriageway and weaving in and out of the traffic. The Appellant submits that she was deeply concerned and anxious that there could be an accident and thinking it would minimise the chance of that, she pulled up behind the car which was already stationary at the lights.

The closed circuit television (cctv) images show that the Appellant’s vehicle did enter this box junction marking when the vehicle ahead was still in it and then had to stop within the box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle. The images do also show a scooter but it is some way behind the Appellant’s vehicle even after it had stopped in the box.

It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted. The contravention can occur if any part of the vehicle’s wheels are stopped within the box marking. No actual obstruction need be caused for the contravention to occur.

Rule 174 of the current edition of the Official Highway Code refers to box junctions. It explains that these have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road and warns: ‘You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.’

A box junction is the yellow criss-cross marking prescribed by Diagram 1043 at item 25 in Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the 2016 Regulations. The images produced show that in this case the marking does appear to comply. I am satisfied that it is clear to the motorist that this is a box junction.

Mr Morgan also submits that the Enforcement Authority failed to address properly the original representations to the Enforcement Authority and that the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice is non-compliant.

As to the latter, Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act provides that:

A penalty charge notice under this section must-

(a) state-

(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

(vi) the amount of the increased charge;

(vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and

(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to Act provides:

Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as "the notice of rejection") must-

(a) state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection-

(i) the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and

(b) describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,

and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.

Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 provides that the local authority shall produce a copy of the relevant Penalty Charge Notice.

Page 3 of the Penalty Charge Notice states:

"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £195 may be payable. We may send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount. At this stage it would be to [sic] late to make representations".

There is a clear, and incorrect, confluence of the two provisions. The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice produced to me does not comply with the legal requirements.

It might be said that the Appellant is not prejudiced as, in effect, the time limit for initial payment of the penalty charge is increased

However, the Appellant’s representative has referred to the decision in R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin).

Although that case involved a Penalty Charge Notice issued under different statutory provisions, it makes clear that the fact that an appellant may not have been prejudiced is not a "cure" to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. make clear the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation. Mr Justice Jackson said in that case "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act created a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

I cannot find that there is any serious possibility of real prejudice here but the wording is not correct and, accordingly, for the reasons set out this appeal must be allowed.

It follows that no other issue need be determined.

Thats brilliant! What a spot. It's on mine aswell. I'm surprised they are still using the same wording after 4 years.
I'll add pics here in a mo

I was the representative. 8) And cp8759 and a few others observed too. A nice day for all. But not all adjudicators have to follow it. And this will be their response.

It really is important to lead with the most crucial point because the Halton High Court case says they do not need to consider all points.

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.pdf

Roadworks decision won by The Wizard:

ETA Register of Appeals

Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

Case Details

Case reference 2240295228

Appellant Ricardo Bowden

Authority London Borough of Newham

VRM R111 KBO

Decision Cost award allowed

PCN Details

PCN PN75145284

Contravention date 07 May 2024

Contravention time 09:22:00

Contravention location Barking Road / St. Bartholomews Road

Penalty amount GBP 130.00

Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction

Referral date -

Decision Date 15 Oct 2024

Adjudicator Edward Houghton

Appeal decision Appeal allowed

Direction

cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.


Reasons

The Council has indicated that the Appeal is no longer contested.


Cost Details

Application by Appellant

Decision date 02 Jan 2025

Adjudicator Edward Houghton

Decision Cost award allowed

Direction -

Reasons

This is an application by Mr Murray-Smith on behalf of the Appellant for costs, following the allowing of the Appeal on the 15th October 2024. After adjourning the hearing of the Appeal to give the Council the (further) opportunity to explain the traffic management purpose being served by the presence of the box junction markings when the cones were in place the Council indicated that the Appeal was no longer resisted. It wrote to the Appellant stating that the PCN should not have been issued.


The grounds of the application are clearly set out by Mr Murray-Smith in his written application of the 24th October, and these were the grounds put forward with some amplification on a telephone hearing on the 18th December 2024 following which I reserved my decision. No representations in response have been received from the Council but I am proceeding on the basis that the claim would be resisted.


It seems to me that the issue to be decided is whether the Council’s decision to reject the representations and/or the decision (initially) to resist the Appeal can be categorised as “wholly unreasonable” (I do not consider that this is a case where the Council could be said to have acted frivolously or vexatiously).


The representations were in the following terms:-


“The footage shows that the road was blocked-off due to cones across the carriageway, such that traffic could not turn right from Barking Road into 1 St. Bartholomews Road. As St. Bartholomews Road is a one-way road, no traffic could emerge from that road onto Barking Road, so at the material time the box markings served no purpose whatsoever and did not therefore fulfil their statutory purpose. It follows that the penalty charge should be cancelled”



The Council’s rejection notice, although quoting the representations, shows no sign that this issue was actually considered at all. It contains what are clearly a number of pro-forma paragraphs relating to box junctions generally, but the effect of the roadworks and the possible effect on the statutory purpose was not mentioned.


These representations were adopted as the initial grounds of appeal. The Council resisted the Appeal at that stage but out of nine points raised in response only one dealt in any way with the grounds relied on. The Council stated “ Roadworks does not stop the enforcement of box junction unless signs are present. In this instance no signs was (sic) present.



Having considered the matter carefully it seems to me that although the original representation did not contain the level of legal detail subsequently provided by Mr Murray -Smith in his skeleton argument of the 30th August, the essential point was made clearly enough and, in my judgement, demanded either an acceptance by the Council or some reasoned argument why the statutory purpose was fulfilled despite the presence of the cones. Rejecting the representations whilst maintaining silence on the matter was in my view a wholly unreasonable course to take. Likewise resisting the Appeal with only the most cursory (and in context incorrect) reference to the point, which the Council had by that stage ample time to consider was also wholly unreasonable.



I therefore find that the criteria allowing the making an order for costs are made out and I can see no good reason why such an order should not be made. The amount claimed, £84, seems to me to be reasonable and proportionate to the amount at stake in these proceedings and I make the order as requested.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2026, 09:59:30 pm by Hippocrates »
@Incandescent!

I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.


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"

Yeah, definitely a day to raise a glass. Bravo sir

Looks to be the same wording on mine:




PM sent. This is not a High Court case! As for your representations: more is less, and less is more. We need to curtail them. I have 6 cases on Wednesday and  am a little pressed for time.
@Incandescent!

I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.


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"

Thanks H - i've put together MrChips rewrite and a shortened version of the PCN wording. Think this is succinct enough?


I am writing to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice. I deny that a contravention occurred and request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled, for the following reasons.
 
1. The contravention did not occur — any incursion into the box junction markings was of a de minimis nature and, on balance of probabilities, there was sufficient space to receive my vehicle.

A box junction contravention only arises where a vehicle enters and has to stop within the box junction because there is insufficient space beyond it to receive the vehicle, due to the presence of stationary traffic. It is not in itself a contravention simply to be stationary within the box markings if the vehicle could otherwise have moved forward and exited the box.

From the council's evidence, my vehicle stopped with only the rear wheels resting on the extremities of the box junction markings. I believe this is of a clearly de minimis nature. Notwithstanding the trivial nature of the incursion, I believe in these circumstances my vehicle could have cleared the box junction by moving forward a foot or so into the gap to the car directly in front. If the vehicle could exit but the driver chose not to for whatever reason, then no contravention has occurred.

2. The contravention did not occur - the installation of roadworks have reduced the width of the junction with Kingsley Road

From the council evidence, there are roadworks in the left hand lane of Forest Road. These encroach into the junction with Kingsley Road including into the box junction markings. I have taken my own photograph (attached) which more clearly shows the level of incursion is not insignificant.

These roadworks themselves block the junction to a far greater extent than my own vehicle did.  Due to the relative position of the roadworks and the rear of my vehicle, there is no way my vehicle could have caused any obstruction as a vehicle would have had to drive through the roadworks first. There would seem to be no logic or justice in enforcing a stop on the far extremities of a box junction which itself is no longer part of the usable junction between two roads.

The box junction regulations themselves require that box junction markings must be installed at a junction or two (or more) roads and as such any markings situated at a point which is not at such a junction is not legally a box junction and so cannot be enforced.

3. The Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the statutory requirements

Page 3 of the Notice states that if payment or representations are not made within 28 days, an increased charge becomes payable, and adds: "at this stage it would be too late to make representations." This conflicts with the Notice's own separate statement that the Council "may disregard" late representations — a discretionary power, not an absolute bar. An adjudicator has previously found materially identical wording on a Waltham Forest PCN to be non-compliant with the statutory scheme, rendering the notice unenforceable independent of the underlying contravention. I would ask the Council to review this wording.
For these reasons, I ask that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.