Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Mike_D on April 24, 2025, 06:56:17 pm
-
My absolute pleasure as ever. ;D
-
As you can see, appealling is always a good choice 8)
Many thanks to Hippocrates for sharing his knowledge and for the representation before the Tribunals!
It's been a great experience to see how the system works ;)
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WSBVHktf6Yu3twJANacn8mmlTQKt1-t_/view).
-
;D 2250426286 wording.
-
I will file tomorrow.
-
Sorted.
-
I'll PM you now. 27th August is deadline.
-
Super busy. I will do something this afternoon as I have two appeals to write today.
-
Thanks mate, looking forward to having your advice.
If I were to appeal, I would need to do it till Monday 25th (or Tuesday 26th, but let's not tempt fate here ;) )
-
Gt your message. Back tomorrow.
-
How about this, combining two points:
In my opinion, the video does not show the situation upon alleged entry into the YBJ and so it follows that the alleged contravention is not proved (please refer to the following cases: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc )
Additionally, when I entered the box, I was going to take the left lane while leaving the junction - just after that beige Nissan Micra, where there was enough space to exit the yellow box.
However, I checked my mirror before going to the left lane, and I got scared by that big van coming right behind me at high speed – so I had to take the right lane for my safety.
Based on the above, I would kindly ask to approve my appeal.
However, I am not sure if I am not making two contradicting statements here - one that there was no proved contradiction (from the legal standpoint), but on the other hand I am kind of explaining that it actually was, but it was not my fault...
Any hint, guys?
-
Hello guys,
I have received a rejection to my formal representation: LINK (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mopurmvik6h52liy4iybk/PCN-formal-rep.-rejection.pdf?rlkey=sopa8fm5er0cfpiddo5nphvqa&st=4ymjrure&dl=0)
It is dated 29.07.2025, so it must have come right after I had left for my holiday (on 1.08). I found it in the evening yesterday, right after coming back home.
There are still 12 days to take it to the London Tribunals, but as I am new to this - do you have any advice on the wording, arguments to be used, etc.?
-
Reasons
The allegation on the face of the PCN in this case is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is more formally stated in terms 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’.
The above prohibition does not apply where the driver enters the box junction for the purpose of turning right and stops the vehicle only for
‘so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn’.
The Appellant does not dispute that he entered and stopped in the box junction but claims the right hand turn exemption as he was prevented from completing the right hand turn by a bus which was also turning right. However, the enforcement camera footage shows that even if the bus had not been there the Appellant would not have been able to clear the box junction without stopping as there was insufficient space in front of the bus. The stationary vehicles which prevented both the bus and the Appellant clearing the box junction were either proceeding straight ahead or had completed their right hand turn. It follows the right hand turn exemption cannot apply.
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.
This is where I disagree with the interpretation. The wording of the regulation is drafted such that if the exemption applies (i.e. you stop behind someone stationary while completing a right turn) then the original prohibition of entering and stopping does not apply.
Michael Burke is saying that the exemption does not apply because the vehicle in front, while turning right, committed a contravention by entering in the first place. Taking his comments at face value, surely the bus committed a contravention but not the vehicle waiting behind the bus.
-
2240327073 was the only one allowed on wording itself. They have now changed it of course but the website issue is for later.
-
I've had a look at the tribunal. You could check the PCN wording against one case. The lack of entry allowed in others. A refused right turn case.
--------
Case Details
Case reference 2240046143
Appellant Jeffrey Gentzler
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM EK60LTA
PCN Details
PCN HG60759156
Contravention date 04 Oct 2023
Contravention time 16:17:00
Contravention location Main Road / upper Brentwood Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 16 Mar 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This appeal was listed for face to face hearing before me today. Neither party to the proceedings attended. It now falls to me to decide the appeal on the papers. The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. The council relies upon its online footage of the incident to prove this contravention. That footage opens with the vehicle already inside the box at its far end. It does not show the vehicle's entry to the box and thus the state of the box and its exit lanes at that time. On this footage all elements of this contravention have not been proved. I allow the appeal.
---------
Case Details
Case reference 2240029712
Appellant Patrick Hallissey
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM LF17BZD
PCN Details
PCN HG60759167
Contravention date 04 Oct 2023
Contravention time 16:18:00
Contravention location Main Road / Upper Brentwood Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 12 Apr 2024
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
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.
There is no time constraint by which the local authority shall serve their notice of rejection. For some reason however they have said in their penalty notice that they will serve the decision within the period of 56 days.
In addition, the video evidence does not show the vehicle enter the box junction. It only shows the vehicle on the box junction.
I will allow the appeal on both limbs.
--------
Case Details
Case reference 2240327073
Appellant Kuttykrishnan Ramswaroop
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM LB60LLU
PCN Details
PCN HG61195227
Contravention date 29 May 2024
Contravention time 18:26:00
Contravention location Main Road / Upper Brentwood Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 03 Sep 2024
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented by Mr Morgan, who attended in person but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.
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 Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device. There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that the Penalty Charge Notice is not compliant as regards the ground for making original representations to the Enforcement Authority.
Paragraph 1(4) in Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides that the grounds are:
(a) that the recipient (i) never was the owner of the vehicle in question; (ii) had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the penalty charge was alleged to have become payable; or (iii) became its owner after that date;
(b) that there was no (i) contravention of a prescribed order; or (ii) failure to comply with an indication; or (iii) contravention of the lorry ban order, under subsection (5) or (7) of the said section 4 as the case may be;
(c) that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;
(d) that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and (i) the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and (ii) the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement; or
(e) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
The grounds for representations stated on the Penalty Charge Notice are:
* The alleged contravention did not occur
* You
– were never the owner of the vehicle in question
– had cease to be the owner owner before the date on which the alleged contravention occurred, or
– became its owner after that date;
* The vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the the owner’s consent
* That you are a vehicle-hire firm and –
– the vehicle in question was on hire under a vehicle hiring agreement at the time of the contravention, and
– the person hiring the vehicle had signed a statement of liability in respect of any penalty charge notice served during the period of the hiring agreement;
* The penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
* The traffic order (except where it is an order made under Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) which is alleged to have been contravened is invalid.
The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 11(1).
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
---------
Case Details
Case reference 2240394900
Appellant Savas Betton
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM FP17FBK
PCN Details
PCN HG61265038
Contravention date 28 Jun 2024
Contravention time 19:29:00
Contravention location Main Road / Upper Brentwood Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
The allegation on the face of the PCN in this case is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is more formally stated in terms 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’.
The above prohibition does not apply where the driver enters the box junction for the purpose of turning right and stops the vehicle only for
‘so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn’.
The Appellant does not dispute that he entered and stopped in the box junction but claims the right hand turn exemption as he was prevented from completing the right hand turn by a bus which was also turning right. However, the enforcement camera footage shows that even if the bus had not been there the Appellant would not have been able to clear the box junction without stopping as there was insufficient space in front of the bus. The stationary vehicles which prevented both the bus and the Appellant clearing the box junction were either proceeding straight ahead or had completed their right hand turn. It follows the right hand turn exemption cannot apply.
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.
-
This situation is usually seen as nothing to do with the right turn exemption as it is a T junction with no oncoming traffic.
But trying to judge such an exit from way back before a large box and then turning is unfair but it is what it is. The box is there to help people turning right but then you can become a victim.
It does look like you may have be heading to the left lane but the van got there first - you have to be aggressive in such situations.
Not showing the entry is probably the best bet plus that. Look where the stop line is on the side road.
(https://i.ibb.co/kgpSPjrf/Media1-ezgif-com-optimize.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/0V6yg72z/Screenshot-2025-05-08-at-13-48-16.png)
-
The exemption is quite detailed and includes, amongst other things, that the vehicle you are waiting behind and that is preventing you from leaving the box is stationary while "waiting to complete a right turn".
In this video, the vehicle the OP is waiting behind is stationary outside the box and already fully aligned with the road it has turned into (or at least that's how it looks to me). Thus I think it is no longer waiting to complete the right turn, it's already completed it.
-
I must be missing your point.
The exception is clear. If you're turning right and get stuck in the box by other traffic. You're exempt from the rule. It may be something Council bods ignore. But don't they ignore most rules to issue PCNs in the first instance.
The rule is clear and it might be a win at Tribunal because that's the only time the Law is really considered. It's worth considering in my opinion.
-
The vehicle behind which the OP stops has already completed its right turn (in my opinion).
Besides which, adjudicators seem to interpret this exemption in such a way that it doesn't apply if the exit is blocked (albeit I don't think that's what it says).
-
Isn't there a right turn exception for box junctions:
The Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2016
Box junctions
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 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
junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (4) the marking when placed as a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(c) of the definition of that expression 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 junction due to the presence of oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.
(3) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not, in respect of a box junction within sub-paragraph (6)(a) of the definition of that expression, apply to a person who—
(a)causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and
(b)stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
-
Thanks, duly noted.
I made it with the recommended wording, so let's wait till they respond.
Cheers!
-
By the way, if I take this approach now, and they reject it, will I be able to go with another approach ("I was going to take the left lane leaving the junction just after that beige Nissan Micra, but I looked in the mirror and got scared by that big van coming right behind me at high speed – so I stayed on the right lane for my safety, not blocking any traffic after all?") before the London Tribunals?
For later.
-
Please show the representation first. If you are going with the video issue, contravention did not occur. Leave the website for now.
Maybe I don't get something here, but I was going to go exactly as you advised:
The video does not show the situation upon alleged entry into the YBJ and so it follows that the alleged contravention is not proved. I refer you to the following cases:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
By the way, if I take this approach now, and they reject it, will I be able to go with another approach ("I was going to take the left lane leaving the junction just after that beige Nissan Micra, but I looked in the mirror and got scared by that big van coming right behind me at high speed – so I stayed on the right lane for my safety, not blocking any traffic after all?") before the London Tribunals?
-
Please show the representation first. If you are going with the video issue, contravention did not occur. Leave the website for now.
-
Guys,
I am making the representation.
What should I mark as the Representation Reason?
A - The alleged Contravention did not occur
F - There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority
I - Other?
-
This alleged contravention was on 3 April so is the penalty demanded not correct in that case?
Yes, it is correct.
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2025/london-boroughs-raise-parking-and-traffic-pcn-levels-first-time-2011-0
Apologies. Time for Specsavers.
-
1. The penalty charge as stated on the PCN subceeds the correct amount which came into force on 7th April.
2. The video does not show the situation upon alleged entry into the YBJ and so it follows that the alleged contravention is not proved. I refer you to the following cases:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
If they reject, I am happy to assist.
Oops, my bad yet again.
-
This alleged contravention was on 3 April so is the penalty demanded not correct in that case?
Yes, it is correct.
https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/news-and-press-releases/2025/london-boroughs-raise-parking-and-traffic-pcn-levels-first-time-2011-0
-
This alleged contravention was on 3 April so is the penalty demanded not correct in that case?
-
Did the change in penalty come into force for offences from 7 April or PCNs issued/served from 7 April? Offence in this case was prior to 7 April...
London councils could charge the higher penalties beginning with contraventions on 7 April. One council didn't start doing this until 14 April (Haringey I think).
-
Did the change in penalty come into force for offences from 7 April or PCNs issued/served from 7 April? Offence in this case was prior to 7 April...
-
1. The penalty charge as stated on the PCN subceeds the correct amount which came into force on 7th April.
2. The video does not show the situation upon alleged entry into the YBJ and so it follows that the alleged contravention is not proved. I refer you to the following cases:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
If they reject, I am happy to assist.
-
Guys, if I were to go for it, do you have any recommended wording that I should use for this appeal?
PS I signed the petition, so did my wife and my daughter ;)
-
When did London PCNs increase because this one is still at £130/65 ?
Obviously we cant't use 'penalty exceeded' but maybe 'stupidy exceeded' ?
7th April. I used "subceeded" recently!
-
When did London PCNs increase because this one is still at £130/65 ?
Obviously we cant't use 'penalty exceeded' but maybe 'stupidy exceeded' ?
-
2240040646; 2230099245.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Place%20Invaders%20Ltd.doc
-
OK, but being the devil’s advocate:
If the contravention only occurs when entering the box, and the video should be showing this (while it is not), then that may be a ground to appeal indeed – but just from a purely legal perspective.
In fact, the camera zooms out in 0:18 and shows almost the entire junction (BUT still not the place I was standing at and entering the junction from!).
Might they argue that even though the exact moment of me entering the junction is not visible on the video, it still shows that I could have clearly seen at that moment that there was no room to leave it? That Toyota C-HR before my car was standing there for quite a long time before I even appeared on the video (thus – allegedly entered the junction)…
On the other hand -could I say that I was going to take the left lane leaving the junction just after that beige Nissan Micra, but I looked in the mirror and got scared by that big van coming right behind me at high speed – so I stayed on the right lane for my safety, not blocking any traffic after all?
I am trying to see all the angles here before I charge at the wall head-on…
-
There is a key case on this. I won one v Kingston last year too. And they STILL have an incorrect ground on their PCN re traffic order!
Website is still defective:
A- The alleged Contravention did not occur
B I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of contravention
- I had sold the vehicle before that date
- I had bought the vehicle after that date
- I have never owned that vehicle
C - The vehicle was taken without my consent
D - We are a hire firm and have supplied details
E - The Penalty Charge exceeds the relevant amount
F - There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority
G - The traffic order contravened is invalid
H - The Notice should not have been served because the Penalty Charge had already been paid
I - Other
-
+1
I was just reading cases on this very subject. It is generally agreed by London Tribunals, is that the contravention occurs when entering the box, ("cause a vehicle to enter the box......that it has to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicle")
As the video is the sole evidence, those that do not show entry don't show the contravention.
-
Normally the video has to show the precise moment of entry into the box junction as this is when the offence if committed. In your case your vehicle enters the box off screen, and we do not know at what moment that was or precise traffic conditions.
See what others think but you may be able to beat it on that basis.
-
Hello Guys,
I am not done yet with appealing against one ridiculous PCN HERE (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-havering-code-62-one-wheel-over-a-'footpath'/), while I just received another one:
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lwur6znny7c37k15p1d3m/PCN_Boxjunction.pdf?rlkey=ilymfpkyjsd5l3zgt40qejh3k&st=re3qodbs&dl=0 (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/lwur6znny7c37k15p1d3m/PCN_Boxjunction.pdf?rlkey=ilymfpkyjsd5l3zgt40qejh3k&st=re3qodbs&dl=0)
This one is more tricky - the traffic was quite fluid when I entered the crossing and I was pretty sure I was going to have enough room to get out of the box.
I was in a hurry, and I remember standing there just of a second or two, but the video shows that apparently it was a bit longer.
To make it easier to watch the video: parking.havering.gov.uk (https://parking.havering.gov.uk/pages/OnlineReferenceEntry.aspx?loadtype=NOTICEREVIEW)
VRN: NH21FFV
PCN no. HG61859178
Is it "appealable" at all (with any chance for a successful outcome) or is it just better to pay the discounted fee in this case (which I would hate to do for my "beloved" council)?