Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Garak112 on September 03, 2024, 11:57:55 am
-
Back to basics please: this will be a technical appeal for the most part.
-
Mr Burke is making the law up as he goes along and is not entitled to extend the YBJ requirement to bus station exits. The regulations already allow them to be installed outside ambulance and fire station premises, so one has to assume the writers of the regulations understood the need for YBJs to cover slightly more than just road junctions, but didn't see fit to include other sorts of similar locations. Just where will it all end if we apply Mr Burkes slack interpretation ?
Well, there's two cases above I've cited that interpret the law 'flexibly' and we can add the one below from Andrew Harman (a rather illiterate rejection and talks of a bus stand not station).
So this isn't a slam dunk and I would say if rejected on this basis would the chief adjudicator accept it for review.
------
2220764701
Harman
This is an alleged box junction contravention. The appellant says that the box is marked opposite a bus stand that not being permitted he providing a supporting sketch of the location. The bus stand is visible on the council's video footage of the incident. There is nothing under the Regulations to prevent the council marking a box junction opposite such a bus stand this box junction I find being marked in accordance with the legal requirements. My noting the appellant's submissions to the council I am satisfied on the video footage on which this vehicle is clearly identified that it stopped in this box junction in contravention of the prohibition on doing so and I refuse this appeal
-
Mr Burke is making the law up as he goes along and is not entitled to extend the YBJ requirement to bus station exits. The regulations already allow them to be installed outside ambulance and fire station premises, so one has to assume the writers of the regulations understood the need for YBJs to cover slightly more than just road junctions, but didn't see fit to include other sorts of similar locations. Just where will it all end if we apply Mr Burkes slack interpretation ?
-
It's the relaxation in 2016 that seems to be an issue...
Michael Burke
Decision Date 24 May 2024
2240118506
The allegation in this case is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The Appellant does not dispute this but says that only the rear right wheel was inside the box junction and the vehicle was not causing an obstruction. The road ahead was clear but while the vehicle was in the box junction a bus driver decided to turn right. The Appellant asserts that the box junction markings at the far end were faded and refers to a decision in case reference 2090257179. The Appellant has provided a copy of that decision and a photograph as supporting evidence.
The decisions of this Tribunal do not establish precedent and an Adjudicator is not bound by a decision in a previous case. I note that case reference 2090257179 was decided under Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. This PCN is enforced under Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. I am satisfied that the box junction is in place to facilitate buses exiting from the bus station opposite and that in these circumstances a wide interpretation should be given to the requirement that it be ‘at a junction between two or more roads’.
The moment that road or kerb markings are painted the process of erosion begins. The fact that markings are not in pristine state does not of course mean that restrictions cease to apply. Whenever the quality of the markings is in dispute the test applied is whether they remained substantially compliant, clear and adequate to inform the motorist who gave the question the appropriate degree of attention.
The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs taken by the Civil Enforcement Officer and photographs of the particular box junction. I note that it is in place to facilitate buses exiting from the bus station opposite. I am satisfied from the enforcement camera footage that in both the location of the box junction and the state of the markings, it is substantially compliant, clear and adequate.
The enforcement camera footage shows a clear example of the contravention. The Appellant entered the box junction when it was plain the vehicle would not be able to clear the box junction without stopping. The vehicle duly did have to stop with about half of it in the box junction. The contravention occurs if any part of the vehicle has to stop in the box junction.
-
I think it best not to forewarn them of the route we will take. We know the council wont accept but there is fair bet an adjudicator will. We have many cases on file dealing with the location of the Box junction and a few regarding what is a road that have been won. Lets keep the powder dry on that one. Stick with the no address and the unable to anticipate. I have a feeling this will lead to a fail to consider
My experience with them as that they are quite proactive at the appeal stage and respond to all submissions made before the hearing. But, they also mess up by demanding the payment saying it will increase very soon!
-
IMO the council and the adjudicator are wrong, but that's the luck of the draw. Firstly to be considered a road within the terms of the legislation the public must have unfettered access and if the cannot take a vehicle then that is not the case
Can you point us to case law or legislation on this point? I cannot find the term 'unfettered' anywhere.
There are No Entry signs, with associated plate, which have no legal effect unless it is a road. IMO, it's a road restricted to buses, but IMO it's still a road.
-
I think it best not to forewarn them of the route we will take. We know the council wont accept but there is fair bet an adjudicator will. We have many cases on file dealing with the location of the Box junction and a few regarding what is a road that have been won. Lets keep the powder dry on that one. Stick with the no address and the unable to anticipate. I have a feeling this will lead to a fail to consider
-
@Pastmybest OK Please feel free to add extra details to my draft.
-
IMO the council and the adjudicator are wrong, but that's the luck of the draw. Firstly to be considered a road within the terms of the legislation the public must have unfettered access and if the cannot take a vehicle then that is not the case
As regards the positioning guidance cannot trump the law so if the box is not at a junction then it cannot be legal
I will be happy to work with hippo in drafting a skeleton for this but he is better placed to represent being known and respected by many adjudicators
-
It's opposite Grove park bus station and I did find reference to an adjudicator ruling that it was legal under case 223052861. Its mentioned on the yellow box guru website although I couldn't find the full answer to understand why.
That case number is actually 2230528614, decision 14/2/24 by Michel Aslangul. I didn't find it because the location is just Baring Road.
So it's a road because the public can ride on a bus into the station!
The other case mentioned - 2230236641 - I've copied below too and it concerns where a half/full box can go (not as per Grove Park but this is a bus station not a T junction with a proper road so buses pulling out do need space but despite the other decision surely a yellow box is wrong and an advisory keep clear is proper).
----------
The main question to be considered is whether the yellow box junction is in a permitted location.
The Appellant’s case is made on three points: the first is that the yellow box junction is not at a permitted location; the second is that the yellow box junction extends far beyond the junction such that it is not at the junction of two or more roads (assuming that the bus station is not a road – which the authority disputes); the third is that the yellow box junction covers the far side of a ‘T’ junction in breach of the statutory guidance.
The case of the authority is that: although the TSRGD contains mandatory requirements, it also contains recommendations (which are not mandatory); there are correct definitions of ‘carriageway’ and ‘road’ which apply; the decision in case number 2230236641 can be distinguished on the facts.
I find as fact that: the yellow box junction on Baring Road is on a carriageway and is on a part of a road; Grove Park Station is a road because it is a highway to which the public has access (albeit that the public whilst being carried on some categories of vehicles are not permitted to enter); the yellow box junction is a half box and not a full box; the yellow box junction is substantially compliant with the relevant legislation and does not breach any mandatory requirements; the Appellant’s car entered and stopped in the yellow box junction when prohibited.
I accept the submission of the authority that the decision in case number 2230236641 can be distinguished on the facts because it concerns a full yellow box, and not a half box junction; and I also accept the submission that the yellow box junction is in a permitted location.
The Appellant has raised further points, which I have considered, but which I do not find to be material.
I am satisfied that the contravention occurred because I accept the evidence of the authority.
----------
2230236641
This is a reserved decision following the reconvened hearing on 6 September 2023. Mr Clive Treacher attended that hearing in person as the authorised representative of Mrs Mary Treacher and as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention. Mr Treacher also attended the previous hearings on 31 May and 26 July 2023. Mr Treacher has 31 years of experience as a Traffic Officer with the Met, having been assigned to the NE London Traffic Management Unit and then Central Operations.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The box junction is located in Chigwell Road at the junction with Maybank Road.
Paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. It is an offence to enter the box without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to stationary vehicles in front.
The CCTV footage shows that Mrs Treacher's car made a right turn out of the minor road and then stopped in the box behind another vehicle which was still partially in the box and stationary in a line of traffic. It is not in dispute that there was no clear exit for Mrs Treacher's car at the point of entry into the box or that the car was caused to stop in the box due to stationary traffic.
Mr Treacher appeals because he says that the box is unlawful. He says that The Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, paragraph 8.3.2. (Road Markings 2018) makes it clear that only half-boxes are appropriate for use at T-junctions and other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Paragraph 8.3.2. reads as below.
“Half‑boxes, in which only half the area of the junction is marked are appropriate at T‑junctions and other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Half‑boxes should be used only on the minor road side of the main carriageway to allow emerging traffic to turn right where the queue of traffic in the major road is to the left. A half‑box on the side of the road opposite a T‑junction generally serves no useful purpose. Even though it will create a gap in a queue of traffic, drivers turning right from the minor road will not be able to enter the box as the exit will be obstructed.”
Mr Treacher contended at the hearing on 31 May that the full box at the junction is not the required half-box and that authorisation in writing from the DfT was required for the variation.
I adjourned the hearing on 31 May to provide the Council with an opportunity to respond to Mr Treacher's submissions.
The Council submitted a response on 8 June 2023 in which they stated that a full box was installed at this junction because queueing back did not happen only in one direction on the minor road side of Chigwell Road. The Council also said in this response that they sought advice from the DfT who advised that TSRGD 2016 provides full flexibility for a full box marking to be used here and that no authorisation was required from the DfT. The Council provided a copy of their e-mail enquiry of 7 July 2022 but did not include a copy of the DfT's response to that e-mail.
Mr Treacher's evidence on 26 July was that the traffic no longer blocks back in both directions. He said that there was a block back on the minor road side after the Maybank Road junction due to the left turn into Broad Mead Road but that this ceased with the installation of the ahead only route at the junction with Broad Mead Road. He said that the only block back now is southbound with the lights on the roundabout after the Maybank Road junction. Mr Treacher said that, in any event, only half boxes are to be used at T-junctions regardless of whether there is a block back in both directions.
I further adjourned the hearing on 26 July to give the Council an opportunity to respond to Mr Treacher's evidence and submissions. The Council was also requested to provide a complete copy of the correspondence with the DfT about the use of a full box at this location.
Mr Treacher also provided on 26 July a copy of Sam Wright's review of Councils' plans to enforce yellow box junctions and a copy of the RAC report following that review. The review includes a detailed consideration of boxes covering the far side of T-junctions which I said that I would consider in reviewing the evidence and submissions. I invited the Council to make any further submissions that it wished to concerning the review, the report and any other matter which it considered relevant.
The Council provided further evidence and submissions on 9 August 2023. The Council stated its view that TSRGD 2016 provides full flexibility for a full box marking at this location and that paragraph 8.3.2 of Chapter 5 of the Traffic Signs Manual does not preclude the use of a full box at a T-junction. The further evidence included an e-mail from the DfT dated 8 July 2022 in reply to the Council’s enquiry of 7 July. This e-mail confirmed that TSRGD 2016 provided full flexibility for a full box marking, although making it clear that the issue of whether the box in place was compliant was a matter which could only be decided by the courts.
The Council’s further evidence does not address Mr Treacher’s evidence that the block back on the minor road side after the Maybank Road junction due to the left turn into Broad Mead Road ceased with the installation of the ahead only route at the junction with Broad Mead Road.
Mr Treacher’s position at the adjourned hearing on 6 September was that the Council had failed to justify the use of a full box at this location.
Sam Wright’s report provides a very useful commentary on boxes that cover the far side of T-junctions. Under the old TSRGD, boxes that covered the far side of a T-junction were not permitted and required DfT approval. The report refers to FOI requests revealing that, in 2007, the DfT stopped authorising these kinds of boxes, stating: “We were no longer prepared to authorise full box junctions at a T-junction when Transport for London reviewed their box junctions in 2007. Our reasoning was that we saw no traffic management benefit in the use of full box junctions at this type of junction.”
In spite of this clear statement of the DfT’s position in 2007, there is no doubt that the position has been relaxed by TSRGD 2016. I do not, however, agree that TSRGD 2016 provides full flexibility for a full box marking at T-junctions. The change is that DfT approval is no longer required for a full box marking. That does not, however, give Councils carte blanche to introduce full boxes as they wish. If it did, then the statutory guidance in paragraph 8.3.2 would be rendered meaningless. It is abundantly clear from the guidance that a half-box on the side of the road opposite a T-junction generally serves no useful purpose and will cause an unnecessary obstacle for drivers turning right from the minor road. In my judgement, the guidance is clear that the only box marking that will normally be appropriate at a T-junction is a half box on the minor side of the road in a situation where the traffic blocks back from one direction only.
Clearly, there is no longer a requirement for DfT approval for the use of a full box marking at a T-junction but, in my judgement, paragraph 8.3.2 requires that the use of such a marking is justified, especially given the clear impediment resulting for drivers attempting to make the right turn out of the minor road.
If the Council seeks to enforce PCNs against such drivers, then it needs to produce evidence showing the reasons for which it has both introduced and retained the use of the full box marking and, in this case, it has failed to do so. The Council has not addressed Mr Treacher’s evidence that the traffic no longer blocks back in both directions. I allow the appeal for this reason.
-
I'll try to explain the 'why' for you, Garak112. You've been accused of "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited"
The relevant legal definition of a "box junction" is set by the Government, not the Council. It can be found on page 168 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (available at https://tsrgd.co.uk/pdf/tsrgd/tsrgd2016.pdf) and it says:
"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; and
(7) A reference in this paragraph (however expressed) to a vehicle which is stationary or stops within a box junction includes a vehicle which is stationary whilst
part of it is within the box junction."
The problem for the council is that the marking they have put on the road isn't at a junction. It doesn't fit into any of the legal categories of box junction, therefore it's not legally a box junction, therefore you didn't 'enter and stop in a box junction when prohibited'. What you stopped in is just some yellow paint.
This may sound a bit convoluted, but if you put that argument in front of a traffic adjudicator (as we've successfully done in the past), they will be highly likely to agree with you and cancel the PCN.
-
It's opposite Grove park bus station and I did find reference to an adjudicator ruling that it was legal under case 223052861. Its mentioned on the yellow box guru website although I couldn't find the full answer to understand why.
-
Having now looked at the GSV link, I don't see how this YBJ could possibly be legal. It is not at the junction of two or more roads, just opposite the exit from the bus station. Adjudications have been won in the past on this.
-
It is not legal to place a box at an exit to a bus station. It is not a road that allows access to to public, but other than that only the 1st meter or so is in line with the junction. They cannot extend it to allow egress for busses
So this looks like solid grounds to win this. I've checked the register and can only see one appeal, and that was refused only for the usual contravention issues.
Here's Maps streetvew:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4322469,0.0212779,3a,75y,177.45h,81.52t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1swc_3wzIHFuEJi4rDaWMVmg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D8.476221522921534%26panoid%3Dwc_3wzIHFuEJi4rDaWMVmg%26yaw%3D177.4493934281472!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
-
It is not legal to place a box at an exit to a bus station. It is not a road that allows access to to public, but other than that only the 1st meter or so is in line with the junction. They cannot extend it to allow egress for busses
-
Looking further at the video. Is that box at the junction of 2 or more roads?
I thought that but it's cited as outside Grove Park bus station and there is a route out turning right, But the regs only include emergency services for such yellow boxes so maybe the bus station PCNs are not valid depending on whether the station roads are counted as a junction. If so there are quite a few locations where this could be questionable.
In some bus stations exit areas are marked only as advisory keep clears which would appear to be correct.
-
Looking further at the video. Is that box at the junction of 2 or more roads?
-
Best put all in so as to get a failure to consider etc. ;D
-
So had the bus signalled, the OP would not have entered the box?
If the bus had gone straight ahead into the box and stopped, then the OP would have done what?
We often argue as regards the vehicle in front that it's permitted to stop provided this is not necessitated by a stationary vehicle.
So surely it follows that if a motorist charges into a box hoping that the vehicle ahead clears the box but stops, then it's a contravention.
Let's hope for technical salvation.
-
@Pastmybest Thanks. I have incorporated it into the text.
-
This case is useful:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2200527816
Appellant Karine Reinton
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM K5EBT
PCN Details
PCN ZY02322546
Contravention date 20 Oct 2020
Contravention time 13:45:00
Contravention location Manor Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date
Decision Date 14 Jan 2021
Adjudicator Anthony Chan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appeal was heard over the telephone. The Authority was not represented.
The Appellant's first point is that the bus gate sign is a sign covered by section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It follows that the PCN cannot aver a breach of a Traffic Management Order. It must allege a failure to comply with the sign.
The Appellant referred me to appeal numbers 2170058483 and 2170323030 but she was unsighted on the appeal of Susan Rosshandler v LB of Southwark, appeal no 2180362323. This appeal postdates the appeals cited by the Appellant. The Adjudicator, who also gave the review decision in 2170323030 followed his own decision. He has however found that while a PCN which specifically avers a breach of a Traffic Management Order would be invalid, a PCN which can be construed as alleging a failure to comply with a sign is compliant. It does not have to spell out that there was a failure to comply with a sign.
The PCN sent to the Appellant alleges that her vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles. It does not refer to a TMO. It can be construed as averring a failure to comply with a sign. An image of the sign was embedded in the PCN. I am satisfied that the PCN does not specifically allege a breach of an order.
The Appellant's second point is that the PCN does not contain the information which it must provided as per section 4(8)(vii) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This subsection provides that the PCN must state the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent. The PCN sent to the Appellant contains a web address to which payment may be made and also a telephone number over which payment can be made but there is no postal address.
The Appellant submits that a web address is not an address within the meaning of the legislation.
Section 9(3) of the 2003 Act provides:
A fixed penalty notice under this section shall give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence and shall state—
(a)the period during which, by virtue of subsection (2) above, proceedings will not be taken for the offence;
(b)the amount of the fixed penalty; and
(c)the name of the person to whom and the address at which the fixed penalty may be paid; and, without prejudice to payment by any other method, payment of the fixed penalty may be made by pre-paying and posting to that person at that address a letter containing the amount of the penalty (in cash or otherwise).
The Appellant submits that Section 4 (8)(vii) must be read in the light of Section 9(3)(c) and this must exclude a web address as an address for the purpose of section 4.
A PCN described by Section 9 is a PCN for a fixed penalty offence. It is not a PCN issued under section 4 but there is some strength in the submission that one would not draw a distinction as to how a PCN can be paid even where the PCNs are provided by different parts of the same legislation.
The Appellant also makes the point that the inclusion of a web address as the sole address for payment disfranchises a section of the community from making payment in the only way that they can do so. The same argument would apply even if the Authority actually does enable postal payment but chooses not to provide a postal address in the PCN, not least because it will be the same section of the community which may not be able to ascertain the postal address. The legislation had clearly envisages a postal address when it was enacted and a "redefinition" with significant impact, albeit in line with progress in electronic communications, should be scrutinised by Parliament by way of a legislative change.
There is strength in the Appellant's submissions. The Authority has not made any submissions against it. I find that the PCN was non-compliant. I allow the appeal.
***
I will draft later today.
***
Also their website says this:
Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceZY09657892
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberGN72LKG
ColourRED
MakeMAZDA
Contravention31j - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)
LocationBaring Road - outside Grove Park Bus Station
First seen atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Issued atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00. Please pay £65.00 now.
That was a well crafted appeal, one of mine. I think there is an argument re the contravention based on the key case of essoo re being able to make a judgement and not have another driver do something unexpected as the bus did in moving right without indicating beforehand. Had the bus gone straight on then you would have had room to clear the box
-
Dear Lewisham
Ref: PCN RM
I make this collateral representation as follows:
The Penalty Charge Notice
On several occasions it describes itself as acting as a Notice to Owner, or Penalty Charge Notice/Notice to Owner and contains a whole section pertaining to Parking Legislation which should not be there. It is averred that, if it acts as a Notice to Owner, then it should contain the necessary grounds, which are absent.
Furthermore, it fails to mention payment by post option which it must. I rely upon case no 2200527816.
Your website
This currently contains an intimidatory demand for money which flies in the face of the statutory process, whether it creates prejudice or not.
Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket Reference ZY09657892
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberGN72LKG
ColourRED
MakeMAZDA
Contravention31j - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)
LocationBaring Road - outside Grove Park Bus Station
First seen atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Issued atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00. Please pay £65.00 now.
The alleged contravention itself
I say that the contravention did not occur and base my reasoning on the key case of Essoo re being able to make a judgement and not have another driver do something unexpected as the bus did in moving right without indicating beforehand. Had the bus gone straight on then I would have had room to clear the box.
Essoo –v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Gillingham%20v%20Newham%3B%20Essoo%20v%20Enfield%3B%20Khan%20v%20TfL.doc
In light of the above, I say that the PCN is unenforceable and I request cancellation.
Yours
Reg. keeper
-
I think there have been many subsequent cases where adjudicators have not accepted this point and specifically the chief adjuddiactor has changed his mind from his initial view that a postal address was mandated.
In any case no harm in trying since discount will still be in play.
We need the whole PCN. Also, it omits payment by post and a case has been allowed on this. It is worth making a representation. Also, in all three cases recently appealed at the Tribunal in the last couple of months they messed up the process by making an illegal demand for money while the appeal is pending.
Hi,
The rest of the PCN should be visible here:
https://imgur.com/a/bP1FyD0
Thank you for any help
This will be a technical appeal as the contravention occurred: what we call a collateral challenge. Bear with me please. Back after tea time with a draft.
-
We need the whole PCN. Also, it omits payment by post and a case has been allowed on this. It is worth making a representation. Also, in all three cases recently appealed at the Tribunal in the last couple of months they messed up the process by making an illegal demand for money while the appeal is pending.
Hi,
The rest of the PCN should be visible here:
https://imgur.com/a/bP1FyD0
Thank you for any help
This will be a technical appeal as the contravention occurred: what we call a collateral challenge. Bear with me please. Back after tea time with a draft.
-
This case is useful:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2200527816
Appellant Karine Reinton
Authority London Borough of Lewisham
VRM K5EBT
PCN Details
PCN ZY02322546
Contravention date 20 Oct 2020
Contravention time 13:45:00
Contravention location Manor Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date
Decision Date 14 Jan 2021
Adjudicator Anthony Chan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The appeal was heard over the telephone. The Authority was not represented.
The Appellant's first point is that the bus gate sign is a sign covered by section 36 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. It follows that the PCN cannot aver a breach of a Traffic Management Order. It must allege a failure to comply with the sign.
The Appellant referred me to appeal numbers 2170058483 and 2170323030 but she was unsighted on the appeal of Susan Rosshandler v LB of Southwark, appeal no 2180362323. This appeal postdates the appeals cited by the Appellant. The Adjudicator, who also gave the review decision in 2170323030 followed his own decision. He has however found that while a PCN which specifically avers a breach of a Traffic Management Order would be invalid, a PCN which can be construed as alleging a failure to comply with a sign is compliant. It does not have to spell out that there was a failure to comply with a sign.
The PCN sent to the Appellant alleges that her vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles. It does not refer to a TMO. It can be construed as averring a failure to comply with a sign. An image of the sign was embedded in the PCN. I am satisfied that the PCN does not specifically allege a breach of an order.
The Appellant's second point is that the PCN does not contain the information which it must provided as per section 4(8)(vii) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This subsection provides that the PCN must state the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent. The PCN sent to the Appellant contains a web address to which payment may be made and also a telephone number over which payment can be made but there is no postal address.
The Appellant submits that a web address is not an address within the meaning of the legislation.
Section 9(3) of the 2003 Act provides:
A fixed penalty notice under this section shall give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence and shall state—
(a)the period during which, by virtue of subsection (2) above, proceedings will not be taken for the offence;
(b)the amount of the fixed penalty; and
(c)the name of the person to whom and the address at which the fixed penalty may be paid; and, without prejudice to payment by any other method, payment of the fixed penalty may be made by pre-paying and posting to that person at that address a letter containing the amount of the penalty (in cash or otherwise).
The Appellant submits that Section 4 (8)(vii) must be read in the light of Section 9(3)(c) and this must exclude a web address as an address for the purpose of section 4.
A PCN described by Section 9 is a PCN for a fixed penalty offence. It is not a PCN issued under section 4 but there is some strength in the submission that one would not draw a distinction as to how a PCN can be paid even where the PCNs are provided by different parts of the same legislation.
The Appellant also makes the point that the inclusion of a web address as the sole address for payment disfranchises a section of the community from making payment in the only way that they can do so. The same argument would apply even if the Authority actually does enable postal payment but chooses not to provide a postal address in the PCN, not least because it will be the same section of the community which may not be able to ascertain the postal address. The legislation had clearly envisages a postal address when it was enacted and a "redefinition" with significant impact, albeit in line with progress in electronic communications, should be scrutinised by Parliament by way of a legislative change.
There is strength in the Appellant's submissions. The Authority has not made any submissions against it. I find that the PCN was non-compliant. I allow the appeal.
***
I will draft later today.
***
Also their website says this:
Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceZY09657892
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberGN72LKG
ColourRED
MakeMAZDA
Contravention31j - Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)
LocationBaring Road - outside Grove Park Bus Station
First seen atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Issued atTue, 27 Aug 2024 10:48
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00. Please pay £65.00 now.
-
We need the whole PCN. Also, it omits payment by post and a case has been allowed on this. It is worth making a representation. Also, in all three cases recently appealed at the Tribunal in the last couple of months they messed up the process by making an illegal demand for money while the appeal is pending.
Hi,
The rest of the PCN should be visible here:
https://imgur.com/a/bP1FyD0
Thank you for any help
-
We need the whole PCN. Also, it omits payment by post and a case has been allowed on this. It is worth making a representation. Also, in all three cases recently appealed at the Tribunal in the last couple of months they messed up the process by making an illegal demand for money while the appeal is pending.
-
I can't see you have any come back on the contravention as you had to wait for the bus to give you a gap.
May be something on the PCN.
(https://i.imgur.com/AksLyvH.gif)
-
https://imgur.com/a/WcVALSK
Hopefully that one works.
-
Repost the PCN obscuring only name and address.
-
I was sat in the left lane of a junction which had a yellow box junction covering the exit of a bus stand behind a bus that was not exiting the bus stand.
The lights changed to green, the road ahead was clear and the bus pulled forward into the box junction and I followed because the road was clear.
The bus driver then changed lanes without signalling and blocked both lanes of traffic with the back of his bus in the box junction. At this point I was trapped despite my lane being clear up to the lights and the lights being green.
The photos they’ve sent show the bus blocking the exit of the junction and the clear road beyond. I realise that if I had waited until the bus was completely clear of the junction then I wouldn’t have been fined, at the same time it feels massively unfair to have received a fine because of a stupid manoeuvre by the bus driver.
Is there any point contesting this?
https://imgur.com/a/qEx58hg