Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Princeperch on July 27, 2025, 11:46:26 am
-
Cheers Hippocrates. Why should we not mention the case referenced in the appeal? Presumably the damage is done when they send out the PCN and it has a defective description of the location? If so then I would have referenced all the cases you've kindly linked to by way of precedent, but obviously you're the expert not me so will happily take a steer from you when I report back to them on this. As put they've missed the discount so this is a no brainer now.
Because they will up their game.
-
Here are a couple of cases from Redbridge won on similar grounds (Redbridge seem always only to state one road in their box junction PCNs):
Case reference 223033552A
Appellant Janice Flint
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM FV65SVZ
PCN Details
PCN AF97410735
Contravention date 19 Jun 2023
Contravention time 13:46:00
Contravention location Goodmayes Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 17 Aug 2023
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The Appellant was represented by Mr Dishman. The grounds of Appeal are set out in Mr Dishman’s skeleton argument which he developed before me. Having considered the matter carefully it seems to me that at least one of the grounds of appeal has some merit. The location is described as Goodmayes Road; however Mr Dishman tells me, and I accept, that there are three box junctions in Goodmayes Road. |The PCN is required to set out the grounds on which a penalty is demanded, and this inevitably includes a clear statement of the location of the alleged contravention. Although it might be possible for a motorist to trace the location from the photographs with some effort the Council’s prior duty is to set it out clearly. There seems to me no good reason why the location could not simply be stated as Goodmayes road junction with (naming the adjacent road) as would routinely be done in the case of a road traffic summons in the Magistrates Court. As the PCN was defective no penalty may be demanded on the basis of it and the Appeal ids allowed
Case reference 2230201115
Appellant Sandra Grauzyte
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM VA16 OYG
PCN Details
PCN AF97065295
Contravention date 01 Mar 2023
Contravention time 16:07:00
Contravention location Goodmayes Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 31 May 2023
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.
I was satisfied for the reason he gave in his skeleton argument uploaded to the case on 10/05/23 - the council not responding to what was said it appearing to have had a full opportunity to do so - that the PCN was insufficiently particularised as to the location of the incident to the potential prejudice of the appellant in establishing where it had occurred it thus not being fully compliant. The contravention had not therefore been proved. The appeal was accordingly allowed.
-
Cheers Hippocrates. Why should we not mention the case referenced in the appeal? Presumably the damage is done when they send out the PCN and it has a defective description of the location? If so then I would have referenced all the cases you've kindly linked to by way of precedent, but obviously you're the expert not me so will happily take a steer from you when I report back to them on this. As put they've missed the discount so this is a no brainer now.
-
You need to recreate - without mentioning the case - the situation in Adamou.
-
Here I think
https://maps.app.goo.gl/n7WaBxgRewQtkFda6
There's a later grainy GSV from 2024, but the YBJ must be newer if this is the right junction as no YBJ to be seen.
-
Cheers - read it and it's spot on. Assuming the paper PCN also simply says "Chigwell road" this must have better than evens chance of success I would have thought?
-
Adamou v Haringey: 2060381000
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2060381000
Appellant Gina Adamou
Authority London Borough of Haringey
VRM Y733GVX
PCN Details
PCN HY72193896
Contravention date 05 Jul 2006
Contravention time 16:17:00
Contravention location High Road N22
Penalty amount GBP 100.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 21 Oct 2006
Adjudicator Hugh Cooper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 7. This provides as follows.
"7 (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, [box junctions] shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person
(a)who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right: and
(b)stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn."
In this case the Council served a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on Mrs Adamou alleging that the vehicle of which she was the registered keeper had contravened this regulation "in High Road N22".
Mrs Adamou says that she telephoned the Council on receipt of the PCN and asked them about this contravention. She was told that it had taken place at the junction of Ewart Grove and High Road N22. She pointed out to the person she spoke to that there was no box junction at that location. When the Council served photographs with their Notice of Rejection they made no mention of Ewart Grove.
The Council finally stated in their Case Summary that the box junction is actually at the junction of High Road and Bounds Green Road; the junction with Ewart Grove is simply where the camera is located. In a letter subsequent to her Notice of Appeal Mrs Adamou argues as to whether or not the events recorded on the video recording actually amount to a contravention.
However I do not have to decide that issue, because the confusion that has evidently arisen in Mrs Adamou's communications with the Council clearly demonstrates that the original PCN failed to comply with the requirements of Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This provides that the PCN "must…state…the grounds on which the council… believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".
The Council's own evidence shows that they have no fewer than 9 cameras in High Road N22, 6 of which are located at junctions. Whether or not all are devoted to monitoring compliance with box junctions, it makes clear that this is a long road with a considerable number of junctions. It is evident from Mrs Adamou's case that she did not know on receipt of the PCN where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.
Had the PCN specified "High Road N22 at its junction with Bounds Green Road", then Mrs Adamou would have known where to look. As it was, by simply stating "in High Road N22", I find that the PCN did not state the grounds on which the Council believed that the penalty charge was payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred.
I find therefore that no valid PCN was served on Mrs Adamou, and so the Council cannot enforce this penalty charge.
[I would add that there is considerable doubt in my mind as to whether the layout of the box junction markings in this case actually comply with the requirements of Diagrams 1043 or 1044 in Schedule 6 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, neither of which appears to allow for box junction markings opposite the mouth of a T-junction, as opposed to across it. Furthermore it appears that there is a right turn filter lane on the main road, so that the box junction markings only cover one lane. However I do not make a formal determination on this issue. It maybe that in future cases the Council will feel the need, and be able, to clarify how this layout complies with either of the diagrams.]
Also: 2240084051.
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
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.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/TBhwxt6D/SUY1-TXVKZ2s2a-GROcn-Fhd0-ZCU0dad-FZKM29o-ZGNUL0-Ru-Zm-FHN0dx-Sj-Jnc1-ZMREFk-Mksrdml-Wej-JWRGx-Nejh.gif)
-
Cheers have asked for the PCN. In the meantime the video is available on the Redbridge PCN viewer online using the reg and PCN number in the initial post.
I think they might have a runner with the vague location as Chigwell road is 2 odd miles long and has multiple box junctions on it but am interested with a y other thoughts. It's a no brainer anyway as they've missed the 2 week discount now.
-
For meaningful advice we really need to see all sides of the PCN (redacting only his name & address) and the video.
-
So a friend has received this PCN from Redbridge
AF20435154
MT67SKE
I'm waiting on them to confirm but it appears the pcn just says "Chigwell road" which is enormous and has multiple box junctions on it.
There is also a chance that they could have squeezed into the space in front but until I can actually locate the box junction to measure the space in front I won't know.
In the meanwhile I've been up and down Chigwell road 3 times today on Googlemaps and I cannot see this box junction on there which might indicate it's
a new one in the last few months.
Assuming the space in front argument isn't going to be a runner (it's a long car) and the gap in front looks to me to be roughly 4m which might not be enough - is the vague location a runner? The video doesn't even show the location as the electronic date obscures the left and road name.
Any thoughts welcome