Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: dad-taxi on June 06, 2025, 11:29:28 am
-
This is closed.
I won by default (as the council did not provide any evidence for the Tribunal) !! :D
Received a letter from the Greenwich authority that it stands cancelled
thanks to all members for the support provided.
-
Just an update for everyone.
1530 today was the scheduled hearing and I got a call around 1400 from Tribunals to confirm the Greenwich authority hadnt uploaded any evidence so the Tribunal will now make a decision themselves based on what they have and inform us. I will post back when I hear more.
Thanks to all the members for the advice and help provided.
Cheers,
dad-taxi
-
No evidence adduced 2 days before the hearing. ;)
-
I'll do it for you. Forget the portal: they must serve their evidence on you by post and not expect you to look at the Tribunal portal every day. I have a radio interview planned so, at this short notice, if they adduce, we will ask for a reschedule.
-
@dad-taxi I have just looked at this case in detail and their website representation page. Please screenshot it and attempt to put in the statutory grounds! It is not fit for purpose. Screenshot the results too please. Still no evidence. If they adduce any before the hearing, we will ned to ask for an adjournment in the interests of justice.
I checked just now and still no evidence. I have kept a screenshot for timestamp purposes.
Type something in the box below like 'disabled badge' or 'illness' to search for an appeal reason
Search for an appeal reason :
penalty exceeded the amount
Suggested reasons for 'penalty exceeded the amount'
No reasons have matched your search
I didn't quite understand how/where I am supposed to do/check this ? They do have a page which says these only grounds https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/grounds-appeal/grounds-appeal-moving-traffic (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/grounds-appeal/grounds-appeal-moving-traffic)
Cheers,
dad-taxi
-
@dad-taxi I have just looked at this case in detail and their website representation page. Please screenshot it and attempt to put in the statutory grounds! It is not fit for purpose. Screenshot the results too please. Still no evidence. If they adduce any before the hearing, we will ned to ask for an adjournment in the interests of justice.
For example:
Type something in the box below like 'disabled badge' or 'illness' to search for an appeal reason
Search for an appeal reason :
penalty exceeded the amount
Suggested reasons for 'penalty exceeded the amount'
No reasons have matched your search
-
OK. I'll help. No evidence adduced by them yet so we do nothing at the moment. Let me know when you receive it.
-
Of course they do - even me.
-
Thank you both. I'd obviously love to take up the offers for the write up and rep. I am deer in headlights here and any help is appreciated.
I'll login to tribunals and check if they allow adding a rep now (I said no when originally filling the form) but I'd 100% benefit from a write up. Again l really appreciate the pro bono community support here
-
@Pastmybest I am available, too, if @dad-taxi wants representation. ;D The Tribunal now wants representatives to adduce their skeleton argument 14 days before the hearing.
My advice to dad-taxi would be have representation if possible ( I cannot commit at present) but if you take it on he would be well served (would you like my skeleton if so e mail me
Dad taxi if you wish to take up hippos offer send him a PM. He is an expert of long standing and is very good, adjudicators listen to him
-
@Pastmybest I am available, too, if @dad-taxi wants representation. ;D The Tribunal now wants representatives to adduce their skeleton argument 14 days before the hearing.
-
Please consider this too:
I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it does not state mandatory information provided at 4.8.(v) of
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
which in turn refers to 4.8(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not clear in terms of when to pay - the word must state is expressed in the legislation, and must is different from should. Furthermore, the statement under What should you do? further exacerbates the issue and conflates the two periods in any event.
Also, the YBJ is too large. And you stopped before the junction.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/kingston-opon-thames-31j-yellow-box-kingston-road/msg82995/#msg82995
-
Just seen this i will draft a skeleton in the next week or so
Thank you . Much appreciated 👍
-
Just seen this i will draft a skeleton in the next week or so
-
let me know when you have it and a case number and i will write your skeleton
[/quote]
Hello
I have a response from London Tribunals now. The hearing date has been set for 4th September at 1530 (via Teams).
The case reference number is 2250340861
-
I did not offer to represent you, I said i would write your appeal, This i will do, but you wil need to appear yourself.
Thanks, I have now submitted my appeal, awaiting acceptance.
let me know when you have it and a case number and i will write your skeleton
-
I did not offer to represent you, I said i would write your appeal, This i will do, but you wil need to appear yourself.
Thanks, I have now submitted my appeal, awaiting acceptance.
-
I did not offer to represent you, I said i would write your appeal, This i will do, but you wil need to appear yourself.
-
This case may be of some use to you.
Look up London Tribunals register of appeals for case 2130491073
The key bit of my successful appeal was the adjudicator's words:
Second, and more importantly the vehicle is still moving out of the box junction when the CCTV footage stops. The Adjudicator must see the entire driving of the vehicle in and out of the box junction. I find this to be a serious omission.
Now admittedly my "offence" was "stopping, if it be that, [which] is hardly perceptible."
OP stops for a reasonable period. But nonetheless the CCTV does not show him moving out of the YBJ and adjudicator Teper says this is "a serious omission".
thank you @Chaseman. I will hopefully get an adjucator who looks at this aspect
-
OK On Monday the 8th of July register your appeal with London tribunals in the box for evidence write only I rely on my formal representations and further details to be added
Ask for a personal appeal via teams and once you have a date and case number let us know and I will draft your appeal If i feel able i may represent you but do not want at this stage to make a promise i cannot keep due to health issues
@Pastmybest I am looking to appeal this as per your suggestion. Sent you a private message for some personal details it needs
-
This case may be of some use to you.
Look up London Tribunals register of appeals for case 2130491073
The key bit of my successful appeal was the adjudicator's words:
Second, and more importantly the vehicle is still moving out of the box junction when the CCTV footage stops. The Adjudicator must see the entire driving of the vehicle in and out of the box junction. I find this to be a serious omission.
Now admittedly my "offence" was "stopping, if it be that, [which] is hardly perceptible."
OP stops for a reasonable period. But nonetheless the CCTV does not show him moving out of the YBJ and adjudicator Teper says this is "a serious omission".
-
OK On Monday the 8th of July register your appeal with London tribunals in the box for evidence write only I rely on my formal representations and further details to be added
Ask for a personal appeal via teams and once you have a date and case number let us know and I will draft your appeal If i feel able i may represent you but do not want at this stage to make a promise i cannot keep due to health issues
Much appreciated. I will proceed per your suggestion.
-
OK On Monday the 8th of July register your appeal with London tribunals in the box for evidence write only I rely on my formal representations and further details to be added
Ask for a personal appeal via teams and once you have a date and case number let us know and I will draft your appeal If i feel able i may represent you but do not want at this stage to make a promise i cannot keep due to health issues
-
You need to calm down a bit next is you pay or appeal to the tribunal. I would appeal and can help if you stop going off half cocked
-
My representation has been rejected. :'(
I wrote this to them
"I am writing with regards to the PCN GR23646182
I was approaching this Yellow Box Junction at an appropriate speed, maintaining a good distance from the vehicles ahead. From my driving position, I could see sufficient space to cross and clear the box. Unfortunately, the two cars immediately in front of me then stopped, leaving an unusually large gap which meant I would not clear the box. I began to brake to stop before the box markings. However, due to a motorcycle tailgating me (as visible in the video evidence), I had to reduce my braking force significantly to avoid an accident. This was the main reason my vehicle encroached into the marked area
Furthermore, my research indicates that while a yellow box may be marked outside a fire station, this particular box is far too long and not placed in a prescribed place and as such should not be there and no contravention can occur. I request that this PCN be cancelled at this earliest.'"
It seems they have responded to only part of my message and chosen to ignore the actual reasons I am citing. Their response:
(https://i.imgur.com/cLW3UwG.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5UeSNDT.jpeg)
Are the kind experts able to advise me of my next steps ?
-
Sorry HCA you are wrong taking an action to avoid/prevent an accident is a defense. You do not move out of the way of an ambulance or other emergency vehicle to avoid an accident but out of courtesy. which I can attest to the fact that done safely the police and others appreciate
-
So you've submitted formal reps. In which case all that's left is to wait.
-
Why not back to basics:
IMO, as far as is relevant:
The regulations provide the following:
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.
In this case the yellow markings are placed 'on the length of road adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the premises of a fire, police or ambulance station
Therefore paragraph 11(7) of Part 6 of Schedule 9 applies:
(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.
A 'box junction' is a defined term, as above, it is not the extent of yellow markings on the carriageway unless these have been placed where permitted.
In my case, the 'vehicle entrance' extends between the 2 points of the crossover where the carriageway is tangential to the corners. It therefore follows that the extent of the 'box junction' is that area whose shorter sides are at right-angles to these points and whose length is that distance between. This can be seen clearly at the lower corner.
However, equally clearly the yellow markings extend beyond this point at the upper corner and as clearly my car was not 'stopped within the permitted box junction although I accept that it was stopped on the yellow lines.
The council has no power to place yellow markings willy-nilly but must comply with the regulations. Similarly, a penalty is not owing because no part of my car was within the area restricted by those regulations.
The PCN must be cancelled.
OP, IMO I think your tail-gating is a no-hoper for 2 reasons:
1. It's not the motorcycle which caused you to stop, it was the lack of exit space for the right-turn only lane;
2. It's not a defence anyway whatever we might think. Frankly, if moving into a bus lane and crossing a traffic light white lines to move for emergency services vehicles are not defences to those respective contraventions, and they're not, then yours certainly isn't.
Thank you Mr Anderson. I get the point about why tail-gating isnt the best argument. In my stress/haste I already challenged with the following text which is made up of 2 parts (tail gating and the size of yellow box). Lets see what happens
I am writing with regards to the PCN GR23646182
I was approaching this Yellow Box Junction at an appropriate speed, maintaining a good distance from the vehicles ahead. From my driving position, I could see sufficient space to cross and clear the box. Unfortunately, the two cars immediately in front of me then stopped, leaving an unusually large gap which meant I would not clear the box. I began to brake to stop before the box markings. However, due to a motorcycle tailgating me (as visible in the video evidence), I had to reduce my braking force significantly to avoid an accident. This was the main reason my vehicle encroached into the marked area
Furthermore, my research indicates that while a yellow box may be marked outside a fire station, this particular box is far too long and not placed in a prescribed place and as such should not be there and no contravention can occur. I request that this PCN be cancelled at this earliest.'
-
Why not back to basics:
IMO, as far as is relevant:
The regulations provide the following:
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.
In this case the yellow markings are placed 'on the length of road adjacent to the vehicular entrance to the premises of a fire, police or ambulance station
Therefore paragraph 11(7) of Part 6 of Schedule 9 applies:
(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.
A 'box junction' is a defined term, as above, it is not the extent of yellow markings on the carriageway unless these have been placed where permitted.
In my case, the 'vehicle entrance' extends between the 2 points of the crossover where the carriageway is tangential to the corners. It therefore follows that the extent of the 'box junction' is that area whose shorter sides are at right-angles to these points and whose length is that distance between. This can be seen clearly at the lower corner.
However, equally clearly the yellow markings extend beyond this point at the upper corner and as clearly my car was not 'stopped within the permitted box junction although I accept that it was stopped on the yellow lines.
The council has no power to place yellow markings willy-nilly but must comply with the regulations. Similarly, a penalty is not owing because no part of my car was within the area restricted by those regulations.
The PCN must be cancelled.
OP, IMO I think your tail-gating is a no-hoper for 2 reasons:
1. It's not the motorcycle which caused you to stop, it was the lack of exit space for the right-turn only lane;
2. It's not a defence anyway whatever we might think. Frankly, if moving into a bus lane and crossing a traffic light white line to move for emergency services vehicles are not defences to those respective contraventions, and they're not, then yours certainly isn't.
-
thank you @cp8759 and @Pastmybest. I will just throw the AI text in the bin as suggested and I just write my to the point argument.
will post back if something changes.
Cheers
-
Throw all that rubbish in the bin. most is irrelevant and what isn't is not to the point.
I was approaching the YBJ at xxxxxxxxxxxx at an appropriate speed with a good distance between my self and vehicles in front. From my driving position I could see that there would be room for me to cross the box and clear it. Unfortunately the two cars immediately in front of me stopped leaving and unusually large gap thus meaning i would not clear the box. I started to brake to stop before the box markings but due to a motorcycle tailgating me i had to reduce my braking to avoid an accident.This being the only reason i encroached into the marked area.
Research shows that a box in this situation may be marked outside the entrance to a fire station, this box is far to long and as such is not placed in a prescribed place and as such should not be there and no contravention can occur the PCN should now be cancelled at this earliest opportunity
Do not overdo it for representations to the council they will reject anything all you need do is state the grounds
-
@dad-taxi that AI generate nonsense is, by and large, nonsense. Unfortunately my other commitments prevent me from looking into this for you.
-
@cp8759, be grateful if you can help review this/help redraft so I could challenge my PCN.
-
Got some further support from theyellowboxguru, and here is the new AI generated text
Having meticulously reviewed the video evidence provided, and considering the circumstances, I contend that no contravention occurred, or alternatively, that any alleged contravention was unavoidable and therefore should be cancelled. My grounds for appeal are as follows:
Safety and Unavoidable Circumstances due to Severe Tailgating:
As is clearly visible in the provided video evidence, my vehicle was being severely tailgated by a motorbike as I approached the yellow box junction. This dangerous proximity left me with no safe option to stop prior to entering the yellow box. Had I attempted an abrupt stop to avoid the box, a rear-end collision with the tailgating motorbike would have been highly probable, posing a significant risk to myself, the motorcyclist, and other road users. My primary concern was road safety, and my action to proceed was a direct response to avoiding an immediate accident. As soon as it was safe to do so, I brought my vehicle to a halt. The Highway Code implicitly encourages drivers to avoid creating hazards, and my actions were a direct consequence of an unsafe situation created by another road user.
Disproportionate Box Junction Length and Irrelevant Stop Location:
The yellow box marking at [Exact Location] is excessively long and extends significantly beyond what would typically be considered the functional area of a box junction. As demonstrated in your video evidence, my vehicle came to a stop at the near end of this extended box, specifically in the segment that extends beyond the visible fire station access. This particular portion of the yellow box is not in an area that facilitates any cross-traffic or directly impacts the flow of vehicles exiting or entering a primary junction. My brief stop in this specific segment did not, in fact, cause any obstruction to cross-traffic or impede the normal flow of vehicles in any meaningful way, which is the sole purpose of box junction markings. The presence of markings in this extended area raises questions about the box junction's compliance with regulatory guidelines, where markings should only cover the area necessary to prevent obstruction at a genuine junction.
Nature of the Contravention and Implied Movement:
The contravention code 31J specifies "entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited." My argument is that the evidence provided does not definitively prove a 'prohibited stop' within the meaning of the regulations. Given the significant distance between my vehicle and the stationary car at the exit, it is entirely plausible that, instead of a complete stop, I was merely "crawling" through the box junction at an extremely slow, walking pace. Such slow movement is often visually indistinguishable from a brief stop in video footage, and is permissible if one is still actively intending to clear the box. Crucially, the video's conclusion does not demonstrate that my vehicle would have remained stationary, nor does it prove that I would have reached the stationary vehicle before moving clear of the box. The fundamental purpose of a box junction is to prevent obstruction; in my position, no actual obstruction to any clear traffic flow or entry/exit movements occurred.
Procedural Impropriety – Misleading Payment Instructions:
I also wish to highlight a procedural impropriety in the Penalty Charge Notice itself. The PCN states that I have "28 days from the date of service" to pay the penalty charge before it increases. However, in other sections, it refers to timeframes in relation to the "date of notice." This inconsistency is confusing and misleading. A PCN must be clear and unambiguous regarding payment terms and deadlines. The discrepancy between "date of service" and "date of notice" introduces an unacceptable level of uncertainty regarding the precise deadline for payment at the discounted rate and when the full charge becomes payable. This ambiguity prejudices my ability to understand my rights and obligations fully, and therefore constitutes a procedural impropriety, rendering the PCN invalid.
In conclusion, I respectfully request that you consider the compelling safety reasons for my unavoidable entry into the box, the irrelevant and disproportionate location of my stop within an excessively long box junction, the lack of definitive proof of a prohibited stop given the context of slow movement, and the procedural error present on the PCN itself.
I trust that a thorough and fair review of the evidence and these points will lead to the cancellation of Penalty Charge Notice [Your PCN Number].
I look forward to your prompt response.
-
You have an argument that you were being tailgated by the motorbike so stopped in the box in order to avoid an accident. Further the box is to long and the part you stopped in is not in an area authorized for box markings
Agreed.
Further, the box is long and you stop at the near end many metres away from the stationary car at the exit. As such, the video doesn't necessarily prove a contravention as instead of stopping you could have crawled through at walking pace (take the couple walking along the pavement on your side of the road as a reference) and not reached the vehicle on the other side before the footage stops.
The contravention only occurs if you have to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles, not if you stop in a situation when you didn't necessarily have to.
Perhaps a combination of these two arguments will be enough to tip this in your favour on balance of probabilities.
Thank you both. When I check options to challenge, I see one possible option (I have marked with a red dot in this image)
https://imgur.com/9LoOnS6 (https://imgur.com/9LoOnS6)
There is a "None of the above" also available if this doesn't look suitable.
I did look up the helpful Google sheets excel provided for a sample text for the appeal, but could not find anything suitable. So I did what most people do these days and asked AI.
I sense that this would likely not be the language the experts in this forum will approve, but as a starter for 10, this is what Google Gemini says
Dear Royal Borough of Greenwich Enforcement Team,
I am writing to formally challenge Penalty Charge Notice [Your PCN Number] issued on [Date of PCN] for contravention 31J - "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited," at [Location of Box Junction, as stated on PCN].
Having reviewed the video evidence provided, I contend that no contravention occurred for the following reasons:
Safety and Unavoidable Circumstances due to Tailgating:
As is clearly visible in the provided video evidence, my vehicle was being severely tailgated by a motorbike as I approached the box junction. This situation presented a significant safety hazard, compelling me to proceed into the box junction at a speed that would prevent a rear-end collision, rather than making an abrupt stop before the box. To have stopped suddenly, purely to avoid entering the box, would have put myself and other road users, particularly the motorbike, at serious risk of an accident. The Highway Code implicitly encourages drivers to avoid creating hazards, and my actions were a direct result of prioritizing road safety under duress.
Disproportionate Box Junction Length and Location of Stop:
The box junction in question at [Location] is disproportionately long. As the video evidence demonstrates, I stopped at the near end of the box, many metres away from the stationary vehicle at the exit. The segment of the box junction where my vehicle came to a stop is not in an area that typically requires box markings to prevent obstruction of cross-traffic. Its excessive length means that my brief stop did not, in fact, impede any cross-traffic or cause the congestion that box junctions are designed to prevent. This raises questions about the compliance of the box junction's design with regulatory guidelines, where markings should only cover the area necessary to protect cross movements.
Nature of the Contravention and Implied Movement:
The contravention code 31J specifies "entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited." My argument is that the evidence does not definitively prove a 'prohibited stop'. Given the significant distance between my vehicle and the stationary car at the exit, instead of a complete stop, I could have very easily been "crawling" through the box junction at a walking pace, which is often indistinguishable from a brief stop in video footage and is permissible if one is still intending to clear the box. The video's conclusion does not necessarily prove that I would have remained stationary or that I would have reached the stationary vehicle before moving out of the box. The purpose of a box junction is to prevent obstruction, and my position did not constitute an obstruction to any clear traffic flow or entry/exit movements.
I kindly request that you consider these points in light of the video evidence and cancel this Penalty Charge Notice. I am confident that a thorough review will demonstrate that my actions were either unavoidable due to immediate safety concerns or did not constitute an actual contravention of the box junction rules, especially considering the specific circumstances and the design of the junction.
I look forward to your prompt response.
-
Agreed.
Further, the box is long and you stop at the near end many metres away from the stationary car at the exit. As such, the video doesn't necessarily prove a contravention as instead of stopping you could have crawled through at walking pace (take the couple walking along the pavement on your side of the road as a reference) and not reached the vehicle on the other side before the footage stops.
The contravention only occurs if you have to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles, not if you stop in a situation when you didn't necessarily have to.
Perhaps a combination of these two arguments will be enough to tip this in your favour on balance of probabilities.
-
You have an argument that you were being tailgated by the motorbike so stopped in the box in order to avoid an accident. Further the box is to long and the part you stopped in is not in an area authorized for box markings
-
Last week, I ended up stopping in a yellow box junction outside the Eltham fire station :( , while safely braking to avoid a tailgating delivery driver. I am wondering if there is a chance of appealing and getting this revoked
Here is the PCN copy
https://imgur.com/a/k5up2QH
This is the video provided by the council which does show that the 2 wheeler was tailgating me (I am the red car), and when they changed lanes I was able to stop safely.
https://imgur.com/a/tfLxXNd
The evidence photos provided by them
https://imgur.com/a/kMhQzzk
Here is the Google street view
Google street view location (https://maps.app.goo.gl/J1CN16N8PhQ66AMP6)
Any help and knowledge appreciated on even a "sorry mate, nothing you can do, just pay up" will be received with humility.
Cheers,
dadtaxi