Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Robina267 on March 24, 2025, 05:16:53 pm
-
https://youtu.be/x-nuX5XaRJk
-
;D Did the interview today. Went well and I joined the Radio Jackie Mugged Club. Two mugs provided gratis.
-
https://youtu.be/HZRybHyQ91I
More Kingston incompetence.
-
I will personally drive there and do the same. 8) Be nice to see the Fairfield Halls again - best acoustics in the country.
-
Wile preparing for my Radio Jackie interview on 4th September, I noticed that in Section J they provided full details of someone else's PCN including name and address.
This happens a lot, I normally contact the other person, explain what's happened, and offer to represent them as well.
-
Further update
While preparing for my Radio Jackie interview on 4th September, I noticed that in Section J they provided full details of someone else's PCN including name and address.
Macey Briggs is responsible.
These people are paid to do a job and hold powerful positions in that they make people pay. This person should apologise, resign or move on to another outfit like a failed football manager.
-
Update! They have reduced it. Was there today. FOIR and complaint sent re the plan.
https://t.co/Xx9WebQYix
-
A very pleasant experience. A proper discussion. There is also an issue with their PCN - for another day.
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s1_SCCL4shS3aCgdUnDUQPkQicBbmsx2/view).
-
;D Length of the box. Decision tomorrow.
-
The skill lies also in what day to choose for the hearing. ;)
-
There are some adjudicators who won't consider the box non-compliant including you know who.
Andrew Harman has upheld at least five appeals for non-compliance for this box.
It is this lack of consistency that gives the tribunal a bad name as appeals which have solid grounds become a lottery.
That said most of the many appeals here are only on the contravention, and Kingston also doesn't contest a lot.
Some adjudicators will also look at grounds that aren't even in the appeal if they see something obvious/from before.
--------
(https://i.imgur.com/0Um29Zi.gif)
Case reference 2240580483
Appellant Arunachalam vinayagaraj
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM DN16HRL
PCN Details
PCN QT09983195
Contravention date 29 Oct 2024
Contravention time 20:36:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 24 Mar 2025
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons The allegation in this case is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The Appellant does not dispute this. He states that the vehicle ahead indicated right very late and he entered the box junction to avoid a collision. He also asserts that the particular box junction is non-compliant in that it is too long. He has provided plans and photograph as supporting evidence.
I have considered the Appellant’s evidence together with the enforcement camera evidence and I am satisfied the box junction was substantially compliant.
I have considered the enforcement camera evidence on the Enforcement Authority's website and I am satisfied it shows a clear example of the contravention. The Appellant entered the box junction when the traffic ahead was slowing to a halt and it was plain he would not be able to clear the box junction without stopping. He appears to have realised this and stopped but by then it was too late as most of his vehicle was already in the box junction. The contravention occurs if any part of the vehicle has to stop in the box junction.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
-
No worries. Just replied. ;D
-
That's great! :) Thanks so much. Have sent you a PM for some clarifications.
-
This is for later:
Representation Grounds*
Select all that apply, you have the opportunity to add additional information on the next screen.
Any other ground
At the time of the alleged contravention the vehicle was in the control of someone without my consent
General Representation
I was not the owner at the material time
I was not the owner of the vehicle
Other grounds
Procedural impropriety
The CEO was not prevented from serving the PCN
The contravention did not occur
The order was invalid
The PCN has been paid
The penalty charge exceeded the amount
The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case
The person who was in control of the vehicle at the time was in control without my consent
The police are taking action
The vehicle was taken without my consent
There was no breach of the bus lane order/ regulation
We are a hire firm
We are a hire firm and have supplied the name of the hirer
Registered Keeper*
The red parts are rubbish as they are not grounds.
Draft:
Dear RBK
I make these formal representations against the PCN:
1. The locus as given is too vague.
2. The yellow box junction does not comply with the legislation as it is too large.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN as the alleged contravention is not proved.
********
When they reject, I am more than happy to do battle on your behalf with one of my favourite opponents.
-
Thanks for all the information. Should the appeal be based on ambiguous location then or on the fact the yellow box extends too far before the junctions? Or both?
-
I am more than happy to do this one as I have also won costs against them re the same box.
-
Kingston Road is a vague location and we can see two boxes in the video. But assuming it's the same... There are about 200 appeals at the or a Kingston Road box junction.
-------
Case Details
Case reference 2220802028
Appellant Stanmore Quality Services Ltd
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM MF22 VOO
PCN Details
PCN QT06663041
Contravention date 01 Sep 2022
Contravention time 15:50:00
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 03 Dec 2022
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Murray-Smith, for the appellant, appeared before me today via telephone. This was an alleged box junction contravention. I was satisfied upon Mr Murray-Smith raising the point at paragraph 2 of his Grounds of Appeal uploaded to the case on 21 11 22 that this box was marked beyond the junction it served. I was not satisfied for that reason that it was correctly marked. I made no finding as to any other issue raised by Mr Murray-Smith but for the reason given this contravention had not I found been proved and I allowed the appeal.
---------
Case Details
Case reference 2230101289
Appellant Grahame Gould
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM GK22GYX
PCN Details
PCN QT07152977
Contravention date 01 Jan 2023
Contravention time 14:38:00
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Mar 2023
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant has attended his appeal by telephone.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Kingston Road on 1 January 2023 at 14.38.
The Appellant denies the contravention and argues, principally, that the box junction commences too soon and extends too far after the junction.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 has relaxed the stricter requirements of box junctions as in the previous TSRGD 2002.
In that respect whilst I find that box junctions are no longer required to touch the kerb or require Departmental approval, I find that they still have to be at a junction.
In this particular case I find that this box junction is neither compliant or substantially compliant with the TSRGD because it extends too far before and past the junction.
I also find that, whilst the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction, it was not due to another vehicle travelling in the same direction as his vehicle.
There was ample room for the Appellant's vehicle to move forwards in this box junction and I am, therefore, not satisfied that his vehicle was stopped '...due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.'
Taking these matters together I find that this PCN cannot be upheld and is not proved.
The appeal is allowed.
----------
Case Details
Case reference 2240084051
Appellant susan Strank
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM NJ17BFK
PCN Details
PCN QT08637767
Contravention date 18 Dec 2023
Contravention time 09:42:00
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 May 2024
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
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.
The appellant has stated that the location expressed on the penalty notice is ambiguous; there are four Kingston Roads across the borough.
In the case of Hackney Drivers Association Limited v The Parking Adjudicator and Lancashire County Council CO/7565/2012 on 31st October 2012 Mr. Justice Raynor when considering a penalty notice asked at paragraph 11 of his judgment, "what was fairly conveyed by the penalty notice, read as a whole?" The recipient requires certainty.
I agree with the appellant; she did not receive certainty. As stated above, a box junction must be at the junction of two roads; there is no mention of the road at the junction of Kingston Road where the box junction is situated.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
-------
Case Details
Case reference 2250036623
Appellant Pawel Nieczuja-Ostrowski
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM BJ73ELH
PCN Details
PCN QT10165048
Contravention date 16 Dec 2024
Contravention time 20:43:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 18 Mar 2025
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons
The Appellant is appealing a PCN issued in respect of entering and stopping on a box junction at the location.
The Appellant has not attended the hearing which has been listed, nor provided any explanation in relation to such non-attendance. I therefore find it proportionate to decide the matter in the Appellant's absence.
The Enforcement Authority relies upon photographic capture of the vehicle, copy of the PCN, map/site report and correspondence.
The Appellant contends that this box junction pre-dates the current road layout and is obsolete, non-compliant and not fit for purpose. He also contends that the road was not blocked and no obstruction was caused. He has provided photographic evidence in support of his contention.
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.
Somewhat unhelpfully, I have not been provided with CCTV footage of the incident. However, the photographic evidence that the Authority has provided includes two photographs of the vehicle showing its front wheels within the box. One photograph is timed at 20.43.47 and another at 20.43.30. Having enlarged and studied these photographs, I am satisfied that the vehicle is in the same position and was stationary on the box for some 2-3 seconds, due to stationary traffic ahead.
The contravention is an immediate one, and occurs as soon as a vehicle becomes stationary on the junction. I find that the "de minimis" principle is therefore not applicable in this case.
A box junction must be located at a junction between two or more roads. Its purpose is to ensure that vehicles have unrestricted access at the junction and that traffic flow is not impeded. A box junction should not extend significantly beyond the junction as it would serve no useful purpose and would not achieve its objective, although there is an element of flexibility. If a box junction extends significantly beyond the junction, then it may be that no contravention has taken place if a vehicle stops in that section of junction which extends significantly past the junction. Each case is highly fact specific.
EA has provided an aerial view of the junction. However, this view is undated and I cannot determine with certainty whether or not it accords with the road layout as it was at the time of the contravention. Having considered the photographic capture of the vehicle provided by the EA, I find it likely that that road layout has since changed - the kerbline appears to have been altered and the aerial view does not accord with one ascertainable in the still captures.
In this case, the Appellant's vehicle stopped at the start of the box. A significant section of this junction appears to protrude past the junction itself, and the location where the vehicle stopped appears to be in a section of the box which extends significantly past the mouth of the junction. It is hard to see how a vehicle crossing the main carriageway could be impeded by the Appellant's vehicle or how this first section of the box assists in the statutory objective.
I therefore allow this appeal.
(https://i.imgur.com/XJh67Bb.gif)
-
https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2023/05/kingston-road-new-malden-yellow-box.html?m=1
@mrmustard may be able to assist
-
Doesn't look like space ahead to clear.
There may be something in the extent of the box as where you stopped is before the junction.
Not really. It's blocking anyone behind from turning left.
-
Doesn't look like space ahead to clear.
There may be something in the extent of the box as where you stopped is before the junction.
(https://i.imgur.com/0rGUYM2.gif)
-
Have received a PCN from Kingston Council. 31J:31j Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement).
I have stopped in a yellow box, I naively thought it was okay as I was not blocking the junction from access (the yellow box is huge).
Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/FxtpQ4MbHYNY3XBp8, 51.400706, -0.265359
Video: https://imgur.com/a/xhdfkJf
Photos: https://imgur.com/a/2G4Hj8D
PCN: https://imgur.com/a/FyRtitx
Any advice on whether I can appeal this?