Free Traffic Legal Advice

I believe it's possible to change to in person. We strongly recommend it as there have been numerous examples of adjudicators not fully appreciating intended nuances of appeal points when faced with something in writing - which would have been easily corrected in a dialogue.

Great, I have requested a personal hearing (preferably via video link, possible).

Further updates will be posted here, when available.

Regardless of the case outcome, thanks again to the forum members for their help, particularly MrChips.

Suggested update to paragraph 3. Otherwise, happy for you to release.

3. Secondary ground: contravention did not occur
Notwithstanding my primary ground of appeal, I believe that the alleged contravention did not occur.

A box junction offence requires both a stop within a box junction and for this stop to be necessitated by stationary vehicles. Having viewed the footage supplied by the Authority, I can see that as my vehicle approached the box junction, traffic was flowing freely and there was a reasonable expectation of space beyond the far end of this very long box junction. Due to a change in the traffic lights ahead, this situation changed after I was already committed to entering the box junction.  However, throughout the period of my vehicle being stopped, there remained a vacant exit in the adjacent lane which I could and would have taken in order to fully clear the box junction but for moving (i.e. non-stationary) vehicles continuing to flow through the box and pass me in that lane.  This continued for the brief period of stopping (around 6 seconds which may also be considered de minimis) until the traffic directly in front of me started to move off. As such, on the basis that I had the option to fully exit the box junction and was only prevented from doing so by moving vehicles I believe this does not constitute a box junction offence as defined.

Thanks MrChips, appreciate you taking the time and providing guidance.

The letter has been updated as per your suggestion and an appeal has been lodged online. They have confirmed the case reference number: 2260300513

The confirmation email states that they will consider the appeal and confirm within 7 days if it is accepted.

I will post further updates here in due course.

Thanks again, appreciated

Happy to amend/update for any suggestions the forum members may consider relevant


DRAFT

1. Introduction
I write to appeal against the Notice of Rejection of Representation issued by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Authority”) dated 27 April 2026 in respect of Penalty Charge Notice HZ96242257 (“the PCN”). The PCN was issued on 9 January 2026 in respect of an alleged contravention on 27 December 2025 at Box Junction, Uxbridge Road, approximately 25 yards west of Holland Park Roundabout, at 17:36.

My appeal is brought on two grounds:
(a) Primary ground: The Authority acted with inordinate and unjustified delay in responding to my representations, in breach of the guidance established by decisions of this Tribunal. This constitutes a successful collateral challenge and the PCN should be cancelled.
(b) Secondary ground: The alleged contravention did not occur within the meaning of the relevant legislation.

2. Relevant Chronology
The key dates are as follows:
• 27 December 2025: Alleged contravention.
• 9 January 2026: PCN issued by the Authority.
• 11 January 2026: I submitted my formal representations to the Authority online, within the required time limit.
• 27 April 2026: The Authority issued its Notice of Rejection of Representation — a period of approximately 3 months and 16 days after receiving my representations.

3. Primary Ground: Inordinate Delay in Issuing the Notice of Rejection

3.1 The Legal Framework
I acknowledge that the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 does not prescribe a statutory time limit within which an enforcement authority must serve a notice of rejection in moving traffic cases (unlike parking cases, where a 56-day limit applies). However, this Tribunal has consistently and repeatedly held that an enforcement authority is nonetheless required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. The Tribunal has established, through a series of decided cases, that the guideline period for responding to representations in moving traffic cases is three months. Exceeding that period, without justification, amounts to a successful collateral challenge and ordinarily requires the PCN to be cancelled.
This principle is reflected in the guidance published on the London Tribunals website relating to the moving traffic PCN enforcement process.

3.2 The Delay in This Case
My representations were submitted on 11 January 2026. The Authority did not issue its Notice of Rejection until 27 April 2026. This is a delay of approximately 3 months and 16 days — materially in excess of the three-month guideline established by this Tribunal.
The Notice of Rejection itself contains no explanation whatsoever for this delay. The Authority has offered no justification, no reference to exceptional circumstances, and no acknowledgment of the lateness of its response. In the absence of any such explanation, I submit that the delay was inordinate and that enforcement should not be permitted to proceed.
I further note that the Authority issued its Notice of Rejection on 27 April 2026 — by which date the Authority had already had two of its own cases decided against it by this Tribunal on the very same inordinate delay ground (see cases 2250654961 and 2250663918, both decided in April 2026, detailed below). On that basis, the Authority was or should have been fully aware of the Tribunal's guidance and the consequences of non-compliance. It nonetheless rejected my representations without any justification for the delay and without explanation.

3.3 Relevant Decided Cases
I respectfully draw the Tribunal's attention to the following decided cases, each of which supports my primary ground of appeal:

Case 1: PCN GX0883096A — Jain and Jain Ltd v Transport for London
Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction | Location: Hanger Lane / Ealing Village W5
Representations received: 29 August 2023 | NOR issued: 8 February 2024 (approximately 5.5 months later)
Review decision: 7 August 2024 | Adjudicator: Andrew Harman | Appeal allowed — PCN cancelled
On review, Adjudicator Harman found that the authority had received representations on 29 August 2023 but did not issue a rejection notice until 8 February 2024 — well over five months later. He held that this amounted to an inordinate delay and that, in the absence of any explanation from the authority, enforcement could not be pursued. The appeal was allowed.
This case is directly on point: it involves the same category of contravention (box junction), the same legal framework, and the same principle — that an unexplained delay exceeding three months in issuing a notice of rejection amounts to a collateral challenge sufficient to cancel the PCN.

Case 2: Case Reference 2250654961 — Lloyd Jantuah v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
PCN: HZ93508551 | Contravention: Performing a prohibited turn | Location: Hammersmith Road j/w Shortlands
Representations received: 26 July 2025 | NOR issued: 12 November 2025 (over 3 months later)
Decision date: 8 April 2026 | Adjudicator: Mackenzie Robinson | Appeal allowed — PCN cancelled
Adjudicator Robinson expressly held that, whilst the relevant Act lays down no actual time limit for service of a notice of rejection in moving traffic cases, the Tribunal has consistently decided that it is reasonable to expect an authority to respond within three months, and that to take longer is unacceptable and will be regarded as a successful collateral challenge. He further noted that a clear time limit benefits everyone, including the enforcement authority, as it ensures cases are dealt with in a reasonably timely manner. The appeal was allowed on that basis alone.
Critically, this case involves the same issuing authority as in my case — the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — and was decided on 8 April 2026, just weeks before the Authority issued its Notice of Rejection in my case on 27 April 2026.

Case 3: Case Reference 2250663918 — Shanye Hazel-Marriott v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
PCN: HZ93906157 | Contravention: Fail to comply with prohibition on certain types of vehicle | Location: Imperial Road NWbnd — NW of Fulmead Street
Representations received: 9 August 2025 | NOR issued: 11 December 2025 (over 4 months later)
Decision date: 10 April 2026 | Adjudicator: Andrew Harman | Appeal allowed — PCN cancelled
Adjudicator Harman again allowed the appeal on grounds of inordinate delay, finding that representations received on 9 August 2025 with a rejection notice not issued until 11 December 2025 — over four months later — meant that the required criteria of due diligence and timely action had not been met. Enforcement was accordingly not permitted to proceed.
This is a second case against the same authority — the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — also decided in April 2026, just days before the Authority issued its Notice of Rejection in my case. The Authority was, or ought to have been, fully aware of both decisions at the time it rejected my representations.

3.4 Summary on Primary Ground
In summary, on the primary ground:
• My representations were submitted on 11 January 2026.
• The Notice of Rejection was not issued until 27 April 2026 — approximately 3 months and 16 days later.
• This exceeds the three-month guideline established by this Tribunal.
• The Authority has provided no justification for the delay.
• Two recent decisions against the same Authority (cases 2250654961 and 2250663918, both decided in April 2026) had already confirmed the applicable principle before the NOR in my case was issued.
I respectfully submit that the primary ground alone is sufficient to allow this appeal and cancel the PCN.

4. Secondary Ground: The Contravention Did Not Occur
Without prejudice to my primary ground, and for completeness, I maintain that the alleged contravention did not occur as a matter of law.
The prohibition is set out in Schedule 9, Part 7, paragraph 11(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which provides that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
At the time my vehicle entered the yellow box junction, the video recording shows that there were no stationary vehicles in front of me. The traffic ahead was flowing and I had a reasonable expectation of being able to exit the box junction at the time of entry. The vehicles ahead of me subsequently came to a halt due to a red traffic light — a circumstance which I could not have foreseen or anticipated at the moment of entry, particularly given the short distance between the traffic light and the box junction and the fact that I was the fourth vehicle in the queue.

I acknowledge that the Authority's rejection letter takes the view that the driver's intention is not relevant and that the contravention occurs as soon as a vehicle stops on the box junction when the exit lane is not clear. However, I respectfully maintain that the question of whether stationary vehicles were present at the moment of entry — as required by the statute — is a matter of fact which the video evidence should be examined to determine. I preserve this ground for the Tribunal's consideration.

5. Conclusion and Relief Sought
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that this Tribunal:
1. Allow my appeal on the primary ground that the Authority acted with inordinate and unjustified delay in issuing its Notice of Rejection, in breach of the guidance established by this Tribunal; and
2. Direct that Penalty Charge Notice HZ96242257 be cancelled.
In the alternative, should the Tribunal not allow the appeal on the primary ground, I request that my secondary ground be considered on its merits on the basis that the contravention did not occur within the meaning of the applicable legislation.


Yours faithfully,

Appellant
4 May 2026

Thanks MrChips.

I unleased Claude on the Tribunal website but even it struggled to find relevant cases, given the limitations on search functionality in the database. I fed it the case referenced in your message but it was taking too long to analyse for similar cases, since each case has to be reviewed one at a time.

I think on balance, it is likely worth going to the tribunal on the grounds of inordinate delay, especially as LBHF has not provided any justification for the delay in issuing the NoR.

For completeness, I set out below the session summary with Claude.

Session Summary & Conclusion
What We Were Doing
You asked me to search the London Tribunals ETA statutory register for decided cases where:

The contravention was a moving traffic offence (e.g., stopping in a box junction)
The appellant made representations that were rejected by the issuing authority via a Notice of Rejection (NOR)
The NOR was issued more than 3 months after the representations
The tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds of inordinate delay

A forum respondent then shared a sample case (PCN GX0883096A) which helped significantly narrow the search strategy.

Key Finding
Only one confirmed case meeting all four criteria was found:

Case 2240112496 — Jain and Jain Ltd v Transport for London
PCN: GX0883096A | Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction | Location: HANGER LANE / EALING VILLAGE W5
Representations: 29/08/2023 | NOR issued: 08/02/2024 (~5.5 months later)
First decision: 21 May 2024 – Appeal refused | Review decision: 07 Aug 2024 – Appeal allowed
Adjudicator (review): Andrew Harman
(This is the sample case shared by the forum respondent — it is real and confirmed in the register)

The direct link to this case is session-dependent (the APEX system generates time-limited URLs), but it can be reliably found by:

Going to londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
Clicking "Access the statutory registers" → Search under ETA
Searching by PCN reference: GX0883096A


What Was Searched
MonthCases FoundStatusAugust 2024185 cases✅ Fully searched — all long-gap candidates checkedSeptember 2024158 cases⚠️ Only page 1 reviewed — incompleteOctober 2024Not searched❌November 2024Not searched❌December 2024Not searched❌Jan–Jul 2024Not searched❌2023Not searched❌
5 candidates were investigated and eliminated (red route cases, HGV permit zones, medical evidence cases, costs applications — none were inordinate delay cases).

Conclusions & Recommendations
1. These cases appear to be rare. Even with a targeted search, only one confirmed case was found despite reviewing all 185 August 2024 decisions. The London Tribunals register does not allow full-text search of decision reasons, which makes finding these cases very labour-intensive — you can only infer likely candidates from date-gap proxies.
2. The search is incomplete. There are still many months to search (September 2024 onwards, and all earlier 2024 and 2023 decisions). If you want to continue, the most efficient approach is to use the date-gap proxy method: search each month for TfL + Appeal allowed, then extract cases with a registration-to-outcome gap of >90 days, and check only those.
3. The sample case is a strong precedent. Even if it turns out to be the only such case in the register, the Andrew Harman review decision in GX0883096A provides excellent and clearly reasoned precedent — it directly cites the tribunal's own guidance, notes the absence of any explanation from TfL, and allows the appeal unequivocally.
4. The Paul McKenna v TfL key case (already on the tribunal's website as a key case) provides the foundational principle, and the GX0883096A review decision applies it to a box junction contravention specifically — which is exactly what you need.
5. If you want to resume the search, I can continue with September 2024 through to 2023. The process is slow due to the APEX session management limitations, but it is feasible. Just say the word and I'll pick up from September 2024 page 2.

Practical Takeaway for You
If you or someone you know has received a box junction PCN from TfL, made representations, and then received a NOR more than ~3 months later, the GX0883096A decision strongly supports an appeal to the tribunal on inordinate delay grounds — especially if TfL has offered no explanation for the delay.

From the outset, I am happy to pay the charge if my argument is flimsy and the contravention (as set out in the legislation) really did occur.

Background
Date of alleged contravention: 27.12.2025
Appealed within the allotted time
Rejection letter received dated 27.04.2026

I now have until 11.05.2026 to pay the reduced charge of £80. I would like to understand whether based on the facts, there is any merit to escalate to the tribunal stage?

From the driver's perspective, the traffic was flowing (ie not crawling) at the time I entered the yellow box junction. I reasonably expected to exit the box at the time of entry. However, there is a traffic light just in front of the box and the space between them can only accommodate three vehicles. I was the fourth vehicle so had to stop in the yellow box unexpectedly.

I had appealed that alleged contravention did not occur (the exact argument is set out in the notice of Rejection - see para 'Your challenge')

I attach the following with this message:
1. Original PCN dated 09.01.2026
2. Rejection letter dated 27.04.2026

I had made the representations online, and my argument is set out in the Rejection letter under the heading 'Your challenge'

3. Image from the video still showing the moment my vehicle entered the box junction
4. Video of alleged contravention


I should be grateful for any guidance, whether there is merit in the argument or if there is another reason that would justify escalating the matter to the next stage.

Many thanks.

Moment of box entry


Original PCN


Rejection letter




Video
Video

@TaaSeenMeem

Any update on this?

Nope, not heard back yet. Only correspondence has been an automated email dated 01.07.25 (reproduced below)

Thank you for your submission.  Your case will be placed on hold until we respond to you, UNLESS the case has been passed to the enforcement agents for collection.

If you have challenged within the initial 14-day discount period (following the issue of the PCN), and if we do not agree to cancel, we will allow 14 days (from the date of our reply) for payment to be made at the discounted rate.

All cases are dealt with in chronological order. Therefore, unless you are supplying further information or evidence, please do not write to us again as this may delay our response to you.

If you have any further information/comments to make regarding this PCN, please email them to us at enquiries@lbhfparking.com , making sure that you quote both your PCN number(s) and vehicle registration number.

Please note the information in this email may contain confidential/sensitive information and is intended for the named recipient(s) only.  Please ensure you keep this information confidential and think carefully before forwarding on to other parties, printing or making any copies.
 
If you are not the intended recipient please notify us immediately and delete this email from your system.

I sent the representations last night. It seems you're slightly ahead in the process and already received a response from H&F. What is your next step?

I gather that H&F will initially reject the representations, fix a date for tribunal hearing and then a few days before the hearing they'd concede on no prejudice basis. At least this is the picture that has been painted by other posts elsewhere on this forum.

There's some monkey business with the plans for the scheme. H&F have now disgorged plans showing the road markings but these are dated December 2024 and approved January 2025.
(Attachment Link)

They have also sent me this as the Advance Signage, which manifestly isn't there yet
(Attachment Link)

The scheme was implemented at the end of November 2024, so clearly these plans weren't used. The December/January plans show the Give Way road markings about 1 meter further north than they were originally, as shown in the images in the Hammersmith Society's article.

Despite this, H&F are claiming that they moved the Give Way markings because the contractor didn't put them in the correct place. Apparently the contractor wasn't much good in November at predicting what the plans would look like in January.

One possible explanation is that TfL found out about the scheme and demanded that the Give Way signs be moved further north. If they'd thought about it and really were concerned for cyclists, they would have realised that the road markings at the edges of the exit from the carriageway of Great West Road (marked as being diagram 1040.4 but actually drawn and implemented as diagram 1040.3) prohibit all vehicles from crossing the solid white lines at their edges. When I say "all" I mean all: that restriction applies just as much to bicycles as it does to motor vehicles. So cyclists on the combined cycleway/footway must dismount and carry their bicycles over the hatched areas (sorry, wheeling doesn't cut it; only carrying will do) before continuing on the other side.

TfL might also have considered the implications of making Rivercourt Road two-way. While drivers exiting Great West Road northbound get a PCN, those existing southbound do not. They can only be prosecuted and get points on their licence. This isn't just theory: take a look at this PCN video.

It's also possible that TfL didn't find out about the scheme until much later and that H&F realised the danger - perhaps there was a smash in the first few days - and redrew the plans to reduce the risks. If so, they don't seem to have stopped the smashes, see this recent Hammersmith Society article. I hope H&F residents realise they're on the line when a victim sues the Council for causing crashes by creating a grossly unsafe road scheme.