Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: TheParkingmeister on July 01, 2025, 10:20:48 am
-
In fairness, he also said this:
The Enforcement Authority can avoid cases such as this by locating their cameras in positions which show the traffic beyond the box junction. In any event, on this occasion I am not satisfied they have established their case and accordingly I allow the appeal.
Put it in The Guinness Book of Records.
-
"... Having done so I am satisfied
this was a poor piece of driving
which committed the mischief
which the Regulation aims to
prevent; the Appellants' driver
entered and stopped in the box
junction... "
What a daft and totally unnecessary comment
Presumably if Parliament had intended to outlaw the mischief of stopping in a box juntion then that is what they would have prevented, rather than limiting it to stopping because of the presence of a stationary vehicle.
-
Drivers are now expected to be able to see into the future. Well done for seeing this through though
-
If I was the driver, I'd be writing to the Chief Adjudicator and asking for Mr Burke's defamatory statements to be struck from the official record.
-
Further to this London Tribunal win, I referenced the case in an appeal for another TfL PCN at the same location and for the first time ever (as far as I recall) TfL accepted my initial appeal. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BJMlbN5eUOO9Z-JbwZcB5qQtcC9S_Ik0/view?usp=drivesdk
-
Well done.
-
Poor piece of driving which committed the mischief?
What mischief? What poor driving?
Anyway well done for seeing this through.
+1
Well done :) . Cannot see the point of Mr.Burke's snidey comments.
Case number 2250341944
Thank you! I stayed up until midnight to check if it had been assessed yesterday and it had!
And yes there is no point. But it was rather amusing, and I'll be sure to pass those comments onto the driver ;D
-
Poor piece of driving which committed the mischief?
What mischief? What poor driving?
Anyway well done for seeing this through.
Presumably they refer to entering the box junction when there was not enough room on the other side to clear it, against the advice of the highway code. The traffic was flowing and the vehicle would have cleared the box junction if not for the pedestrian controlled traffic lights changing. Whether or not following the highway code would have prevented the vehicle stopping in the box... who knows? As the driver can't know exactly when a pedestrian controlled traffic light will change :-\
-
Poor piece of driving which committed the mischief?
What mischief? What poor driving?
Anyway well done for seeing this through.
+1
Well done :) . Cannot see the point of Mr.Burke's snidey comments.
Case number 2250341944
-
Poor piece of driving which committed the mischief?
What mischief? What poor driving?
Anyway well done for seeing this through.
-
The appeal was allowed and TfL were directed to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: "The allegation in this case is
entering and stopping in a box
junction when prohibited. The
Appellants dispute this on the
basis the stop was caused by
traffic lights rather than
stationary vehicles. They have
provided a still photograph
taken from dashcam footage
as supporting evidence.
I have considered the
Appellant's photograph
together with Google
Streetview and the
enforcement camera evidence,
Having done so I am satisfied
this was a poor piece of driving
which committed the mischief
which the Regulation aims to
prevent; the Appellants' driver
entered and stopped in the box
junction. However, it seems
more likely that this was
caused by a red traffic light
than by stationary vehicles. The
contravention only occurs if the
vehicle has to stop due to the
presence of stationary
vehicles.
The Enforcement Authority can
avoid cases such as this by
locating their cameras in
positions which show the
traffic beyond the box junction
In any event, on this occasion
am not satisfied they have
established their case and
accordingly I allow the appeal."
-
Not a hearing. It'll be decided on paper. I couldn't appeal online as TfL wouldn't give me a web verification code to do it, so I had to do it by post and didn't know if I'd have a choice on when the hearing would be. Not sure it would have helped anyway as I wasn't driving, it's not like I could offer any further clarity on what happened. But I will update when I get a decision.
-
When's the appeal being heard? Will be following the adjudicator's comments with great interest.
-
In part of it they also state that my dashcam still showing our vehicle stopped at the pedestrian crossing lights with plenty of room ahead to move into and clear the box junction, is irrelevant. I can't remember why they said that was exactly but I suspect it was something to do with them believing the traffic lights are irrelevant too. We'll see if the adjudicator shares that opinion 🤷♂️
-
Complete nonsense and they should know better. Box junctions convey a prohibition of stopping due to stationary vehicles only. Traffic lights are completely out of scope no matter what colour.
-
I received the Transport for London evidence in the post today. They said "TfL acknowledges the Appellant's comments that the vehicle stopped due to a red light on the pedestrian controlled traffic lights, however, TfL submits that it is the driver's responsibility to ensure a correct judgement is made when attempting to cross over the traffic lights. Directions given by traffic lights are advisory; the green light indicates that motorists may proceed with caution, if it is safe and lawful to do so, not that they must; an amber light always give adequate warning that traffic lights are about to turn to red. Regardless of the colour of the traffic lights, drivers should not enter a yellow box junction unless their exit is clear and it is possible to cross the junction without stopping"
Sooo if traffic lights are advisory, should the HGV have just gone through the red light and mowed down any pedestrians crossing?
-
I hadn't previously seen the dashcam photo, but IMO it is totally persuasive.
The dashcam is timed at 14.21.23. This shows the HGV which was immediately ahead of you at the YBJ now a considerable distance away.
You became stationary at 14.21.09 having followed this same HGV across the YBJ. Your cab was aligned with the crossing. You started moving at 14.21.23.
The authority have no objective evidence as to why your vehicle stopped, but must adduce evidence or argument which on the balance of probabilities proves that you stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The only possible vehicle being the HGV ahead of you.
Your argument is that you stopped because of pedestrian controlled traffic lights.
You could not have stopped because the HGV ahead itself stopped at the lights because there was insufficient room between your vehicle and the crossing. Therefore the authority must be asserting that, notwithstanding the crossing, that vehicle stopped for whatever reason beyond the lights and that it was pure coincidence that this caused your vehicle to stop such that your cab was aligned with the stop line at the crossing which at that time was in your favour. Your dashcam photo shows that at the time you set off the HGV was a considerable distance ahead. According to the authority's reasoning, this must have been because you did not stop because of the crossing but that while you were stationary the lights changed against you and this explains why the HGV was so far ahead i.e. it was free to move but you were not. You would submit that the likelihood that each of these factors was in place and that the authority's contention that you stopped because of the presence of stationary vehicles is correct is so remote that on the balance of probabilities they have not proved that a contravention occurred and that your appeal should be allowed.
I've been as comprehensive as possible with a view to getting TfL to no contest.
Of course you could submit the shorter version i.e. there's no evidence as to what caused your vehicle to stop and therefore the authority have not proved their case.
-
What gets me cross, is that even if this case is won, they council will continue to serve PCNs even though the camera can never, ever, show an alleged contravention properly. Then because most people don't know the exact nature of the contravention, they just cough-up. For me, this behaviour is close to, or even is, malfeasance.
True, I had a paid PCN refunded recently from Bexley Council. Some of our drivers had been parking on this industrial estate road called Hailey Road in Bexley, a prime location for HGV's to park up over night as there are no signs on or approaching this road with parking restrictions. But I got 3 PCN's for this place, for different vehicles. First one they rejected the appeal and it was paid, £110 (wasn't my decision). The second and third I eventually got cancelled, I had to complain to the council and make an information request, as they were claiming our vehicles were in contravention of an overnight waiting ban on commercial vehicles. I live and work in Cumbria so I had no idea about this prohibition on the entire borough of Bexley and it took me complaining to the council and making a request for information to actually find out about it.
They were relying on sign posts indicating a no waiting prohibition zone for commercial vehicles on the perimeter of the borough to enforce this throughout the entire 60km²+ of the Borough of Bexley. Absolutely ridiculous and quite likely against the regulations.
I eventually got dashcam footage showing no sign posts on the perimeter either and made a complaint for a refund and got one in full. But they still insist our vehicle would have passed a sign for the prohibition.... even after I sent them dashcam footage of our vehicle driving from half a mile out of Bexley, driving into Bexley, and 10km to Hailey Road, and not a single sign for the prohibition is passed.
In terms of these box junctions, I think maybe they should just have a camera on each corner or atleast 2 opposing corners for multiple angles. Would probably save money in the long run by cutting out the crap and time wasting cases like this one.
-
The legal test is balance of probabilities.
You stopped but there isn't concrete proof that this was because of a stationary vehicle. You've already advanced the argument that you stopped because the pedestrian lights were against you. But the vehicle ahead didn't stop, so why did you? They're pedestrian operated, so where's the pedestrian. Sorry if this is overtinking, and some adjudicators might just say: no evidence of stationary vehicle ahead, appeal allowed. But some might not.
You refer to a dashcam snap(s), may we see this/these pl.
Any of our posters live near? A video of the cycle of these lights would be invaluable. You could also ask TfL, but not the highways arm not the enforcement authority.
The dashcam still is in the pdf I called my appeal attached to the original post. I'll attach the image itself on to this comment though.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The legal test is balance of probabilities.
You stopped but there isn't concrete proof that this was because of a stationary vehicle. You've already advanced the argument that you stopped because the pedestrian lights were against you. But the vehicle ahead didn't stop, so why did you? They're pedestrian operated, so where's the pedestrian. Sorry if this is overtinking, and some adjudicators might just say: no evidence of stationary vehicle ahead, appeal allowed. But some might not.
You refer to a dashcam snap(s), may we see this/these pl.
Any of our posters live near? A video of the cycle of these lights would be invaluable. You could also ask TfL, but not the highways arm not the enforcement authority.
-
What gets me cross, is that even if this case is won, they council will continue to serve PCNs even though the camera can never, ever, show an alleged contravention properly. Then because most people don't know the exact nature of the contravention, they just cough-up. For me, this behaviour is close to, or even is, malfeasance.
-
I've yet to see a Notice of Rejection written by someone who applies the law correctly. Councils/TFL seem to have the view that any stop in a box junction for whatever reason justifies a PCN.
Adjudicators will take the view that if the video doesn't show all aspects, there's insufficient evidence of a contravention. For example even where the video shows a stop and a stationary vehicle necessitating the stop, if the video doesn't also show the moment of entry into the box that's insufficient (as the offence is based on traffic conditions at this moment).
-
I think HCA is slightly overthinking it. Even if the stop was due to the HGV in front (which we all seem to agree it likely isn't), if the HGV isn't in shot, who's to say it was actually fully stationary? It could have been crawling along at a snail's pace, enough to make you stop but not stationary as the regulations require for your stop to be a contravention.
It's for the authority to demonstrate an offence has taken place. An adjudicator shouldn't have to guess.
Perhaps, but I understand why he's saying that from the video they provided. The dashcam still that I put in my appeal is timestamped about 13 seconds after the vehicle becomes stationary in the video, so doesn't show that the pedestrian crossing is the reason the vehicle became stationary, but does show it is the reason it continued to be stationary. Their video doesn't show exactly why the vehicle became stationary, but does show the vehicle infront continuing at speed and not looking like it stops right out of frame of the camera.
But yes as you say it is on them to demonstrate the offence took place, but the respondent to my appeal clearly believes the highway code is the law and not the actual law. He doesn't argue that the vehicle infront suddenly became stationary. He's just claiming that not following the highway code is the contravention.
-
I think HCA is slightly overthinking it. Even if the stop was due to the HGV in front (which we all seem to agree it likely isn't), if the HGV isn't in shot, who's to say it was actually fully stationary? It could have been crawling along at a snail's pace, enough to make you stop but not stationary as the regulations require for your stop to be a contravention.
It's for the authority to demonstrate an offence has taken place. An adjudicator shouldn't have to guess.
-
They don't have evidence of stopping owing to stationary vehicles so I would go on with this. At a personal hearing your testimony would be heard as credible no doubt.
As with a lot of TFL cases I expect they won't contest.
A related point is that crossings close to box junctions often cause such issues. Redbridge has got rid of two boxes recentlyy because of this.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/wanstead-redbridge-council-stopping-in-a-yellow-box-junction/15/
-
Unfortunately, it was too long ago to get the vehicle dashcam footage, but the camera takes and saves a still shot every 2 minutes. Luckily, it took the picture when the vehicle was stopped at the pedestrian crossing and shows more than enough room ahead for the vehicle to clear the box, I included that in my appeal as you may have seen.
As you say they don't show why the vehicle stopped in their video. I noticed they quoted the regulation in their rejection notice too, adding that the contravention and rules of yellow box junctions are defined there, but then didn't apply it 🤔
-
As this is on a red route, also have a read of this thread:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/tfl-red-route-postal-pcns/
tho' I am not sure if CP's fault extends to YBJs?
-
It's appeal or pay, reps have been made and rejected.
So, entering and stopping within the box is accepted. The next issue is, why?
It's clear that the order of events could not have been that the vehicle ahead stopped for the lights then you stopped behind them, there isn't room.
So, IMO the only scenarios are that you stopped for the lights or that the lights are a red or green herring and in fact you stopped because you were prevented by the vehicle ahead which had stopped for its own reasons beyond the lights.
IMO, there isn't definitive evidence one way or the other so it's about accumulating circumstantial evidence. Was the woman on the footway heading to the crossing, would the lights have changed so promptly(these are pedestrian-activated and so have a default green phase)? Unfortunately, the road ahead of your vehicle can't be seen again until well after you stopped. Given the period you were stationary, if you'd stopped because the vehicle ahead was stationary then you would have set off together and we might have seen it which would undermine your argument. If for the lights then we'd expect to see a clear road immediately ahead. Sadly, we don't see the road ahead.
Balance of probabilities - your cab stopped short of the crossing. Likelihood that this was coincidentally a few feet behind the stationary vehicle ahead v you stopped there because it's where a vehicle stopping for someone on the crossing would stop. Another factor is the phasing of the lights. If you were stopped there but the vehicle ahead wasn't then they went from red to green to red in the time you were stationary, 14 seconds est. It's plausible.
Just some thoughts.
-
Thanks for the video.
As you already seem to be aware, it's a box junction offence only if your stop is due to stationary vehicles. The video does not show why you stopped so there is no evidence of an offence. Your explanation is also credible as when the camera angle does adjust, one can see the signalled pedestrian crossing exactly where you stopped, plus the HGV in front of you seemed to move off screen at too great a pace for it to have stopped just off screen where you seem to have stopped.
All in all, I'd definitely take this one all the way and would give you a close to 100% chance of winning assuming you follow the procedure and present your argument coherently for the tribunal.
Re following procedure, the key one in the short term is that any representations to TFL are sent by (or on behalf of) the entity to whom the PCN is addressed.
Thereafter, don't miss any deadlines!
-
You can also upload videos to YouTube, Vimeo etc. and to Google Drive etc (please avoid using https://wetransfer.com/ as most members won't bother downloading zip files, you need to use a website that allows files to be viewed in a browser).
Okay thanks.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1x_sYqfvmed3hbh8zU3jA8GIbNC7KX46Q/view
-
You can also upload videos to YouTube, Vimeo etc. and to Google Drive etc (please avoid using https://wetransfer.com/ as most members won't bother downloading zip files, you need to use a website that allows files to be viewed in a browser).
-
The offence is one of entering the box and having to stop within it due to the presence of stationary vehicles. So we need to see the video to make sure of the strength of your case.
This assumes your manager can act on behalf of the registered keeper, (the company). As HCA points out, only the registered keeper can submit reps, but can authorise a person to act on their behalf. Liability for payment if the case is lost remains with the keeper.
Hi, the video should be attached to my last reply as a .rar, I couldn't upload a video file. Is there a better way to upload it on here?
-
The offence is one of entering the box and having to stop within it due to the presence of stationary vehicles. So we need to see the video to make sure of the strength of your case.
This assumes your manager can act on behalf of the registered keeper, (the company). As HCA points out, only the registered keeper can submit reps, but can authorise a person to act on their behalf. Liability for payment if the case is lost remains with the keeper.
-
The vehicle is in the possesion of the registered keeper, the haulage company, that I am an employee of.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
My manager and I, want to know if we can win at a London Tribunal?
Do I have to attend the tribunal or do they assess my written appeal?
Who knows for the first question, we need to see the video.
No for the second because appeals are held remotely in the main and no again because PCN-wise this has nothing to do with you, the PCN was addressed to and liability lies with the registered keeper. So, who is the registered keeper, the company to which the PCN is addressed or is the vehicle perhaps leased/hired and therefore the registered keeper another entity?
So:
The video;
The VRM;
Who is the registered keeper?
Please.
-
Post the video.
-
I have attached the original notice, my appeal and their response. They sent me the video footage where the camera operator does a good job of not showing why the vehicle stopped. But it does show our vehicle entered the box when there was not sufficient space on the other side to clear the box, however, the vehicle stopped due to traffic lights for a pedestrian crossing on the other side of the box with not enough room between the edge of the box and the traffic lights for the vehicle to fit. If it wasn't for the lights the vehicle would have cleared the box without stopping as the traffic was flowing.
My manager and I, want to know if we can win at a London Tribunal? I am aware of the discrepancies between what the regulations say and what the highway code says for box junctions and have looked at YellowBoxes.co.uk where there are numerous examples of London Tribunal appeals won for vehicles stopping in box junctions for reasons other than other vehicles.
Also, how much does the fine go upto? Do I have to attend the tribunal or do they assess my written appeal? I have only really dealt with councils and POPLA previously and they are idiots... inconsistent idiots. I'd like to think I wouldn't be dealing with that level of incompetence at London Tribunals.
Any help and advice would be much appreciated.
[attachment deleted by admin]