https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/rKbbI8T_xl.pngI am Phillip Morgan, author of this document. I am a representative for over 10 years at the London Tribunals (formerly PATAS) and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. In 2012 I exposed errors on the council’s bus lane tickets in the London Evening Standard. I am responsible for all 34 London authorities to have the correct certification for their bus lane cameras since 2023 – a requirement which this council denied and resulted in a costs decision against them. I have won 3 cases at this box junction, one with costs. So, I am well-qualified to comment on this junction - wherever that is!
• The above plan is adduced at Tribunal hearings. It does not show the redacted part of the junction with Westbury Road, which modification the council admits. They have no data regarding the provision of the said plan to the Tribunal.
• There are four Kingston Roads in Kingston, and appeals have been won on this point. So, the use of just “Kingston Road” clearly is a problem for the motorist and the council in terms of the publication of its exact figures, the latter which it also admits.
• Any figures produced concerning appeals allowed and refused are open to elastic interpretation as they are essentially one-dimensional. Around 5 million PCNs are issued by the 34 authorities and only 1% of people fight their tickets. Many of those appeals would have been allowed with proper representation. Most people just part with their money without appealing.
It is in my judgement wholly unreasonable for a Council to issue penalty charge notices in ignorance of ,or disregard for, the legal provisions. I find that the strict criteria necessary for an order for costs to be made are satisfied . This is not the first case I have encountered where this Council appears to pay no regard to, or has completely misunderstood, the applicable law in box junction cases (Adjudicator Edward Houghton Case No: 225019743A)
•
Although less prescriptive than the previous Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, as there are no kerb requirements, the cctv images produced show that in this case the marking appears to extend well beyond the junction. (Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade Case No: 2250256969)
This box junction is not marked at the junction of two roads in accordance with the TSRGD 2016, it being marked both in advance of, and beyond, the junction. (Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne Case No: 2250346289)
In simple terms, as Adjudicator Philippa Alderson said in Case No: 2250036623:
A box junction must be located at a junction between two or more roads. Its purpose is to ensure that vehicles have unrestricted access at the junction and that traffic flow is not impeded. A box junction should not extend significantly beyond the junction as it would serve no useful purpose and would not achieve its objective, although there is an element of flexibility. If a box junction extends significantly beyond the junction, then it may be that no contravention has taken place if a vehicle stops in that section of junction which extends significantly past the junction.I oppose the continued enforcement of either box junction without drastic root to branch review.
