Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: gmoney on May 22, 2026, 10:03:56 am
-
Thanks for all your help. Hearing set for Dec 10th. I may revisit the thread for help phrasing the legal argument nearer the time
It's fantastic to know the blade of civic justice is still keen!
-
I would add that the Meantime Brewery has been closed since 2024. Beer production moved to Chiswick. The associated Tap Room bar is also closed and the site is derelict.
So not even an active private road.
-
It's just a worthless template rejection.
Register a tribunal appeal and put the council on notice you will seek costs if they contest.
-
Thanks.
So the council agree that 'the layout and purpose of the markings are to prevent vehicles from stopping in the junction and thereby obstructing the flow of traffic.'
This could only refer to conflicting traffic flows.
But there aren't any
Therefore whether pedestrian access to the crossover means that it may be considered to be a road, the simple fact that with current boundary configurations there cannot be any movement of vehicles on this 'road' means that it NO LONGER fulfils the council's purpose, is redundant and IMO cannot be enforced.
-
Here: https://imgpile.com/p/m6eTwyu
-
The NOR pl, all sides and only obscure your personal details.
-
Initial challenge I just set out the legislation
The rejection stated
Having carefully considered your comments, we do not agree with this assertion. The yellow box marking in question is positioned at a junction where two or more roads meet... We are satisfied that the location meets this criterion. the marking is therefore lawful and has been correctly placed.
Aka computer says no
I believe the appeal is still processing, and the text can't be updated. I'd submitted it before checking on here and seeing the case you linked! But as above, it seems the text can be changed once the appeal has been processed, so I will update it with reference to that case when possible
-
Was that your initial challenge? Post their rejection.
If you are going to appeal to the tribunal I would cite the key case I posted as I can't see another adjudicator disagreeing with it and then add some bullet points to back it up.
-
Here we are:
Further information about the appeal: In accordance with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, my challenge is on the basis that the contravention did not occur as detailed in the points below.
1. According to “The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016” “the location of the “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is
• (a) at a junction between two or more roads;
• (b) at a gyratory system or roundabout;
• (c) along a length of a two-way road (other than at a junction), the carriageway of which is not greater than 4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point; or
• (d) on the length of road adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the premises of a fire, police or ambulance station
However the box junction at this location on Blackwall Lane does not satisfy any of these conditions. (b), (c) and (d) clearly do not apply.
(a) is not applicable for the following reasons:
• As noted in the Location on the PCN itself, the junction is immediately outside a private business “Meantime Brewery”. As per a photo from Google Street view, this entrance is not a road, but rather the entrance to a business.
• Immediately behind the gate is an additional sign “No Public Access”
• In addition, the gate is locked at the time of the alleged offence, so this is not a road with public access and confirms the usage of this entrance as that to a private business.
• According to Section 192 of the road traffic 1988 a road has a definition of “any highway and any other road to which the public has access”. This is clearly an entrance to a deliveries yard, not a road. I've included an image of the closest turning, 'Mauritius Road', which looks like a road, is a road, and is sign posted as a road. Therefore it would be reasonable to expect a box junction there. It's not reasonable to expect one outside meantime brewery, which makes the existing box junction overly punitive, especially in the context of the offence, which was a slow but steady stream of traffic in the dark over a box in an extremely unusual location. This is not a junction, and should be marked with a Keep Clear sign. In the evidence provided, it can also be seen there is no street lighting, and the box, whilst visible from the camera, was not so from the ground
All this is less relevant however than the sheer fact that a yellow box can only legally be placed at a junction between two roads. The entrance to Meantime Brewery is locked with no public access, so clearly is not a public highway and therefore not a road. Schedule 9, Part 7, 11 (6) of the TSRGD 20016 sets out the permitted locations for yellow boxes. In addition Section 192 of the road traffic 1988 defines a "road" as: “any highway and any other road to which the public has access”. This location does not meet any of these criteria and it is thus an illegal yellow box.
3. The length of time when my car was stationary was precisely 6 seconds and given the entrance at this point on the carriageway was closed, no obstruction or possible obstruction took place. This length of stationary time and the fact no obstruction to other vehicles took place means this PCN is therefore not reasonable.
Regarding the 1st ground for appeal, the adjudicator in a PCN 2220655535 at Addiscombe Road, Croydon as detailed on the London Tribunals Environment and Traffic Adjudicators has noted that a junction with a private business/entrance does not quality as a junction under these regulations.
Regarding the 3rd ground for appeal, the adjudicator in a PCN 216036762A at Kingston Rd, Merton as detailed on the London Tribunals Environment and Traffic Adjudicators has noted that 7 or 8 seconds can just about be said to be nominal or de minimis and therefore not warranting a contravention.
In summary, this is clearly an illegally placed Yellow Box, and the PCN is both extremely punitive by the nature of no reasonable driver expecting it to be there, and unenforceable
That's what I've gone for - not a seasoned PCN pro but hopefully carries the weight of the argument! But not precious, and more than happy to replace with something worded better if you guys feel that would be stronger
-
Case 2260035795 is compelling and Greenwich must have seen it, so you can put them on notice that you will seek costs if they contest.
-
You can update your appeal wording close up to the actual appeal date.
If you post what you've written here we can maybe refine it for you.
-
Hi team
You've all been very wonderful; irritatingly the fact that this thread had generated a page 2 had escaped me, so now having gone through the process I'm only just seeing this now!
The initial appeal was refused, on the grounds of essentially 'we think this is a road', which was to be expected. I've logged my appeal with London Tribunals, and put together a long list of reasoning that will have been far more cack handed than whatever you guys would have written, included all the above info RE legality of the box junction + what constitutes a road legally.
Thanks for linking the most recent case; I shall include that in my evidence, and keep you all abreast of any developments!
I was tempted to add a little something at the end about finding it poor that Greenwich borough know that this is an illegal box yet leave it there, but resisted
-
gmoney - you haven't posted for a while, but the consensus on here is you have a strong case.
Let us know how you'd like to proceed and we can assist with drafting something for you if you like.
-
IMO,
The regs provide in part:
(6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is—
(a)at a junction between two or more roads;
(b)at a gyratory system or roundabout;
(c)along a length of a two-way road (other than at a junction), the carriageway of which is not greater than 4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point; or
(d)on the length of road adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the premises of a fire, police or ambulance station
I would refer to (a) and (d).
If the draughtsman/parliament had intended that ANY vehicle crossover could be considered as a 'road' and therefore meet the requirements of (a), then (d) is redundant.
But it's there.
IMO, any correct and purposeful interpretation of the regulation means that 'road' relates to carriageways. By this measure, the vehicle access crossover here cannot be considered as a carriageway to which the public have a right to drive on (as opposed to over) therefore it cannot be construed as being a road.
On this basis, IMO the markings do not meet the requirements of para. 11(6) of Schedule 9 to the TSRGD and therefore the contravention did not occur.
The markings also don't extend for the full width of the crossover!
-
Case from yesterday.
-------
Case reference 2260035795
Appellant xxxxx
Authority Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM CE03JXC
PCN Details
PCN GR24373405
Contravention date 16 Nov 2025
Contravention time 14:57:00
Contravention location Blackwall Ln / Meantime Brewery
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 23 May 2026
Adjudicator Gerald Styles
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
A yellow box is not unenforceable on the ground that one of the two roads where they meet and the box is laid is private. I believe Tendoc Rd is.
The appellant's written case to tribunal on this aspect of his case sets out relevant legislation correctly. The important point in this appeal is not whether Tendoc Rd is private or adopted highway. It turns on public access to Tendoc Rd.
When the Meantime Brewery was in operation the public may have had access via the Tendoc Rd to brewery premises. I have seen on the internet it did once have brewery tours but they have ceased and I have inferred from the cctv clip it was at the material time a development site gated so that there is no public access. Very likely there would have been some security at site access points to prevent public entering at will. Whatever may have been the historical position justifying earlier enforcement of the yellow box and its status, I have not been satisfied by the evidence in this appeal that the box when the appellant was recorded driving was one at a junction of roads where a yellow box contravetion can be said to occur.
In short I have seen insufficient evidence to conclude the alleged contravention occurred.
Given my above remarks about the box and evidence I need not write further about other aspects of the appeal case.
-
Why not?
We could all do it.
Alongside helping gmoney with their PCN.
I am willing to to put my credentials, such as they are, on the line.
-
I was wondering if I had a duty to get in touch re that case and suggest they take another look and Ms Vignoli gets some retraining? Is that something I'm able to do if I'm not a party to the case?
-
Just wondering where they are getting adjudicators from these days. Ms Vignoli doesn't even know what the contravention is for box junctions !! "....has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles!
My God, what has become of London Tribunals. I think I would be complaining to the Chief Adjudicator and suggest that Ms Vognoli is unsuitable to be an adjudicator due to her wilful ignorance of the law..
-
The Harman decision is dreadful; the Vignoli decision is appalling.
In respect of the OP’s PCN, ‘Meantime Brewery’ is not a road. Therefore it can’t be named as a road forming a junction between two or more roads. The area is clearly a managed entrance to an industrial site with associated car parking.
The video of the OP’s brief stop late at night shows (as does the Siteglass PCN during the morning) that at the time the gates were closed. The OP’s video ends before the OP exits the box.
We saw similar cases in PePiPoo days. Could TMOs help re the status of the ‘roads’ involved?
-
I think maybe Ms Vignoli too! Stopping due to a stationary gate is a contravention 🤣
Case Details
Case reference 2260033530
Appellant Siteglass Southern Ltd
Authority Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM LX22ZXS
PCN Details
PCN GR24436527
Contravention date 27 Nov 2025
Contravention time 09:54:00
Contravention location Blackwall Lane / Meantime Brewery
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 19 May 2026
Adjudicator Elaine Vignoli
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
I am asked to determine an appeal in relation to contravention code “31 - Entering and stopping in a box junction”, on 27 November 2025, at approximately 9:54am on Blackwall Lane/Meantime Brewery.
The Appellant appeals on the basis that the driver was attempting to enter through a gate the other side of the yellow box and had pulled as far off the box as they could, whilst waiting for the gates to be opened. I am afraid that this is not a basis in law to allow for stopping on a box junction. The contravention occurred and the Appellant’s arguments do not alter the liability.
Accordingly, the appeal is refused and the full penalty charge is payable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NdqvRwZgPg
-
I think it's a strong argument but would be the first to admit an adjudicator will know more about the law than me.
The way the decision is worded, however, I do wonder if that individual argued wrongly about what the issue is. The building line isn't really relevant how I see it. The issue is that the box junction has to be situated at a junction of two roads. Is Telcon Road a road in the legal sense if it's blocked off to the public at the point it meets Blackwell Lane?
I can find at least one other case in another location where this argument has been successful.
Mr Harman needs to be pensioned off, his argument is totally ridiculous.
-
I think it's a strong argument but would be the first to admit an adjudicator will know more about the law than me.
The way the decision is worded, however, I do wonder if that individual argued wrongly about what the issue is. The building line isn't really relevant how I see it. The issue is that the box junction has to be situated at a junction of two roads. Is Telcon Road a road in the legal sense if it's blocked off to the public at the point it meets Blackwell Lane?
I can find at least one other case in another location where this argument has been successful.
-
This seems like a very harsh interpretation, as the 'telcon road' is separate on google maps, and this is just more 'telcon road' which is unattached, is gated off and appears as a builders yard
in this case that StamfordMan linked above they didn't provide evidence: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/greenwich-31j-stopping-in-yellow-box-blakwall-lane/
I guess I'll carry on with the appeal that it's not a legal junction and hope for a friendlier judge
-
Prestidigitation by Mr Harman ! He must have breakfasted on lemons that day.
-
Thanks - video now reviewed. Agree that I don't think there's anything in there that would save you.
The non-compliance of the box is a strong argument from my perspective, but I had a look on London Tribunals to see if there had been any previous success on those grounds. The name of the location is such that it's not straightforward to get many hits, but this one did come up. Not sure I fully understand the logic.
Case Details
Case reference 2250514995
Appellant Michael Ingram
Authority Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM EO17OEP
PCN Details
PCN GR24083391
Contravention date 09 Sep 2025
Contravention time 07:31:00
Contravention location Blackwall Ln / o/s Meantime Brewery
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Feb 2026
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
The appellant attended the hearing of this appeal today on the Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform. The council did not attend the hearing, it not being expected to do so.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle, at Blackwall Lane, outside Meantime Brewery, entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited.
I reserved my decision.
The appellant contends that this box is not marked in compliance with the statutory requirements as identified in his letter of 25 January 2026, supported by the evidence he provides.
I have considered what is said.
Although the entrance to the Meantime Brewery is, as the appellant says, locked, gated, and without public access, a 'road', on the decided cases, is defined as extending from building line to building line. This vehicular entrance to the brewery, in my view, meets that requirement, it I note being on/at Telcon Road, albeit that pubic access is controlled. I thus find that this box is marked at the junction of two roads, and I am satisfied that this contravention occurred.
The appeal is refused.
-
Apologies, classic first time poster error - VRM is RF65 RZC
Video will show me bang to rights, just wondering about the legality of the box in the first place. Appreciate the advice!
-
Please can you confirm the vehicle registration so we can review the video.
-
You've blanked the VRM...
In this case Greenwich defaulted but has arguments.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/greenwich-31j-stopping-in-yellow-box-blakwall-lane/15/
-
Google SVW link - https://maps.app.goo.gl/L2Bpfh6PprbMLRYm8
PCN - https://postimg.cc/dhrjcytb
-
Welcome to FTLA!
For meanungful advice please to have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and post here all sides of the PCN (only redact yr name & address from documents - leave all else in),.
The video - this is the evidence,
and a GSV link to the location.
-
Hi all
I've recieved a PCN for stopping briefly in the yellow box outside meantime brewery, and the PCN is £160, reduced to £80, which is a little steep.
Grounds for appeal would be that there was slow moving traffic continuously over it, no additional signage, but *critically* it appears a yellow box can only be legally on a road without a junction in the following circs: 'on the length of road adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the premises of a fire, police, or ambulance station'. This is a small box is outside Meantime brewery, and I would have thought should be a KEEP CLEAR rather than a fined yellow box. Would I be correct in thinking that? Or should I bite the bullet and pay>
https://imgpile.com/p/MiSykPQ
Thanks all!
G