Thanks all.
There is a helpful website which actually has a pretty perfect photograph of the exact junction in question, gate and all, which I've included in my appeal for review: https://www.yellowboxes.co.uk/1-the-box
I've submitted this:
---
Following the decision of Adjudicator Mr John Lane, in which my appeal was refused, I now wish to apply to the adjudicator for a review of the decision under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. I am making this application within 14 days of the date of the adjudicator’s decision.
I am seeking review on the following ground(s): The interests of justice require a review.
My reasons for applying for a review are as follows:
1. The adjudicator failed to address and consider the very specific fact that the second alleged "road" is private and gated to which the public does not have access. It is therefore not a "road" as per the Road Traffic Act 1988 definition and the yellow box is therefore not in a permitted location. This was detailed in the original appeal to TfL, but does not appear to have been considered by the adjudicator. I enclose a photograph below of the supposed “road” in question, and the yellow box. This is clearly private, gated, closed, and thus the “road” is not at all accessible to the public. It therefore fails to meet the legal definition of “road”. It should be noted that the gate was closed at the time of the alleged contravention.
I quote below some legal cases, and also a London Tribunals adjudication, that further confirm this viewpoint. There is no information/detail as to how the adjudicator came to his conclusion. TfL also failed to provide any evidence that it is a "road" to which the public have access.
London Tribunals case 2220655535 (Kate Gardener vs London Borough of Croydon):
This is a case in which a box junction has been placed at a junction between a private driveway and a road. The appeal was allowed. The junction above, Ealing Village, is also a private driveway, and so this case sets an important precedent.
“Second, I find that the box junction in this particular case extends beyond a junction, it appears to extend for some distance in front of the driveway of a private building. Whilst the TSRGD 2016 has relaxed the law in relation to box junctions, such as the need for Departmental approval and to touch the kerb. They did not dispense with the requirement for box junctions to be at junctions (or outside police or fire stations); they cannot be placed anywhere.”
From https://www.londondrinkdrivingsolicitor.co.uk/-What-is-a-road-anyway:
"Mrs Justice Rafferty held in Hallett v DPP that the presence of a sign or barrier lends weight to a claim that the land is open only to a special class of the public and thus that it is not a road to which the public has access."
"The Divisional Court, presided over by Lord Widgery, heard the case of Deacon v AT (A Minor) and concluded that the land must be open to the public in general and not merely a special class of the public, such as residents or visitors."
2. TfL took 5 months to respond to representations. The adjudicator seems to have ignored the fact that (as quoted on London Tribunals own website: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process) "the adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations within 3 months." In this case, TfL have given no explanation to justify the undue delay in sending their Notice of Rejection.
Thanks all.Yes that's my site and I took that photo :)
There is a helpful website which actually has a pretty perfect photograph of the exact junction in question, gate and all, which I've included in my appeal for review: https://www.yellowboxes.co.uk/1-the-box
I am just wondering what to write and how to phrase, as the review criteria seem very specific.Please see below. Add a photo of the gate with the yellow box if not already clear. Was the gate closed when you got your ticket? Use template at link below. I have emailed review request to them in the past
Not yet.Have you posted the full reps, and was it put up here for a review before the adjudication ? ALso this was a papers-based adjudication ? Bitter experience here of papers-based adjudications means we never recommend this. I'm afraid it is a fact that there are some adjudicators at LT that can only be described as "time servers". So best to go for a review if you're still in time to request one.
I came here to seek some advice first.
Please feel free to suggest what I should write?
I thought my tribunal appeal was fine 🤷🏽.
Clearly it wasn't.
Wasn't me doing the appeal. How do you know this is the way it is intended to work? Do you have a link to their terms of reference or job description that says this? Its not "evidence" that's the issue. The "evidence" of an illegal box is staring them in the face, its the fact they refuse to consider or check it unless a lay motorist raises it. I saw the same for years at the illegal box outside camberwell bus garage.Well, sorry, but they are adjudicators, so must only deal with the evidence presented to them by the two parties. That's the way it works, and is intended to work, so if there is a next time, come on here and never, ever, go for an adjudication on papers-only basis.Alas, yes, an in person (or on the phone) appeal would have helped here as there's nothing in the text below which guides the adjudicator as to why you think the road doesn't meet the legal definitionI find it unbelievable that these adjudicators who are supposed to be the experts need to be led by lay people. Is there anything in their remit that says they must put on blinkers and only look at what they've been told? They should check the legality of every box as part of a standard process regardless of whether or not it is raised in the appeal.
Well, sorry, but they are adjudicators, so must only deal with the evidence presented to them by the two parties. That's the way it works, and is intended to work, so if there is a next time, come on here and never, ever, go for an adjudication on papers-only basis.Alas, yes, an in person (or on the phone) appeal would have helped here as there's nothing in the text below which guides the adjudicator as to why you think the road doesn't meet the legal definitionI find it unbelievable that these adjudicators who are supposed to be the experts need to be led by lay people. Is there anything in their remit that says they must put on blinkers and only look at what they've been told? They should check the legality of every box as part of a standard process regardless of whether or not it is raised in the appeal.
Alas, yes, an in person (or on the phone) appeal would have helped here as there's nothing in the text below which guides the adjudicator as to why you think the road doesn't meet the legal definitionI find it unbelievable that these adjudicators who are supposed to be the experts need to be led by lay people. Is there anything in their remit that says they must put on blinkers and only look at what they've been told? They should check the legality of every box as part of a standard process regardless of whether or not it is raised in the appeal.
ABUSE OF PROCESS
Transport for London have taken in excess of 5 months to respond to the representations initially submitted. This is significantly more than the 56 day limit stated in the regulations. It is highly unreasonable for Transport for London to abuse the process in this manner. Despite the length of time taken, their response does not in any way address the representations submitted and almost entirely ignores the core issue raised. This is unreasonably dismissive and constitutes a failure to consider.
ORIGINAL REPRESENTATIONS
TfL have largely ignored the original representation that the yellow box junction in question is invalid. The yellow box does not meet the official definition per the law. We maintain that the contravention cannot have occurred on this basis.
The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle entered and stopped within the box junction there owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle. It is a contravention if a person causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
To stop means to come to a stand as in the course of a journey, to halt or to cease moving.
The contravention was created by statute: Paragraph 11 of Part 7, Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD).
The contravention does not apply to any person
a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right: and
b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
The appellant has stated the markings need to be removed from the location; Ealing Village is not a road. Transport for London responded to the appellant’s representations after the 56 days deadline.
I have considered fully the representations of both parties and I have examined carefully the video evidence provided by the local authority.
Did the appellant cause their vehicle to stop on the box junction because of the presence of another stationary vehicle?
I am satisfied by it that the appellant’s vehicle followed another vehicle onto the box junction. The first vehicle stopped and it prevented the appellant’s vehicle from clearing the box junction. Consequently, the appellant’s vehicle entered and stopped on the box junction owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle in front of it in circumstances other than the one permitted statutory exemption. Crucially the appellant’s vehicle did not wait outside the entrance to the box junction before entering the box junction. Had it done so and waited for a definite clear space there would have been no contravention. . It is not uncommon for traffic to proceed in a line onto the box junction but this is what box junctions try to prevent.
The appellant has asserted that the contravention did not occur.
As stated, had the appellant’s vehicle waited for clear space before entering the box junction then it would not have been affected by whatever occurred on the other side, such as a change of colour of traffic lights or pedestrians crossing the road or vehicles suddenly stopping.
A Box Junction is defined in Paragraph 11(6) of Part 7, Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). It means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which there has been placed the road marking shown in the diagram at item 25 of Schedule 9, part 6 of the TSRGD.
I am satisfied that the box junction in this case complies with paragraph 5 of Part 8 of the TSRGD.
A road is defined by section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as any length of highway, or of any other road to which the public has access. I am not persuaded that the roads are not roads within the said definition.
I must find that the local authority was entitled to issue the penalty notice. The penalty notice in this case was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. The local authority is entitled to issue the penalty notice to the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle concerned.
Paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act 2003 states that it shall be the duty of the local authority to consider the appellant’s representations and serve on that person notice of their decision.
There is no statutory time limit, within which the local authority must serve the notice.
I am satisfied that the penalty notice expressed the correct penalty amount, a fixed penalty, fixed by law. It did not therefore exceed the relevant amount in all the circumstances of the case.
It follows that I must refuse the appeal.
The alleged contravention did not occur, and the box junction markings need to be removed from this location.
Schedule 7, Part 9, 11 (6) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 sets out the permitted locations for yellow boxes. In addition Section 192 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 defines a "road" as: “any highway and any other road to which the public has access”. Ealing Village is not a road to which the public have access; it is a gated drive to which there is no public access.
The box junction markings are not at the junction of two or more roads. Thus, no contravention can ever occur at this location.
Prior to my previous post I did search through multiple successful tribunal decisions at this location and none were based on this argument. Perhaps TFL tactically do not contest where this ground is raised?My suspicion is that nobody has ever raised it.
Finally have the DVD.Not if you look at the "junction" from here:
Seems bang to rights.
Call TFL and ask for the video, they will put the penalty on hold and send you a DVD in the post.
Also, please tell us what your connection is t the limited company.
As long as the car is actually registered to a company there's nothing wrong with the PCN being addressed to the Company Secretary, but TFL have a habit of messing up the process when it comes to limited companies making representations, see paragraphs 68 to 70 of https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Red%20Route%20Panel%20Decision.pdf
Thanks, I will do that.
The driver of the car is a company director.
Call TFL and ask for the video, they will put the penalty on hold and send you a DVD in the post.
Also, please tell us what your connection is t the limited company.
As long as the car is actually registered to a company there's nothing wrong with the PCN being addressed to the Company Secretary, but TFL have a habit of messing up the process when it comes to limited companies making representations, see paragraphs 68 to 70 of https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Red%20Route%20Panel%20Decision.pdf