Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: john_s_wf on December 07, 2024, 10:27:29 am
-
Case Details
Case reference 2250059378
Appellant John Saxton
Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM KM69UJO
PCN Details
PCN FR64089158
Contravention date 22 Nov 2024
Contravention time 15:12:00
Contravention location Hoe St / Selborne Rd
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Apr 2025
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons
The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of entering and stopping on a box junction at the location.
The matter is listed for a Teams hearing and the Appellant has attended the hearing.
The Enforcement Authority relies upon photographic capture of the incident, a copy of the PCN and correspondence.
The Appellant accepts that his vehicle stopped on the junction, but disputes that this was due to stationary traffic. He has submitted written representations and annotated photographic evidence in support of his appeal.
I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle entered the box junction and then stopped in the junction owing to stationary traffic impeding its exit from the box. Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 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 CCTV evidence that the Authority has provided shows the vehicle turning left and entering the box junction. It is not readily evidence from the footage as to whether there was sufficient "receiving " space on the far side of the box, as contended by the Appellant, who has provided documentation relating to the length of his vehicle and the available space. However, as the vehicle slows to a halt, pedestrians to the right begin to cross the road ahead of the vehicle, followed by a person on a scooter. As the person on the scooter has almost reached the footway, another pedestrian crosses the carriageway from the other direction. As soon as this pedestrian is clear of the vehicle, the vehicle moves forward and off the box.
I cannot be satisfied that the reason for the vehicle coming to a halt was the presence of stationary traffic.
I therefore allow this appeal.
-
Adjudicator went with my argument.
Please post the case number so wew can read the adjudicators reasoning. This all helps with future cases.
-
Adjudicator went with my argument.
-
You'll need to take it to the tribunal. My view is you'll win.but you risk the whole fine. If you want I will email you over the skeleton argument Ivan did for me (I don't think he would have any objections to me doing This). You have basically got to change the details where needed but it'll give you a layout for how to argue it at the tribunal. Drop me a pm if you want this.
-
Please be advised that a contravention is committed if any part of the vehicle including either the front/back wheels are stationary in the box regardless of the length of time involved.
A total mis-statement of the law, (as usual). Only if the driver enters the box and has to stop in it due to the presence of stationary vehicles, is a contravention committed.
-
Hi,
So assistance with next steps please. I assume the adjudicator website takes text and pictures so I'll structure as below. Also is it worth complaining about the response in the appeal or is that just pointless noise on my part?
I am appealing against the PCN issued by Waltham Forest for "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited".
As per my diagrams and explanation to them 'The contravention did not occur. The car did not stop in the box junction "due to the presence of stationary vehicles" as required for the offence, but to allow pedestrians to cross.'
Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 makes it clear that the offence is stopping within the box "due to the presence of stationary vehicles". This did not occur as shown below
My car is 4.6 metres long.
[attachimg=1]
This is a screenshot of where the car in front stopped: -
[attachimg=2]
This is a view from google maps with measurements to show there is ample space for my car to fit. It could either have driven directly forwards or even towards the righthand side.
[attachimg=3]
In addition, I would like to complain about the response from the council. The legislation makes it clear that they should "consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the recipient provides" and that the handling of decisions is a "quasi-judicial function". From this I would expect them to carefully consider my point under the legislation. I do not believe they did this, indeed the 'custom' portion of their template response rejection just stated "Please be advised that a contravention is committed if any part of the vehicle including either the front/back wheels are stationary in the box regardless of the length of time involved. The CCTV footage confirms the vehicle was stationary in the box junction." This obviously goes no way to addressing my argument bearing no relation to it.
Regards,
John
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
TESCO effect
every little helps
-
costs application?
vexatious?
Costs to them are trivial when considered as a percentage of the total penalties revenue. Only 1% of PCN recipients take the matter to adjudication. So even if they lost every case at adjudication, they'd still be quids-in.
-
costs application?
vexatious?
-
Yet they seem to be able to reply with gobbledegook with next to no risk of it coming back to bite them on the arse.
Absolutely ! There are no adverse consequences on them whatsoever, apart from maybe losing an adjucation, and even then these represent only about 1% of PCNs so they dine out very generously on people who just cough-up to get the discount.
-
I am sure someone with more knowledge of this knows the answer but why don't representatives make a Costs application on each and every occasion the council come back with a load of garbage as they have here.
Clearly the PCN isn't valid. Clearly it should be cancelled. Yet they seem to be able to reply with gobbledegook with next to no risk of it coming back to bite them on the arse.
-
Thanks, so I take it to adjudicator with the same argument?
Is there an additional argument that the council obviously hasn't "consider the representation and any supporting evidence" as they are required to do despite their claim to have "carefully considered"?
John
-
As usual their reply is total tosh. Reference is only made to the Highway Code which is NOT law. The law is quite clear on YBJs; the offence is only made out if the car has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
-
Hi, so I sent them this challenge: -
[attachimg=1]
I then received this rejection
[attachimg=2]
[attachimg=3]
[attachimg=4]
If anyone could help me with some pointers on the next steps please?
Thanks.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Just email your representations in a normal email to them
wfpcn@nsl.co.uk
-
Thanks,
I just noticed when going to put in my representation that I am restricted to only one choice. That seems to be raised as an issue here - https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-redbridge-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-ped/15/ - so is that also worth noting?
[attachimg=1]
Thanks.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
John your car is 4.6m long
https://www.automobiledimension.com/model/citroen/grand-c4-spacetourer
The gap immediately in front of your car was more than that. You should include this in your representations.
At anyone's best guess you had over double the length of your car if you measure to where the back of the nearest car was (roughly the curb near the island on the right).
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Your representations text should not mention the worn markings, and concentrate solely on the circumstances of stopping (for pedestrians), because they will reject no matter what you say. This is to force you to pay-up at the discounted rate, rather than wait for the next enforcement document when the discount option is lost. The council know that by refusing all representations, most people, like over 95%, just cough up the discount. It's a nice little earner for them.
The plain fact is the contravention is not made out. The stopping must be due to stationary vehicles blocking your exit from the box, nothing else. If they refuse you and you take them to London Tribunals, you would have a strong case for costs when you win.
-
Thanks everyone.
It's annoying that because of the angle, fact that the camera moves and the low quality video it's hard to see the positions well. While I'm satisfied there's room there's always other peoples interpretations. I've uploaded a google maps view of the location.
I assume that the location to be concerned about is where exactly the car in front stops for the first time?
Is it worth mentioning the worn markings? I'll have to go down to see if they actually are worn or whether it's the camera quality.
Something like this: -
Dear Sirs
Ref: PCN: FR64089158
I make the following representations as to why the offence did not occur:
1. The hatched box markings are excessively worn, particularly on the exit.
2. The car did not stop in the box junction "due to the presence of stationary vehicles" as required for the offence, but to allow pedestrians to cross. Indeed, at the time that the car in front stops there is space for a car directly behind it and to the right (as occupied by the grey van at approximately the 24 second mark.)
Is there anything else worth mentioning or modifying?
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
100% agree, no contravention here. The car stops for pedestrians and once they have crossed there's plenty of room to clear the box completely.
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-i5PiVGSA50MQJPVyOLnf0NhhgkVN9nx/edit
Your case is similar to mine in that you stopped short and could have cleared the box but didn't.youll need to measure your car and the gap that was there (there is an app to do that).then informal reps which will be refused and then onto the tribunal where you risk the whole amount.
If you ask nicely ivan might pop along to give his view. If he says it's a runner, go with it
Waltham forest are sub human detritus however so you will have to risk paying the whole lot.
-
No contravention. There is only a contravention if you had to stop in the box due to stationary vehicles
-
Hi,
Recently received this PCN - not me driving though ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8ZYP-o2W8I
I think (& driver thinks) there was room to clear the junction but they stopped to allow pedestrians to cross
Is this enough to appeal - there was space in front, in the case this might not have been sufficient space the driver could still have pulled to the right and cleared the junction that way?
In addition the paint of the box seems fairly worn, might this be helpful?
Thanks.