Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Lefeuvre76 on March 23, 2026, 11:28:01 am
-
Well this is strange. I just went into the website to challenge the PCN and it says this
https://imglink.cc/cdn/IBfT5fracX.png
I've never seen this before? Could I be a mistake or have they realised that the shouldn't be giving these out when the road is completely shut off?
Looks like somebody with a brain in their enforcement office has looked at what are probably a load of representations against this barminess, and decided to cancel all of the PCNs.
-
Well this is strange. I just went into the website to challenge the PCN and it says this
https://imglink.cc/cdn/IBfT5fracX.png
I've never seen this before? Could I be a mistake or have they realised that the shouldn't be giving these out when the road is completely shut off?
-
Here is a draft letter. Let me know what you think and thank you for your continued help with this.
Dear Lewisham Council,
I am writing to formally challenge the above-referenced Penalty Charge Notice issued for a perceived yellow box junction contravention at Westwood Hill / Sydenham. I am contesting this PCN on the following grounds:
1. The Contravention Did Not Occur: No Statutory Purpose
At the time of the alleged contravention, the location did not function as a "junction" as defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).
Due to extensive roadworks, the side road and the oncoming traffic lanes were completely obstructed by cones and barriers. As a result:
No vehicles could emerge from the side road.
No vehicles could turn right into the side road.
The box junction markings served no traffic management purpose.
The purpose of a yellow box junction is to prevent the obstruction of a junction to crossing or turning traffic. Where a road is closed, the box junction ceases to serve its statutory purpose. I draw your attention to the London Tribunals Costs Decision 2240295228, where the Adjudicator ruled that enforcing a box junction when roadworks render the junction unusable is "wholly unreasonable."
Furthermore, as the markings extended through a section of road that was effectively sealed off, they were not "at a junction of two or more roads" at the material time, rendering the enforcement invalid (see Case 2090257179).
2. Procedural Impropriety: Defects in the PCN Paperwork
2. I make a collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN itself. The document is non-compliant with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Missing Mandatory Information: The PCN fails to state the mandatory information required under Section 4( 8 ) (a)(v) of the Act, specifically in relation to the statutory timeframes for the service of a Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice.
Payment Options: The PCN fails to clearly offer a "payment by post" option as required for a valid notice of this type.
Legal Uncertainty: The wording regarding the 28-day period for payment is conflated and fails to provide the clarity required by the High Court (as per the Hackney Drivers ruling). It incorrectly suggests that the period begins from the date of the notice rather than the date of service, which is a significant legal error.
Given that the "junction" was physically non-existent due to the road closures and the paperwork contains significant legal defects, I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.
Should you choose to reject these representations, I will not hesitate to take this matter to the London Tribunals and will be applying for costs on the basis that enforcement in these circumstances is "wholly unreasonable," as established in previous case law.
Yours faithfully,
2.:
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639
3.: I make this further collateral challenge:
Payment Options: The PCN fails to clearly offer a "payment by post" option as required for a valid notice of this type.
-
Please hold fire. I am a very busy person at the moment. This needs to be amended. Never threaten the Tribunal option.
Roger that!
-
Please hold fire. I am a very busy person at the moment. This needs to be amended. Never threaten the Tribunal option.
-
Should you choose to reject these representations, I will not hesitate to take this matter to the London Tribunals and will be applying for costs on the basis that enforcement in these circumstances is "wholly unreasonable," as established in previous case law.
Alter "as established...etc" to "as stated by an adjudicators in a previous adjudication"
There is no "case law" with adjudications, I'm afraid; would that there was ! We have seen adjudicators contradict not just other adjudicators, but their own decisions in identical cases !!
-
Here is a draft letter. Let me know what you think and thank you for your continued help with this.
Dear Lewisham Council,
I am writing to formally challenge the above-referenced Penalty Charge Notice issued for a perceived yellow box junction contravention at Westwood Hill / Sydenham. I am contesting this PCN on the following grounds:
1. The Contravention Did Not Occur: No Statutory Purpose
At the time of the alleged contravention, the location did not function as a "junction" as defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).
Due to extensive roadworks, the side road and the oncoming traffic lanes were completely obstructed by cones and barriers. As a result:
No vehicles could emerge from the side road.
No vehicles could turn right into the side road.
The box junction markings served no traffic management purpose.
The purpose of a yellow box junction is to prevent the obstruction of a junction to crossing or turning traffic. Where a road is closed, the box junction ceases to serve its statutory purpose. I draw your attention to the London Tribunals Costs Decision 2240295228, where the Adjudicator ruled that enforcing a box junction when roadworks render the junction unusable is "wholly unreasonable."
Furthermore, as the markings extended through a section of road that was effectively sealed off, they were not "at a junction of two or more roads" at the material time, rendering the enforcement invalid (see Case 2090257179).
2. Procedural Impropriety: Defects in the PCN Paperwork
I make a collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN itself. The document is non-compliant with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Missing Mandatory Information: The PCN fails to state the mandatory information required under Section 4( 8 ) (a)(v) of the Act, specifically in relation to the statutory timeframes for the service of a Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice.
Payment Options: The PCN fails to clearly offer a "payment by post" option as required for a valid notice of this type.
Legal Uncertainty: The wording regarding the 28-day period for payment is conflated and fails to provide the clarity required by the High Court (as per the Hackney Drivers ruling). It incorrectly suggests that the period begins from the date of the notice rather than the date of service, which is a significant legal error.
Given that the "junction" was physically non-existent due to the road closures and the paperwork contains significant legal defects, I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.
Should you choose to reject these representations, I will not hesitate to take this matter to the London Tribunals and will be applying for costs on the basis that enforcement in these circumstances is "wholly unreasonable," as established in previous case law.
Yours faithfully,
-
Do a draft first please. Also, please check the payment by post option is not on the PCN. I will amend the point about the missing information.
I can confirm that the only options to pay are via the website or online, no option by post.
-
Do a draft first please. Also, please check the payment by post option is not on the PCN. I will amend the point about the missing information.
-
Thank you for all these inciteful responses. Shall I draft a challenge using these points? It looks like the main point is the fact it wasn't being used as a junction and the second are the points that Hippocrates mentioned about the letter not being correct?
I have no doubt they will reject the challenge anyway no matter what I write as they always do!
-
Brilliant - thanks for digging that out.
I knew I'd seen something similar before, but couldn't track it down either here or on LT.
I asked cp8759 earlier aka The Wizard of Norfolk aka The Clinician. ;D
LT does not appear to publish costs decisions occasionally?
Our leader should be on Mastermind. 8)
-
Brilliant - thanks for digging that out.
I knew I'd seen something similar before, but couldn't track it down either here or on LT.
-
From The Maestro to me: 2240295228
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 requested.
-
I think I've seen a previous adjudicators decision that agreed a box junction shouldn't be enforced when there is no longer a junction due to a road closure. Will try and find it.
Thank you I would be very grateful if you could.
Me too please.
https://www.ftla.uk/news-press-articles/that-kingston-box-junction/msg114107/#msg114107
-
The key case: 2090257179.
The PCN has issues too.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it does not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v) of
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not valid as it is missing mandatory information. And so it follows that the statement beginning with "If you fail................." is not only conflated but also does not even mention the said information thus exacerbating the lack of clarity of this PCN. Whether the "or" is interpreted as conjunctively or disjunctively, is somewhat further complicated by the missing information. Therefore, it must be read as to be paid before the end of 28 days from the date of service, which is wrong. The High Court has ruled that there must be such clarity in Hackney Drivers.
Also, I cannot see if the PCN states payment by post option.
-
I think I've seen a previous adjudicators decision that agreed a box junction shouldn't be enforced when there is no longer a junction due to a road closure. Will try and find it.
Thank you I would be very grateful if you could.
-
No luck so far - I'll keep looking (hope I didn't imagine it).
Meanwhile, this blog post by Mr Mustard offers encouragement
https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2017/10/up-junction-in-enfield.html
There is also a key case on the London Tribunals website which sets out very clearly that box junction markings which extend beyond a road junction itself are not valid to enforce, and this seems to me to be analogous to your situation.
Extract as follows:
"The problem with the special authorisation is this. Part of the box that it purportedly authorises is not within the junction of the roads. At its southern side it includes a triangle of road that is not within the junction and is therefore not 'at a junction between two or more roads'. The prohibition, however, relates only to a box junction as defined. The special authorisation therefore purports to extend the prohibition outside the junction. It does not seem to me that the power to authorise signs empowers the Secretary of State to effectively redefine the prohibition prescribed by Schedule 19.
This is not an insignificant matter. The box as purportedly authorised extends for a significant distance beyond the junction itself. This increases the distance the motorist has to traverse without stopping, and therefore makes it more difficult for them to make progress without falling foul of the box. It is also difficult to see what the point of extending the box beyond the junction is, given that the purpose of the prohibition plainly is to stop stationary vehicles blocking the junction to crossing traffic. Clearly, stopping in the area beyond the junction would not block the junction.
I accordingly find that this yellow box is not a lawful road marking. Therefore the contravention did not occur. I allow this appeal."
-
I think I've seen a previous adjudicators decision that agreed a box junction shouldn't be enforced when there is no longer a junction due to a road closure. Will try and find it.
-
The video shows what would normally be a clear contravention, no doubt on that at all, but the situation was not normal, because the opposite lane was closed, and with it, the side road that allows vehicles to join the main road.
So basically this is a typical money-grubbing PCN and it has to be doubted if the video has been viewed before the PCN was sent out; I suspect not.
The law is that a YBJ must be at the junction of two or more roads, and with the closures that no longer applies, so I would submit representations on that basis and question why enforcement is being undertaken during the road works, because the YBJ has no purpose while they are in progress. One could say that the YBJ is not valid during the works because it is not at the junction of two or more roads. However, wait a bit a see what the others say.
Thank you for your thoughts. It seems there is mixed messaging from doing some research online. I have seen quite a lot saying it does not matter how many roadworks are up, even if the entire other side of the road is sealed off including the right turn, the box junction and the 31J PCN would still be valid.
Then there are some who say it could be argued that the roadworks mean that this is no longer a junction of any kind so should not function as one.
-
you need the video. its the only evidence to prove a contravention
Video now attached.
-
The video shows what would normally be a clear contravention, no doubt on that at all, but the situation was not normal, because the opposite lane was closed, and with it, the side road that allows vehicles to join the main road.
So basically this is a typical money-grubbing PCN and it has to be doubted if the video has been viewed before the PCN was sent out; I suspect not.
The law is that a YBJ must be at the junction of two or more roads, and with the closures that no longer applies, so I would submit representations on that basis and question why enforcement is being undertaken during the road works, because the YBJ has no purpose while they are in progress. One could say that the YBJ is not valid during the works because it is not at the junction of two or more roads. However, wait a bit a see what the others say.
-
you need the video. its the only evidence to prove a contravention
-
The yellow box junction at the bottom of Westwood Hill coming into Sydenham, London SE26 has just got a camera having not ever had one before.
I got a PCN last week having not noticed it had gone up. On the face of it it looks like i'm bang to rights but does the fact that there are roadworks completely blocking the right turn and oncoming traffic make any difference to the issuing of this PCN?
The box junction cannot be used as nobody can turn right or come out of that road onto the junction so it is not currently a junction.
I would be really grateful if the experts can cast their gaze over the paperwork and see if anything is untoward (as it usually is) and whether the roadworks make any difference, before I pay it.
Thank you as always for your amazing help. Please let me know if I need to post any other information.
https://freeimage.host/i/qrB8DTx
https://streamable.com/74vm5c?src=player-page-share - Video take from Lewisham PCN website
https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdLHg
https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdPl1
https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdriB
https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdgVV