Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: gem on July 29, 2024, 05:04:30 pm
-
https://t.co/Xx9WebQYix
-
Trying to find a case re "within" apart from Al's Bar. 2160257053 is the nearest which criticises the NOR.
This case does not support the argument:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-31j-box-junction-violation-durnsford-road/msg37478/#msg37478
I have abandoned this thought and see nothing wrong with the 28 days period as expressed in the NOR.
-
Trying to find a case re "within" apart from Al's Bar. 2160257053 is the nearest which criticises the NOR.
This case does not support the argument:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-31j-box-junction-violation-durnsford-road/msg37478/#msg37478
-
μολὼν λαβέ 8)
-
I'll call you later this evening.
-
My reps to the appeal service:
I am appealing this PCN on the following grounds grounds.
It would appear that the size of the box is too long. The corners of the junction have a very wide radius, but it is not necessary for the box to cover that both corners. Indeed it appears that the Yellow Box Junction does not conform to the regulations as set out in the Transport Signs, Regulations and General Directions 2016.
At the corners the footways are, for want of a better term, shared. As the purpose of a box junction relates to vehicles and not pedestrians then in my opinion it is more logical to consider the extent of the side road as terminating where the 'Give Way' road markings end, which is well before the end of the YBJ. Given the traffic flow ahead and the size of the side road. I was confident if the other drivers had taken up their space I would have cleared the junction and only encroached on a part of the box that does not conform to the regulations of being marked only at the junction area of the two roads
No obstruction to other traffic was caused, indeed you can see a car pulling out from the side turning and turning right without any impediment.
The white car in front of mine proceeded over the box junction and then stopped when there was no need to and I had expected to clear the box junction had the driver have moved up as they should have.
Barnet have refused to accept that their box is too large and doesn't comply with the regulations.
There is a decision re Kingston box junction which is similar...
Case reference 2230056005
Appellant Jeff Baker
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Decision Date 28 Feb 2023
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Upon the appellant making submissions as to the extent of box junction markings supporting evidence being provided.
This box junction is not only marked at the junction between these two roads but also in advance and beyond that junction.
It is not therefore marked in compliance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 this penalty charge thus being unenforceable.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Also, the period for making an appeal itself is misstated as is the council's power to issue a Charge Certificate both of which must be 'no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service of the NOR'
It would appear that the authority (Barnet) shows a lack of understanding of the law, I base this on there being a lack of cogent reasons to rebut the argument regarding the extent of the yellow box junction and also missinformation regarding my rights of appeal. and therefore I consider that the appeal should be allowed.
Is this okay?
-
I am happy to represent if the friend wishes to go the full distance.
-
And the period for making an appeal itself is misstated as is the council's power to issue a Charge Certificate both of which must be 'no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service of the NOR'(they had two bites at this and both are wrong!).
OP, in principle nothing has changed i.e. the authority wouldn't accept that their YBJ had been placed improperly. But what their rejection does show is their lack of understanding of the law (it's the TMA 2004 but this is not relevant because the regs regarding YBJ are made under completely different legislation, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) and IMO your friend stands a good chance at adjudication with 'contravention did not occur' to which they would add what is known as a collateral challenge based upon the lack of cogent reasons to rebut the argument regarding the extent of the YBJ and misinformation regarding the owner's rights of appeal.
Wait for others.
-
1. What is The Traffic Management Act 2014?
2. NOR does not mention power of the adjudicator to extend time in which to lodge an appeal.
I say this is winnable.
-
Well surprise surprise, my friend got a rejection letter
https://imgur.com/a/owPU6FW
https://imgur.com/a/OYpfgnz
https://imgur.com/a/sHIWGbs
https://imgur.com/a/kRRZn7Q
Should she give up or fight it at a tribunal?
-
I haven’t sent anything in yet, should I modify the appeal?
It looks OK to me. Best send in so you don't miss the deadline.
-
Can someone look at my last draft and see if it's good to go? Or if there is anything I should add or subtract from it.
It has to be submitted by tomorrow.
-
I am appealing this PCN on the following grounds grounds.
It would appear that the size of the box is too long. The corners of the junction have a very wide radius, but it is not necessary for the box to cover that both corners. Indeed it appears that the Yellow Box Junction does not conform to the regulations as set out in the Transport Signs, Regulations and General Directions 2016.
At the corners the footways are, for want of a better term, shared. As the purpose of a box junction relates to vehicles and not pedestrians then in my opinion it is more logical to consider the extent of the side road as terminating where the 'Give Way' road markings end, which is well before the end of the YBJ. Given the traffic flow ahead and the size of the side road. I was confident if the other drivers had taken up their space I would have cleared the junction and only encroached on a part of the box that does not conform to the regulations of being marked only at the junction area of the two roads
No obstruction to other traffic was caused, indeed you can see a car pulling out from the side turning and turning right without any impediment.
The white car in front of mine proceeded over the box junction and then stopped when there was no need to and I had expected to clear the box junction had the driver have moved up as they should have.
There is a decision re Kingston box junction which is similar...
Case reference 2230056005
Appellant Jeff Baker
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Decision Date 28 Feb 2023
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Upon the appellant making submissions as to the extent of box junction markings supporting evidence being provided.
This box junction is not only marked at the junction between these two roads but also in advance and beyond that junction.
It is not therefore marked in compliance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 this penalty charge thus being unenforceable.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Under the circumstances and bearing in mind the foregoing, I expect the Council to cancel this PCN.
Hopefully the last draft
-
The OP isn't at adjudication yet, they're putting their case in reps and attempting to discover the authority's reasoning for not adopting the TSM form.
Also, the 'Give Way' road marking delineates the extent of the carriageway in the side road. IMO, it is a leap too far to suggest that 'road' as in 'a junction between two or more roads' includes the furthest reaches of shared footway.
But this is just a view.
-
I'm with Stamfordman on this one. I've seen many more adjudication decisions which state there is flexibility under TSRGD 2016 as to how to site the box junction and strike out appeals based on box size (far more egregiously than this one).
You may get lucky with a sympathetic adjudicator but I'd put chances of success well below 50% if relying solely on this argument.
-
The box does not extend excessively and is pretty much across the mouth of the road, and a lot of other boxes are like this. One reason is probably to give some extra sight lines.
The Kingston case cited I believe is for a box that is/was clearly out of bounds in one direction.
It's worth a shot but I wouldn't be confident in taking it to the tribunal.
I would say something like 'Given the traffic flow ahead and the size of the side road I was confident if the other drivers had taken up their space I would have cleared the junction and I only encroached on a part of the box that does not conform to the regulations of being marked only at the junction area of the two roads.'
etc.
It might be better to show examples of boxes that conform strictly - I've posted two videos here:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/2-in-one-day-help!/
This may be the Kingston box:
http://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2023/05/kingston-road-new-malden-yellow-box.html
-
How does this look?
I am appealing this PCN on the following grounds grounds.
It would appear that the size of the box is too long. The corners of the junction have a very wide radius, but it is not necessary for the box to cover that both corners. Indeed it appears that the Yellow Box Junction does not conform to the regulations as set out in the Transport Signs, Regulations and General Directions 2016.
At the corners the footways are, for want of a better term, shared. As the purpose of a box junction relates to vehicles and not pedestrians then in my opinion it is more logical to consider the extent of the side road as terminating where the 'Give Way' road markings end, which is well before the end of the YBJ. If the box would have been the correct length, I would have cleared it.
No obstruction to other traffic was caused, indeed you can see a car pulling out from the side turning and turning right without any impediment.
The white car in front of mine proceeded over the box junction and then stopped when there was no need to and I had expected to clear the box junction had the driver have moved up as they should have.
There is a decision re Kingston box junction which is similar...
Case reference 2230056005
Appellant Jeff Baker
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Decision Date 28 Feb 2023
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Upon the appellant making submissions as to the extent of box junction markings supporting evidence being provided.
This box junction is not only marked at the junction between these two roads but also in advance and beyond that junction.
It is not therefore marked in compliance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 this penalty charge thus being unenforceable.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Under the circumstances and bearing in mind the foregoing, I expect the Council to cancel this PCN.
-
There is a decision re Kingston box junction which is similar...
Case reference 2230056005
Appellant Jeff Baker
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Decision Date 28 Feb 2023
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Upon the appellant making submissions as to the extent of box junction markings supporting evidence being provided.
This box junction is not only marked at the junction between these two roads but also in advance and beyond that junction.
It is not therefore marked in compliance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 this penalty charge thus being unenforceable.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
-
I included a form of words in my previous post 'e.g. **************.
Your argument is that where you stopped is not at a junction between two roads and therefore, by virtue of paragraph * of Schedule * to the Traffic*****, stopping at that point is not a road traffic contravention and cannot be penalised.
-
Can't agree with this sweeping assumption, I'm afraid.
At the corners the footways are, for want of a better term, shared. As the purpose of a box junction relates to vehicles and not pedestrians then IMO it is more logical to consider the extent of the side road as terminating where the 'Give Way' road markings end, which is well before the end of the YBJ.
OP, if you have time to alter your appeal then IMO you must get them to commit themselves and state the lawful authority which supports their contention e.g. if the authority reject these representations then they are obliged to provide authority for their claim that a YBJ may be marked, and therefore effectively extended, beyond the junction when the Traffic Signs Manual and even their own 'Give Way' markings, which delimit the carriageway here, indicate that the junction does not extend to this point.
Thank you HCA. How do I do that? What should I put in?
-
Can't agree with this sweeping assumption, I'm afraid.
At the corners the footways are, for want of a better term, shared. As the purpose of a box junction relates to vehicles and not pedestrians then IMO it is more logical to consider the extent of the side road as terminating where the 'Give Way' road markings end, which is well before the end of the YBJ.
OP, if you have time to alter your appeal then IMO you must get them to commit themselves and state the lawful authority which supports their contention e.g. if the authority reject these representations then they are obliged to provide authority for their claim that a YBJ may be marked, and therefore effectively extended, beyond the junction when the Traffic Signs Manual and even their own 'Give Way' markings, which delimit the carriageway here, indicate that the junction does not extend to this point.
-
I think you'll fail on this one - the box only extends to the road width (it includes footways) and you entered the box when the leading car was just past half-way through and you can see a motorbike slowing ahead. There is no evidence of the other car stopping short but you can try and convince an adjudicator.
Shame as there was loads of room to exit on the right.
-
I haven’t sent anything in yet, should I modify the appeal?
-
OP, manage your expectations on this one pl.
All the regs say is that as regards a 'box junction' this may only be placed and is defined as a)at a junction between two or more roads;
As far as I am aware there is no case law which clearly lays out what is and is not to be considered as where two roads meet. *
If you've sent your reps then the die is cast and you can only await their response.
If this goes further then you might want to look at the layout of other box junctions in the council area e.g. do they all follow the same pattern of being placed at the point where the radius ends as it meets the parallel side of the road being joined, as here. Or perhaps, as the Traffic Sign Manual (TSM) shows, the corner of the box should be placed at the mid-point of the radius. Another factor could be that the 'give way' road markings in the side road terminate prior to the yellow box, indicating that this is the correct extent of the 'junction'.
*- in simple terms, is the radius inclusive or exclusive to the side road or, as per TSM, they have an equal share.
-
Looks OK to me, so ram it up them !
-
How about this? Is it okay to send.
I am appealing this PCN on the following grounds grounds.
It would appear that the size of the box is too long. The corners of the junction have a very wide radius, but it is not necessary for the box to cover that both corners. Indeed it appears that it does not conform to the regulations as set out in the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016) Schedule 9 Regulation 11 (6)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/
If the box would have been the correct length, I would have cleared it.
No obstruction to other traffic was caused, indeed you can see a car pulling out from the side turning and turning right without any impediment.
The white car in front of mine proceeded over the box junction and then stopped when there was no need to and I had expected to clear the box junction had the driver have moved up as they should have.
Under the circumstances I expect the Council to cancel this PCN.
-
How is this for my appeal:
I am appealing this PCN on the following grounds grounds.
It would appear that the size of the box is too long. The corners of the junction have a very wide radius, but it is not necessary for the box to cover that both corners. Indeed it appears that it does not conform to the regulations as set out in the ........ Can someone tell me what regulations!! if the box would have been the correct length, I would have cleared it.
No obstruction to other traffic was caused, indeed you can see a car pulling out from the side turning and turning right without any impediment.
The white car in front of mine proceeded over the box junction and then stopped when there was no need to and I had expected to clear the box junction had the driver have moved up as they should have.
Under the circumstances I expect the Council to cancel this PCN.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016)
see Schedule 9 Regulation 11 (6)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made
-
How is this for my appeal:
I am appealing this PCN on the following grounds grounds.
It would appear that the size of the box is too long. The corners of the junction have a very wide radius, but it is not necessary for the box to cover that both corners. Indeed it appears that it does not conform to the regulations as set out in the ........ Can someone tell me what regulations!! if the box would have been the correct length, I would have cleared it.
No obstruction to other traffic was caused, indeed you can see a car pulling out from the side turning and turning right without any impediment.
The white car in front of mine proceeded over the box junction and then stopped when there was no need to and I had expected to clear the box junction had the driver have moved up as they should have.
Under the circumstances I expect the Council to cancel this PCN.
-
Having looked at the video, it is quite clear that the yellow box is too long, and not just at the junction. The connecting kerbs have a very wide radius but it is not obligatory for the box corners to come up to them. Looking at where you stopped, you were in the excessive length part. No obstruction was caused as is shown by a car coming out of the other street and driving past the rear of your car without any difficulty whatsoever.
So submit reps on this basis, but it is inevitable you'd have to take them to London Tribunals for an unbiased judgment.
-
https://imgur.com/EM56kp5
(https://i.imgur.com/EM56kp5.mp4)
-
LT22MXX
AG46167659
Thanks
-
You need to unredact the PCN no and VRM then someone can post the video which is the critical thing.
-
Here are some copies of the PCN
https://imgur.com/a/ixmS0PW
https://imgur.com/a/eujJWcb
https://imgur.com/a/je859I6
https://imgur.com/a/CUe2k4s
https://imgur.com/a/a2SP0gP
I can't upload the video but it looks like what's happenned is that the car in front went through the YB and then stopped when they could have moved a few feet forward.
Gem would have therefore expected to clear the box junction when she entered.
-
using a remote host ??
-
I have tried to load pictures and a video on here, but the video file is unsupported and the pictures are too big in size.
I can share the reg number and PCN No with CP or HCA if you so wish.
-
READ THIS FIRST - **BEFORE POSTING YOUR CASE!**,
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/
we need to see the VIDEO, that's the most important thing.
-
I have received a PCN from Barnet for apparently stopping in a box junction, Cant remember how long I was in the junction.
Are there any grounds to appeal it?
My friend will put the pictures of the PCB up a bit later.