Free Traffic Legal Advice

General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: MrChips on May 24, 2026, 09:50:21 am

Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: MrChips on July 10, 2026, 12:30:23 pm
Even Michael Burke things this junction is unenforceable!

Case Details
Case reference   2260076001
Appellant   Alice Lauterjung
Authority   Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM   HJ22PZL
PCN Details
PCN   GR24499695
Contravention date   07 Dec 2025
Contravention time   13:59:00
Contravention location   Blackwall Ln / Meantime Brewery
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date   -
Decision Date   02 Jul 2026
Adjudicator   Michael Burke
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
The allegation in this case is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited on 07.12.25. The Appellant does not dispute this but asserts that the particular box junction is non-compliant in that it is not at a junction of 2 roads but at a junction between a road and the driveway of a brewery. She says that the latter is fenced or gated off on all sides and argues it is not therefore a ‘road to which the public have access’. She has provided photographs as supporting evidence. She also asserts that she saw the box junction late and would not have been able to judge whether the traffic ahead would require her to stop.

The enforcement camera evidence shows a poor piece of driving. The Appellant entered the box junction markings when the traffic ahead was already stopped and it was plain the vehicle immediately ahead would not leave sufficient available space for her to clear the box junction without stopping. She duly did have to stop with most of her vehicle in the box junction.

The Appellant could have had no reasonable complaint had she been required to pay a penalty charge. However, in order to enforce the Enforcement Authority would have to establish the box junction markings were placed at a junction between 2 roads. For these purposes ‘road’ is defined by s.142 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as “any length of highway or of any other road to which the public has access”.

While the Enforcement Authority have provided evidence that Google appear to view this as the entrance to Telcon Rd., there are gates across the entrance. I have considered Google Streetview itself which shows the position in October 2024 when it appears those gates were locked with a chain. In addition at the time of the alleged contravention there appear to have been additional hoardings in place. On the evidence I have seen I do not feel able to say I am satisfied the Enforcement Authority have established this was a road to which the public had access and accordingly I allow the appeal.
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: Hippocrates on July 05, 2026, 01:00:46 pm
Iwas under the impression that the contravention in yellow box cases only occurred if the vehicle was stopped due to the presence of another vehicle blocking the exit.

If this is not the case, then if someone runs out in the road in front of you on a yellow box and you stop, you'd be guilty of a contravention.

Total madness.

@Korting: "Complaints@londoncouncils.gov.uk" <complaints@londoncouncils.gov.uk>
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: Hippocrates on July 04, 2026, 11:01:18 pm
Is the adjudicator 'wet behind the ears'?

I cannot possibly comment.  :'(
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: Hippocrates on July 03, 2026, 11:01:42 pm
2250677300
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: Hippocrates on June 09, 2026, 11:36:45 pm
Reviews are not DIY. I suggest proper representations. I am able to assist if nobody else wants to - do not want to tread upon anyone's toes.
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: MrChips on June 09, 2026, 09:23:35 pm
Apart from the obvious balls-up re the lack of stationary vehicles, the box junction is also sited at an invalid location. It is required to be at a junction of two or more roads. The vehicular access to a gated brewery doesn't count as a road.

But otherwise the lorry driver is bang to rights.
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: roythebus on June 08, 2026, 10:18:37 pm
The lorry driver's option would have been to stop in the middle of the road, not in the bus lane, and wait for the gate to be opened, thereby causing a massive traffic jam while waiting.
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: NTIAEP on June 08, 2026, 10:04:15 pm
Is the adjudicator 'wet behind the ears'?
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: MrChips on May 28, 2026, 04:34:54 pm
I certainly did!
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: John U.K. on May 28, 2026, 03:26:42 pm
I've contacted the company in question who confirmed they will be requesting a review of the decision.

Well done for a public service... :)
I hope you drew their attention to this forum?
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: MrChips on May 28, 2026, 09:14:21 am
Your impression is correct!

I've contacted the company in question who confirmed they will be requesting a review of the decision.
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: Korting on May 28, 2026, 12:04:46 am
Iwas under the impression that the contravention in yellow box cases only occurred if the vehicle was stopped due to the presence of another vehicle blocking the exit.

If this is not the case, then if someone runs out in the road in front of you on a yellow box and you stop, you'd be guilty of a contravention.

Total madness.
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: MrChips on May 24, 2026, 11:35:53 am
Thanks both - I've popped an email over to the company.  Will let you know if they come back to me.
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: stamfordman on May 24, 2026, 11:13:12 am
Easy to contact them and tell them to ask for a review.

Note I've just posted a win at this location on the live case.
Title: Re: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: John U.K. on May 24, 2026, 10:06:50 am
You could try contacting them

https://www.siteglasssouthernkent.co.uk/

https://www.siteglasssouthernkent.co.uk/contact-us

Even if they've paid (IIRC) they can apply for a review as long as the application i made in time.
Title: Daft adjudication decision
Post by: MrChips on May 24, 2026, 09:50:21 am
Spotted this London Tribunals decision while looking at cases at a specific location to assist a live case on the Council PCN forum.  Managed to source the video too.

How can the adjudicator get it so wrong? I don't know if the appellant has requested a review - is there anything I can do to highlight this clear error to the Tribunal if they haven't as it's less than a week old?

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