Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Donostio on April 03, 2024, 05:48:57 pm

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Hippocrates on October 10, 2024, 09:13:11 am

Quote from: stamfordman on October 09, 2024, 11:24:10 pm

I wasn't involved in this but there was a good chance one of the grounds could stick but it would have been best if you'd asked for representation.

Not all appeals are won. Not paying is your fault and if you'd posted when the case was lost we would have told you to pay and also if there were grounds for the refusal to be reviewed.

I absolutely agree with stamfordman.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: stamfordman on October 09, 2024, 11:24:10 pm

I wasn't involved in this but there was a good chance one of the grounds could stick but it would have been best if you'd asked for representation.

Not all appeals are won. Not paying is your fault and if you'd posted when the case was lost we would have told you to pay and also if there were grounds for the refusal to be reviewed.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on October 09, 2024, 05:15:35 pm

Poor advice here.

The 'private road' argument is baseless in this case, as long as the mouth is 'maintained' / has road markings a box junction can be in place. The adjudicator doesn't know or care how the video has arrived (the administrators will have downloaded it if only a link was sent).

This cost me a lot more that it needed to (in time and grief too) - I got a charge certificate added on top of the double fine - since I was expecting a new link to pay the higher amount. £195 instead of the £65 if I'd just paid the fine. 

Adjudicator's Reasons
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant attended in person.
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 ('the 2016 Regulations') 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 images clearly show that the vehicle did enter this box junction marking and then had to stop
within the box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.
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.'
The Appellant raises a number of issues. The Appellant submits that the box junction is not compliant
as the road joining the main road is a private one; that the statutory grounds of appeal were not set
out by the Enforcement Authority for recipients of Penalty Charge Notices making online original
representations to the Enforcement Authority; that the Notice of Rejection wrongly suggested the he
could not pay the penalty charge and still appeal; and that the time limits stated on the Penalty
Charge Notice did not state that further time is allowed when making representations, when they are
posted by the date stated.
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.
Paragraph 11(6) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the 2016 Regulations provides that 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;
There is no requirement that all the roads be publicly maintained, although in this case, whilst there
may be a sign indicating private property beyond the junction, the part of the road adjoining the box is
not so designated.
The Appellant submits that the following statutory grounds were not set out on the Enforcement
Authority's website. Paragraph 1(4) of the 2003 Act provides that the grounds for this type of Penalty
Charge Notice are:
(a) that the recipient (i) never was the owner of the vehicle in question; (ii) had ceased to be its owner
before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or (iii) became its
owner after that date;
(b) that there was no (i) contravention of a prescribed order; or (ii) failure to comply with an indication;
or (iii) contravention of the lorry ban order, under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the
case may be;
(c) that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the
vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;
(d) that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and (i) the vehicle in question was at the material time hired
from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and (ii) the person hiring it had signed a statement of
liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the
vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; or
(e) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
In the Enforcement Authority's list these are respectively items 2, 1, 3, 4 and 5. It is open to the
Enforcement Authority, as here, to consider other grounds beyond these. The Adjudicator cannot do
so.
The Appellant also submits that the Notice of Rejection wrongly stated that he did not have the option
to pay and still appeal. There is no right to pay the penalty charge, at either full or reduced rate, and
still appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator. If an Appellant pays the reduced penalty and
then seeks to appeal the Enforcement Authority will likely seek the balance in the event of any such
appeal sill being registered and then refused. In this case the Enforcement Authority do state this in
the Notice of Rejection.
The Appellant further submits that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states that the penalty charge must
be paid within 28 days of the service of the Notice of Rejection. However, this complies with the
requirement of Paragraph 3 in Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act:
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;
It may be that the Appellant is a little confused as to postal service and two working days. It is not that
the Appellant has a right to an extra two days to appeal or pay the penalty charge, but rather the 28
days runs from the date of service of the Notice of Rejection on the recipient, this is deemed to be two
working days.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I must find as a fact that, on this particular occasion,
a contravention did occur and the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued.
The penalty charge is £130. The amount of the penalty charge is set by the Transport, Environment
and Planning Committee of London Councils and approved by the Mayor of London with the authority
of the Secretary of State. Under Section 4(8)(a)(iv) and 4(10) of the 2003 Act the enforcement
authority must accept the reduced penalty of £65 if paid within 14 days of the date of the Penalty
Charge Notice. This is different from some other types of Penalty Charge Notice, where the relevant
date is service. Once this period has expired and, for whatever reason including appealing to the
Adjudicator and/or making representations to the authority, the charge remains unpaid then the full
penalty becomes due.
Section 4(18) of the 2003 Act provides that in determining, for the purposes of any provision of the
Act, whether a penalty charge has been paid before the end of a particular period, it shall be taken to
be paid when it is received by the authority concerned.
The Enforcement Authority did, in exercise of its discretion, reoffer the reduced penalty in the Notice
of Rejection. Since there is no legal requirement for the Enforcement Authority so to do, there can be
no issue as to any time period offered.
Whilst I note all that has been submitted by the Appellant regarding the circumstances, the
Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence
actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law. The Court of Appeal has affirmed that the
Adjudicator has no power to consider mitigating circumstances of any description, including reducing
the amount of the full penalty charge.
Accordingly, this appeal must be refused.

Henry Michael Greenslade
Adjudicator
22nd August 2024
2240331026
MT87744271

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: mickR on August 05, 2024, 06:58:40 pm

Quote from: Donostio on August 05, 2024, 01:41:00 pm

1.The box junction is not placed at the junction of two or more roads or outside a police, fire or ambulance station. The box junction is situated at the entrance to the private driveway to an apartment complex, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 do not permit box junction markings at such a location. Please see the images where the road is clearly marked ‘Private Property’.It follows that no contravention can ever occur at this location, enforcement must cease and the CCTV enforcement camera at this location must be removed. As there is no traffic enforcement justification for the camera at this location, failure to remove or at least disable the camera would result in the unlawful and unjustified capture of personal data.........

Merton....

Whilst I note the appellant's comments in point 1, I must advise that the yellow box
junction in this instance is considered essential to maintain flow of traffic and to
ensure that traffic queues do not impact the signalised junction due to motorists waiting to turn right into the estate. It also ensures that motorists from this estate can exit.

Yellow box junctions are permitted across junctions / access roads even including access to private roads and estates.

The box junction at this location is therefore compliant and in accordance with regulations.

Miss O'Connell Parking Services

she seems to have a very high office if she can make up laws herself.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Pastmybest on August 05, 2024, 04:20:47 pm

Another point is that the tribunal do not allow that the council supply the video via there website and must submit a copy to the tribunal


2210208756

The Authority has not complied with the requirements for providing CCTV evidence directed by the Tribunal in the Chief Adjudicator's Practice Direction which reads:

'The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 require parties to an appeal to deliver evidence to the Proper Officer. Evidence must be submitted in an immediately accessible form. It is expected that when an enforcement authority is relying on moving images, where a DVD containing the evidence is not provided, the relevant CCTV evidence will be presented in a file containing the uploaded evidence and included in the authority’s evidence bundle. Providing a hyperlink to an authority’s website is not considered to be a proper delivery or submission of evidence. Authorities will also be aware that using this system has resulted in adjudicators allowing appeals, when they have been unable to access or view evidence; this does not occur when the evidence is correctly submitted. The evidence form category type K, will be amended to refer to “CCTV uploaded evidence” and from 4th April 2020 authorities must submit the evidence in the required format. (Providing the evidence in DVD form under category type J “unscannable evidence” remains acceptable).'

Therefore I do not have before me any CCTV evidence showing the appellant's vehicle stationary in the box junction. Stills are not adequate evidence as I cannot be satisfied the vehicle is stationary. The Authority cannot rely on any evidence or apparent admissions made by the appellant. I must decide if the Authority has shown there is a case to answer before I look at the appellant's evidence. In this case it has not done so.

It is for the Authority to prove its case and in the absence of adequate evidence it has not done so. I therefore allow the appeal on that basis.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on August 05, 2024, 01:41:00 pm

So. I have a date for Tribunal (21st August) and and response from Merton.


They argue that their portal and letter (sent to me - it thread above) had been updated to ensure they are compliant - I'm not sure if that's the case. Any thoughts?


Also, their own evidence photo shows that I could have rolled forward three feet out of the box if I was causing an obstruction (aside from the space of the right). Though I know that the space of the right is no longer a defence and I don't imagine that the three feet in front is either.   


Here's my submission (their response is below):
Reason for appeal
I have had to take advice and then conduct research which took longer than I expected. I also wrongly thought, due to the unlawful directions from Merton Borough Council that the window for me to submit had passed when it had not.


There are four parts to my appeal:


1.The box junction is not placed at the junction of two or more roads or outside a police, fire or ambulance station. The box junction is situated at the entrance to the private driveway to an apartment complex, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 do not permit box junction markings at such a location. Please see the images where the road is clearly marked ‘Private Property’.


It follows that no contravention can ever occur at this location, enforcement must cease and the CCTV enforcement camera at this location must be removed. As there is no traffic enforcement justification for the camera at this location, failure to remove or at least disable the camera would result in the unlawful and unjustified capture of personal data, in contravention of the General Data Protection Regulation.


2.The information referenced in the second paragraph of the second page of the PCN (and in the online portal where additional categories are also added) does not convey the contents of paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, and it follows that the PCN must be cancelled.


There is precedent for this in case reference 2230446542 (Appellant Commercial Plant Services Ltd and Authority London Borough of Merton VRM LJ20 WRP):
“The Enforcement Authority can indicate extra reasons for which it may exercise discretion, but it cannot exclude the grounds clearly provided by Statute. Considering carefully all the evidence before me I find that the Enforcement Authority have failed to comply with the requirements of the 2003 Act. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed and no other issue need be determined.”


3. The notice of rejection wrongly stated that I did not have the option to pay and still appeal.


4. and the notice of rejection wrongly stated that there isn’t a grace period after the 28 days to submit.


Precedent for 2. and 3. : Case reference, 2240027331 (Appellant Commercial Plant Services Ltd and Authority London Borough of Merton VRM WS19 OEJ). "In respect of the EA’s contention as to the
additional two day period it allows after the end of the 28 day period starting
with the date of the notice of rejection, this cannot exempt the EA from what
paragraph 3 expressly states a notice of rejection ‘must’ say. There has in
this case been a departure from the mandatory requirements of paragraph
"
“The simple facts of the matter are that, in that case, I found that the wording of the notice of rejection materially mis-stated the time limit within which payment must be made and wrongly stated that no appeal to an adjudicator may be made if the PCN is paid. Both those material misstatements were departures from the requirements of the statutory scheme for the enforcement of PCNs and were, if it was necessary, capable of causing prejudice. I upheld the collateral challenge to the PCN”
Uploaded evidence
Description
Image of the road marked private
Upload date
22nd Jul 2024 14:19
File name
Screenshot 2024-07-22 13.50.12.png
Description
Appeal rejection letter
Upload date
22nd Jul 2024 14:20
File name
19D7F7ECECEF6.PDF
Description
PCN sheet1
Upload date
22nd Jul 2024 14:21
File name
PXL_20240403_162617941.jpg
Description
PCN sheet2
Upload date
22nd Jul 2024 14:21
File name
PXL_20240403_162623840.jpg
Description
Web portal with reasons to appeal
Upload date
22nd Jul 2024 14:22
File name
Screenshot 2024-07-22 13.58.47.png
Description
Case reference, 2240027331
Upload date
22nd Jul 2024 14:24
File name
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Merton (2240027331, 13 March 2024).pdf
Description
case reference 2230446542
Upload date
22nd Jul 2024 14:26
File name
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Merton (2230446542, 11 December 2023).pdf
Description
Case reference 2220586920
Upload date
22nd Jul 2024 14:28
File name
Giles Kennedy v London Borough of Merton (2220586920, 8 October 2022).pdf
Hearing details
Attending hearing
Yes
Reasonable adjustments
No


Merton submitted:


LONDON BOROUGH OF MERTON CASE SUMMARY


CASE REF: 2240331026


PCN: MT87744271


NAME: Mr Gary James Shearin


The facts of this case are that the vehicle EN14NXK owned by Mr Gary James Shearin was observed taking part in the following contravention of a prescribed order or failure to comply with an indication given by a traffic sign: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The contravention or failure occurred on MTC- Durnsford Road adjacent to Bassett House (Box junction) at 16:34 on 14/03/2024. The penalty charge notice, issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, was sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle on 02/04/2024.


The council firstly advises that the Highway Code clearly states that you must not enter a box junction unless your exit is clear. Therefore, as it is not always possible to see or anticipate what is happening ahead, particularly if there is a large vehicle in front of you, drivers should not enter a box junction unless they are sure they can move forward and fully exit the box without having to stop at all. Rule 174. Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see 'Road markings'). 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. In addition, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 state that 'no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to stationary vehicles.' This refers to any stationary vehicle ahead, not just the one immediately in front.


Upon review of the CCTV evidence, a copy of which is available to view online via our website www.merton.gov.uk., vehicle EN14NXK is seen entering the box junction at about 16:34:33 when the vehicle in front was still fully in the box, and therefore there was not sufficient space at the exit of the lane the vehicle was in for the driver to guarantee being able to clear the box without stopping. The vehicle then stops at about 16:34:44 whilst still partially within the box and does not move again until about 16:35:27.


Whilst I note the appellant's comments in point 1, I must advise that the yellow box


junction in this instance is considered essential to maintain flow of traffic and to


ensure that traffic queues do not impact the signalised junction due to motorists


waiting to turn right into the estate. It also ensures that motorists from this estate


can exit.


Yellow box junctions are permitted across junctions / access roads even including


access to private roads and estates.


The box junction at this location is therefore compliant and in accordance with regulations.


Whilst the appellants comments have been noted regarding the wording that is stated on our Notice of Rejection and had referred to past appeals. The council must advise that decisions of past cases are made on their own merit and decisions made by one adjudicator may not be the same of another. However the wording of the Notice of Rejections referred to does not reflect the wording on the Notice of Rejection issued to the appellant on 21/06/2024. In addition this Notice of Rejection only refers to the motorist right to appeal to the adjudicator and makes no reference to not being able to pay and appeal. Please refer to evidence E.


Following the outcome of the case reference 2230446542 which the appellant refers to our website was amended to ensure that all statutory grounds for making representations as outlined on the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) were included on our website when the motorist challenges their PCN. This is supported in the evidence provided by the appellant tilted "Screenshot 2024-07-22 13.58.47.png" which includes all statutory grounds. This can be found on our website https://parkingweb.merton.gov.uk/pcn/


The Council advises that the Highway Code clearly states that you must not enter a box junction unless your exit is clear.


The outstanding amount of £130.00 is now due. The council finds no grounds to accept the reduced amount of £65.00, due to the fact that Mr Shearin was given the opportunity to pay the lower rate following the councils Notice of Rejection. Instead however, he decided to appeal to the adjudicator. The council is not obliged to continue to offer the reduced amount as settlement.


Miss O'Connell Parking Services

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: cp8759 on July 03, 2024, 12:35:07 am

Quote from: Donostio on July 02, 2024, 11:54:23 am

One question - the deadline to pay 'at discount' is in a couple of days but the deadline to appeal is in another two weeks. Can I submit my appeal after I get back next week (after the payment deadline)?

If you're appealing then the discount is irrelevant; you have 28 days from the date of service to file an appeal at the tribunal.

Given the per-incuriam outcome in Jain and Jain Ltd v Transport for London (2240112496, 21 May 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/132C2vLpN5eQaRDt08QfUXsLpLKxCiKUw/view) I don't think this is suitable for a DIY appeal, but obviously it's your money on the line so you must decide how to proceed. If you are appealing yourself make sure to request a hearing, you do not want a decision on the papers under any circumstances.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: MrChips on July 02, 2024, 03:40:57 pm

If/when you do take this to the tribunal, ensure you are present to explain your case rather than allowing the adjudicator to base a decision on the paperwork only.

Also ensure you have sufficient evidence (eg photos from google maps) that the junction is with a private road.

You don't want to end up like this other recent case...

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/tfl-yellow-box-hanger-lane/

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on July 02, 2024, 11:54:23 am

Thank you

I'm away cycling in France this week. I'll give the appeal ago on my own, but thanks again.

One question - the deadline to pay 'at discount' is in a couple of days but the deadline to appeal is in another two weeks. Can I submit my appeal after I get back next week (after the payment deadline)?

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: cp8759 on June 30, 2024, 01:26:14 pm

@Donostio the notice of rejection gives you a failure to consider, as they have completely ignored the certain point of your representation. At this point I have to say there's at least a 90% chance of a successful appeal as long as the appeal is argued properly.

I'm going to drop you a PM in case you'd like me to represent you, though of course you have the option of representing yourself.

Whatever you do, I would not be paying the council in a case like this as they're effectively just running a scam, pure and simple (though this is down to their ignorance and incompetence rather than any deliberate conspiracy).

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on June 27, 2024, 04:40:10 pm

.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on June 27, 2024, 04:35:16 pm

I finally got a reply.

They do specifically address my challenge:
'You have automatically committed an offence if:
1) You entered the yellow box junction and stopped behind a stationary vehicle.

2) Any part of your vehicle is inside the yellow box junction and your vehicle is
stationary.
I must advise that all box junctions enforced by the London Borough of Merton are
compliant to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
The yellow box is considered essential to maintain flow of traffic and to ensure that
traffic queues do not impact the signalised junction due to motorists waiting to turn right
into the estate. It also ensures that motorists from the estate can exit.
Yellow boxes are permitted across junctions / access roads even if it provides access to
a private estate.
I am satisfied that the notice has been correctly issued and that there are no grounds in
which to cancel the charge.'

Should I plough on and risk the fine doubling? £65.00 if I pay by 5th July.

I can't get the up-loader to work (full message)

Here's a link to the PDF of the letter:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WX2dbAqHVGSecX_Et6b9WMb49cUZIYM3/view?usp=drive_link

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: cp8759 on April 04, 2024, 11:09:52 pm

Quote from: Donostio on April 04, 2024, 09:57:59 am

Submitted. I had to edit the text down to fit the 1,000 character limit.

For future reference, the workaround is to put the representation in a PDF and just say "see attached".

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on April 04, 2024, 09:57:59 am

Submitted. I had to edit the text down to fit the 1,000 character limit. I managed to do so while keeping the key words and references.



Case number: MT87744271
Vehicle registration: EN14NXK
Contravention: 31J - Box Junction

Date and time of contravention: 14/03/2024 16:34

This is an email from London Borough of Merton to acknowledge we are in receipt of your online submission regarding your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).

Whilst the challenge is being reviewed, we will put your case on hold. We will carefully consider your comments and make a decision based on the evidence that is available to us and we will formally respond in due course. Although we aim to respond in full within 15 working days, please note that we are currently working through a high volume of correspondence, possibly resulting in a longer response time.

If your challenge is accepted, you will not have to pay the charge and we will send you confirmation that the penalty charge is cancelled.

If your challenge is rejected, we will explain the reasons for our decision.

If your submission is received within the discounted period that is stated on the PCN then the opportunity to pay the PCN at the reduced rate will be re-offered in the event that the charge is upheld.

Informal challenge (Parking and Bus Lane PCNs only):
Appeals that are made within 28 days of the PCN being issued are classed as informal challenges and we will respond as soon as possible.

Formal representation: Appeals that are made within 28 days of receiving a PCN (Moving Traffic/Approved device), Notice to Owner (Parking) or Enforcement Notice (Bus Lane) are classed as formal representations. Please note that each type of contravention requires a response within timescales set out in the legislation relevant to that type of offence and we will therefore respond within this legislative time frame (up to 56 days for Parking offences, up to 3 months for Moving Traffic Offence and while there is no legal time scale in which we must response to formal representations relating to Bus Lane offences, we endeavour to reply within 3 months).

Do not pay the PCN, if you want to make a challenge. If you do, the case will be considered closed as you have accepted liability.

Reason for appeal: 'The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case '

Your answers:

-Question 1 : 'Please explain in as much detail as possible why you think your PCN should be cancelled'
        Answer : 'Alleged contravention did not occur- the box junction is not at the intersection of two or more roads or outside a police, fire or ambulance station. It is at the entrance to an apartment complex private driveway, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 do not permit box junction markings at such a location.
It follows that no contravention can occur at this location, enforcement must cease and CCTV enforcement cameras at this location be removed. There is no traffic enforcement justification for the camera here, failure to remove or disable the camera would mean unlawful and unjustified capture of personal data, in contravention of the General Data Protection Regulation.
I further challenge liability for PCN MT87744271 on the basis that information referenced in the PCN’s 2nd paragraph on page two does not convey the contents of paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, so it follows that the PCN must be cancelled'
-Question 2 : 'Would you like to upload any other documents to support your case?'
        Answer : 'No'

[attachment deleted by admin]

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on April 04, 2024, 12:08:27 am

Super, thanks. I will update in due course.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: cp8759 on April 04, 2024, 12:07:27 am

Quote from: Donostio on April 04, 2024, 12:05:55 am

In case it makes a difference the block is mostly residential and includes some retail units.

That doesn't really make much difference, there's clear signs and road markings that say it's private property so that's good enough for our purposes. The council won't be able to formulate a response that the adjudicator would accept, because they don't know what they're doing.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on April 04, 2024, 12:05:55 am

In case it makes a difference the block is mostly residential and includes some retail units.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: cp8759 on April 03, 2024, 11:50:55 pm

So the location is here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/XUTez9J3dYXrQb1f6

I think the description on the PCN is good enough, but the location raises a more fundamental question, see https://maps.app.goo.gl/XUTez9J3dYXrQb1f6

That is a private driveway to an office block, it's not a road over which the public have an unfettered right to pass and repass at will, it follows that it is not a road within the meaning of section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. It's basically a repeat of the One Croydon scenario we saw in Kate Gardener v London Borough of Croydon (2220655535, 15 October 2022) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xbeDoPx79OZNWKNMAWfKm9BoLuDtwlml/view)

Here's a revised draft:

Dear London Borough of Merton,

The alleged contravention did not occur, this is because the box junction is not placed at the junction of two or more roads or outside a police, fire or ambulance station. The box junction appears to be situated at the entrance to the private driveway to an apartment complex, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 do not permit box junction markings at such a location.

It follows that no contravention can ever occur at this location, enforcement must cease and the CCTV enforcement camera at this location must be removed. As there is no traffic enforcement justification for the camera at this location, failure to remove or at least disable the the camera would result in the unlawful and unjustified capture of personal data, in contravention of the General Data Protection Regulation.

I further challenge liability for PCN MT87744271 on the basis that the information referenced in the second paragraph of the second page of the PCN does not convey the contents of paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, and it follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Make representations online and select the reason "The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case", make sure to keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.

Please post up the notice of rejection when you get it.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: MrChips on April 03, 2024, 11:50:19 pm

Wrong location should be fatal to a PCN.  Merton might argue that it's close enough but there is a (quite faded) box junction which is right next to Bassett House which fits their description much better so it should be possible to demonstrate that the location isn't sufficiently correct.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on April 03, 2024, 11:02:56 pm

Thank you Mr Chips

That is curious. Indeed, I turned left at the junction the issuer describes. The junction in the photo I am going straight across. Should I mention this also in my appeal or use it later?

[attachment deleted by admin]

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: MrChips on April 03, 2024, 10:52:23 pm

I also think the location is wrong in the PCN.  It says Durnsford Road adjacent to Bassett House, but that box junction is a different one and the one you stopped in is about 100 metres further north.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: cp8759 on April 03, 2024, 10:20:46 pm

Here you go:

Dear London Borough of Merton,

I challenge liability for PCN MT87744271 on the basis that the information referenced in the second paragraph of the second page of the PCN does not convey the contents of paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, and it follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Make representations online and select the reason  The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case", make sure to keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.

Please post up the notice of rejection when you get it.

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on April 03, 2024, 09:59:01 pm

.

[attachment deleted by admin]

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on April 03, 2024, 09:58:02 pm

Thank you.


Plate: EN14NXK
PNC: MT87744271

I think I've uploaded both sides of the PCN letter.
Thanks again

[attachment deleted by admin]

Title: Re: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: cp8759 on April 03, 2024, 09:47:01 pm

Quote from: Donostio on April 03, 2024, 05:48:57 pm

Is it worth appealing? Is there any precedent?

@Donostio it is definitely worth making a representation to the council, the Merton notice of rejection for moving traffic PCNs is full of errors, see these cases (both my handy work):

Giles Kennedy v London Borough of Merton (2220586920, 8 October 2022) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B9N4JSUcCy2BR3QdqX0o3HKrzA7y0jOg/view)
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Merton (2240027331, 13 March 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ca_n8qFSL_WwGgxfAdfsu_-05leHw6EA/view)

Just put a representation in during the initial 14 days and if they reject they will reoffer the discount, if the rejection is then full of errors (which is likely, they've not fixed the template in two years so I doubt they'll fix it now) it's an easy win at the tribunal.

There's also the argument as per Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Merton (2230446542, 11 December 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/12WAmwX1nH1yqp3f0FLxr4s2QtG5C2Zat/view) but we need the PCN number and number plate to check for that.

If you post the rest of the PCN we can also check for other errors.

Title: 31J Entering and stopping ina box junction when prohibited
Post by: Donostio on April 03, 2024, 05:48:57 pm

Hello

PCN just arrived in the post from the London Borough of Merton £130 or £65 reduced charge.


Going against me:
I have entered before the exit was clear.
The back of my car / back wheels were in the box for at least 30 seconds

For me:
I wasn't causing an obstruction . was almost clear of the box.
Due me being pretty much out of the box (I thought I was out of it enough) I didn't think it necessary to move to the lane on the right which DID have room for me (lesson learnt - next time I will move to the right if there is space!).

Is it worth appealing? Is there any precedent?

Thank you for any advice.

Video (me with the roof rack):
https://youtu.be/RpnLiq-Lu6g

Image (me with the roof rack):
(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/7196/O8ECoz.jpg)


(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/8454/iZXkOx.jpg)


(https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img924/4978/6MEF5T.jpg)