DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110982--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 24, 2026, 9:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the PCN
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/893kl1aztwgi5pn3su0mb/Screenshot_20260224-155121.png?rlkey=uxljct88rhywjkr9qhvuanzbt&st=yasjgh03&dl=0
They've been v naughty with their evidence here because the
still shot they've used she is still moving.
#Post#: 111018--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: February 24, 2026, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There does seem to be an issue with the right turn here with the
caveats that the layout may have changed and adjudicators are
not bound by previous decisions.
Note case 2230304887:
“Half boxes, in which only half the area of the junction is
marked are appropriate at T junctions and other junctions where
the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Half boxes
should be used only on the minor road side of the main
carriageway to allow emerging traffic to turn right where the
queue of traffic in the major road is to the left. A half box on
the side of the road opposite a T junction generally serves no
useful purpose. Even though it will create a gap in a queue of
traffic, drivers turning right from the minor road will not be
able to enter the box as the exit will be obstructed.”
It is abundantly clear from the guidance that a half-box on the
side of the road opposite a T-junction generally serves no
useful purpose and will cause an unnecessary obstacle for
drivers turning right from the minor road. In my judgement, the
guidance is clear that the only box marking that will normally
be appropriate at a T-junction is a half box on the minor side
of the road in a situation where the traffic blocks back from
one direction only.
--------
----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
via telephone.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this
vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited.
Upon Mr Hussain submitting that the box was too large. I was
satisfied on the council's online footage of the incident, which
I viewed, that this box was marked well beyond the junction
shown thereon it thus not I find being marked at the junction of
two roads as required under The Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. I inferred that had the box
been marked at the junction itself the appellant's vehicle in
stopping would not have stopped within box junction markings. I
was not satisfied against this background that this box was
marked in compliance with the TSRGD 2016 and I accordinlgy found
that the contravention had not been proved.
------------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
Asif, attended the hearing of the appeal in person. He was also
the driver of the vehicle at the time. The Appellant did not
attend. The Authority did not attend, nor were they represented.
It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle entered
and stopped in a box junction on Cambridge Park J/W Blake Hall
Road on 10 September 2023. They rely in evidence on CCTV footage
which shows the vehicle enter the box junction and turn right
(the junction is a T-junction) and come to a halt on the
junction owing to stationary vehicles ahead. They also rely on
photographs taken from within Blake Hall Road that show the view
of the junction at various points.
Under the relevant regulation the prohibition is defined as
follows: “...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.” This means that
before a driver causes their vehicle to enter the box junction
there must already be a clear space waiting to receive their
vehicle on the other side. An exemption applies to a person who
causes a vehicle to enter a box junction for purpose of turning
right and stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long
as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn by an
oncoming vehicle or other vehicle which is stationary whilst
waiting to complete a right turn.
It is the Appellant’s case that, first, he is entitled to
benefit from the turning right exemption; secondly, the
configuration and size of the box junction is such that, on
approaching the junction on Blake Road, it is not possible to
see the boundary and exit point of the junction when turning
right and that one cannot see this until one has entered the
junction, by which time it is too late. The Appellant maintains
that the box is simply too large for the junction and that it
should not be larger than the width of Blake Hall Road.
The Appellant has produced in evidence an image from Google Maps
showing the view of the junction on the approach from Blake Hall
Road and a further image showing another junction where the box
is much smaller and simply spans the mouth of the side road. In
addition, the Appellant seeks to rely on the decision of another
adjudicator (2230448945), which related to the same junction.
The decision was as follows:
“The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this
vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited.
Upon Mr Hussain submitting that the box was too large. I was
satisfied on the council's online footage of the incident, which
I viewed, that this box was marked well beyond the junction
shown thereon it thus not I find being marked at the junction of
two roads as required under The Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. I inferred that had the box
been marked at the junction itself the appellant's vehicle in
stopping would not have stopped within box junction markings. I
was not satisfied against this background that this box was
marked in compliance with the TSRGD 2016 and I accordingly found
that the contravention had not been proved.”
The right-hand turn exemption does not apply in this case
because the junction is a T-junction rather than a crossroads
and therefore it is not possible for vehicles turning right at
the junction to be prevented from doing so by an oncoming
vehicle. Therefore, the Appellant’s appeal cannot succeed on
this point.
As regards the configuration and size of the box junction I take
the view that it is large and extends beyond the junction
itself, such that a motorist’s view, on approaching the
junction, of the boundary and exit point on the right-hand side
of the junction, is compromised. I am not satisfied that the box
is contained within the junction of the two roads, as required
by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
This case is very similar, if not identical, to the case
referred to above and I follow the said decision in that case.
It follows that I am not satisfied that the contravention has
been proved and I allow the appeal.
------------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Owner.
Reasons
hearing on 29 August 2023. Mr Askaari attended that hearing in
person and he also attended the previous hearing on 25 July
2023.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering
and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The box junction
is located in Cambridge Park Road at the junction with Blake
Hall Road.
Paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016 states 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.
The CCTV footage shows that Mr Askaari’s car made a right turn
out of the minor road and then stopped in the box behind another
vehicle which was still in the box and stationary in a line of
traffic. It is not in dispute that there was no clear exit for
Mr Askaari’s car at the point of entry into the box or that the
car was caused to stop in the box due to stationary traffic.
At the hearing on 25 July, Mr Askaari submitted images of the
approach to the box junction where he made the right turn from
Blake Hall Road onto Cambridge Park Road. These images show that
there is a bend in the road so that the traffic lights and
junction are not in view from a distance. Mr Askaari's evidence
was that a driver going through the lights on green does not
have time to see the box junction until it is too late. He said
that only a driver stopping at the lights when they are red will
see the box junction markings in time.
I did not have any images showing the driver's view as the
corner was turned and what the visibility of the junction then
was. I adjourned the hearing on 25 July for the Council to
comment on this evidence. I also invited the Council’s comments
on the measurements of the box and on Mr Askaari's ground of
appeal that the markings of the box extend beyond the junction.
The Council submitted further evidence on 9 August, including
three still images showing the approach to the traffic lights in
Blake Hall Road. At the reconvened hearing on 29 August, Mr
Askaari maintained his position that it is very difficult to see
the box markings unless the lights are red and the driver is
stopped.
In relation Mr Askaari's ground of appeal that the markings of
the box extend beyond the junction, the Council maintains that
the box meets the definition of a box junction in Paragraph
11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 as being “an area of the
carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a
junction between two or more roads.”
Mr Askaari also says that the Department for Transport states
that implementing this type of box junction at a T junction
serves no useful purpose so that such boxes should not be used
or enforced.
I have considered firstly the evidence as to the visibility of
the box markings on the approach to the junction. The aerial
view from the camera shows a clear view of the box markings.
However, the Council’s still images of the approach to the
lights show that there is not a clear view for the driver
approaching the lights. I agree with Mr Askaari that a driver
going through the lights on green may well not have time to see
the markings and safely stop until it is too late.
In my judgement, the box markings do extend beyond the junction
and do not meet the definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7
of Schedule 9. The junction is the width of the carriageway of
the minor road which meets the major road and these markings
extend well beyond that width, to the extent that a driver
stopped at the lights has no visibility of the end of the box to
the right.
The Council does not address Mr Askaari’s ground of appeal that
the use of this type of box junction at a T junction is contrary
to DfT guidance.
The Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 5, paragraph 8.3.2. (Road
Markings 2018) makes it clear that only half-boxes are
appropriate for use at T-junctions and other junctions where the
traffic blocks back from one direction only. Paragraph 8.3.2.
reads as below.
“Half boxes, in which only half the area of the junction is
marked are appropriate at T junctions and other junctions where
the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Half boxes
should be used only on the minor road side of the main
carriageway to allow emerging traffic to turn right where the
queue of traffic in the major road is to the left. A half box on
the side of the road opposite a T junction generally serves no
useful purpose. Even though it will create a gap in a queue of
traffic, drivers turning right from the minor road will not be
able to enter the box as the exit will be obstructed.”
Mr Askaari has provided a copy of Sam Wright's review of
Councils' plans to enforce yellow box junctions, commissioned by
the RAC. The review includes a detailed consideration of boxes
covering the far side of T-junctions. The Council’s case summary
provides no comment on this review.
Sam Wright’s report provides a very useful commentary on boxes
that cover the far side of T-junctions. Under the old TSRGD,
boxes that covered the far side of a T-junction were not
permitted and required DfT approval. The report refers to FOI
requests revealing that, in 2007, the DfT stopped authorising
these kinds of boxes, stating: “We were no longer prepared to
authorise full box junctions at a T-junction when Transport for
London reviewed their box junctions in 2007. Our reasoning was
that we saw no traffic management benefit in the use of full box
junctions at this type of junction.”
In spite of this clear statement of the DfT’s position in 2007,
there is no doubt that the position has been relaxed by TSRGD
2016. However, TSRGD 2016 does not, in my judgement, provide
full flexibility for a full box marking at T-junctions. The
change is that DfT approval is no longer required for a full box
marking. That does not, however, give Councils carte blanche to
introduce full boxes as they wish. If it did, then the statutory
guidance in Paragraph 8.3.2 would be rendered meaningless. It is
abundantly clear from the guidance that a half-box on the side
of the road opposite a T-junction generally serves no useful
purpose and will cause an unnecessary obstacle for drivers
turning right from the minor road. In my judgement, the guidance
is clear that the only box marking that will normally be
appropriate at a T-junction is a half box on the minor side of
the road in a situation where the traffic blocks back from one
direction only.
Clearly, there is no longer a requirement for DfT approval for
the use of a full box marking at a T-junction but, in my
judgement, paragraph 8.3.2 requires that the use of such a
marking is justified, especially given the clear impediment
resulting for drivers attempting to make the right turn out of
the minor road.
If the Council seeks to enforce PCNs against such drivers, then
it needs to produce evidence showing the reasons for which it
has both introduced and retained the use of the full box marking
and, in this case, it has not done so. Although the Council
refers to this ground of appeal in the case summary, it produces
no evidence of why a full box was installed at this junction.
I allow the appeal for all of these reasons.
------------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Owner.
Reasons
entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited.
Paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016 states 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. It is an offence to enter the box
without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to
stationary vehicles in front.
Paragraph 11(3) states that this prohibition does not apply to
any person causing a vehicle to enter a box junction (other than
a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of making a
right turn out of the box and stopping the vehicle for so long
as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming
vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary waiting to
complete the right turn.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage. This shows Mrs Dvorani's car
entering the box to make a right turn out of the box. The car
then stops in the box due to the car in front becoming
stationary in traffic. The car in front was also making a right
turn.
I am allowing the appeal because Mrs Dvorani's car stopped
within the box to make a right turn out of the box and was
prevented from completing the right turn by the car in front
which had also made the right turn. The car in front was also
waiting to complete its exit from the box.
--------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
1. This is an appeal against a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
issued by the London Borough of Redbridge Council, the
Enforcement Authority, in respect of a contravention namely,
entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
2. The hearing took place via Teams, as per the Appellant’s
preference.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
3. The Enforcement Authority states the vehicle was observed by
an authorised enforcement camera which observed the vehicle
enter and subsequently stop within a box junction at the
junction of Blake Hall Road and Cambridge Park on 6th June 2025.
4. The Enforcement Authority have provided video evidence of the
contravention along with maps and additional photographs showing
the junction in more detail.
5. The Enforcement Authority have also provided information
which confirms that the Appellant is the registered keeper of
the vehicle.
6. The Enforcement Authority state that the PCN was issued
lawfully, by post. To date, no payment of the PCN has been made.
Appellant’s Case
7. The Appellant (via her authorised representative Mr Knights)
accepts that she is the registered keeper of the vehicle and
that on the day of the contravention, the vehicle did enter and
stop within a box junction as alleged.
8. Immediately prior to the hearing, the Appellant had uploaded
a number of previous tribunal decisions and a substantial
document from Sam Wright, a “Yellow Box Guru”. I informed the
Appellant that I had been able to briefly consider this evidence
but that if the Appellant wished me to consider anything in
detail, they should direct me to the specific document they
wished to rely on.
9. The Appellant appeals on two grounds. The first being that
the box junction itself is not lawful in that it extends beyond
the parameters of the junction. As such, any drivers turning
from the minor road (Blake Hall Road) on to the major road
(Cambridge Park) are required to traverse a greater area than
lawfully required, which in turn results in drivers
inadvertently contravening the box junction. The Appellant
states that if the box junction was a lawful size, the
contravention would not have occurred.
10. The Appellant relies on a previous decision of this tribunal
namely, Sam Yorke v Camden (20th June 2009). Whilst I considered
this decision, I noted that this decision was made in respect of
a different box junction and was of some age.
11. Secondly, the Appellant states that vehicles turning right
from the minor road into the major road have their view of
traffic on that major road obscured. Drivers are unable to see
round the corner in order to determine whether or not their exit
is clear and can only make this observation once they have
passed the stop line before the pedestrian crossing.
12. The Appellant states that if the vehicle passes the stop
line in order to determine whether or not their exit is clear,
the vehicle is then stopping on a pedestrian crossing, which is
dangerous.
13. The Appellant relies on a previous decision of this tribunal
of Nojrul Askaari (19th April 2023) where this issue was raised
and a decision was made in the Appellant’s favour.
14. The Appellant did also raise concerns about the legality of
the box junction on the basis that it was a half junction which
covered the far side of the T junction only. I noted from the
PCN footage that the box junction is now a full box junction,
which covers the entire carriageway of Cambridge Park and is
therefore, no longer a half box junction.
Findings and Conclusion
15. The burden of proof for proving the contravention lies with
the Enforcement Authority who must satisfy me, on the balance of
probabilities that a contravention has occurred.
16. It is agreed by all parties that the Appellant is the
registered keeper of the vehicle and that the vehicle entered a
box junction on Blake Hall Road/Cambridge Park on 6th June 2025.
Therefore factually, I am satisfied that the contravention has
occurred and the PCN correctly issued to the Appellant.
17. The issue for me to determine is whether or not the box
junction is compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2016 (Schedule 9, Part 7, Paragraph 11). This
regulation states that a box junction can be placed at a
junction between two or more roads. However, in this instance,
the issue is whether or not the extension of that box junction
beyond the parameters of the carriageway of the junction is
permitted.
18. Whilst there is nothing within the legislation which
prevents the box junction from extending beyond the carriageway
of the junction, doing so creates a box junction which is
unnecessarily large. In this instance, the box junction markings
extend well beyond the limits of the carriageway of Blake Hall
Road.
19. The result of this is that drivers who make a right turn
from the minor road to the major road find that even though they
have cleared the junction, their vehicle is still within the box
junction and as such, this results in contraventions.
20. I note the decision made by this tribunal in the case of
Nojrul Askaari in April 2023 and whilst I am not bound by this
decision, I agree with the findings made therein. I find that
this box junction extends beyond the carriageway of the junction
and as such, creates a larger than necessary box junction which
drivers are more likely to fall foul of.
21. The Enforcement Authority in response to this
representations imply say that the box junction is
“substantially compliant” and provide no further comment. I am
dissatisfied with this explanation. I cannot comprehend, nor has
it been explained to me how it is possible for a box junction to
be “substantially compliant”. Either the box junction is
compliant or it is not and in the absence of any explanation or
comment from the Enforcement Authority, I am not satisfied the
box junction is compliant.
22. Further, the Appellant made representations that visibility
at the location makes it difficult to see whether or not the
exit to the major road is clear until the driver has already
committed to the turn. I accept the Appellant’s representations.
The photographic evidence provided shows that in order to make
the turn and to assess whether or not the exit from the right
turn onto Cambridge Park is clear, drivers have to cross the
“stop” line and essentially wait on the pedestrian crossing in
order to avoid contravening the box junction.
23. Therefore, I am satisfied that due to poor visibility, the
Appellant was unable to determine if their exit was clear until
they had already committed to making the right turn,
24. For the reasons stated above, I allow the appeal.
Decision
25. The appeal is therefore allowed.
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
receipt of the Authority's evidence pack. The Authority did not
attend and had not been expected to.
The Appellant explained that he is a driving instructor and it
was a student driving on the date of the alleged contravention.
The Appellant explained that the box junction is wider than the
junction by about 2 metres and that it was not possible to see
the exit of the box junction from the junction itself, when you
are performing a right turn, as they were. The Appellant has
provided a photograph of the view from behind the cycle box,
which is just before the traffic lights, and the end of the box
junction is not visible. The Appellant commented that this is
due to its size and also because the metal railings obscure the
view. The Appellant told me that his submission is that they
were not able to see the exit until they were already committed
to the manoeuvre and in the box.
The Appellant has also provided an image from google maps, which
shows the box junction from the satellite view. The box
continues substantially past the junction on the right hand
side, as opposed to the left hand side of it.
The Authority has also provided images of the view of the box
junction from Blakehill Road. In my view, the first of these
photographs supports the Appellant's submission that the end of
the box is obscured by the railing and not clearly visible from
the junction. The second photograph shows the view from the
footway and is not an accurate depiction of how the road would
have appear to a motorist. The final photograph is also from the
footway, but again I am not satisfied that the end of the box
junction is clearly visible - this seems really to be an issue
relating to the size of the box markings - they appear to extend
beyond the junction itself.
In my view, considering the evidence as a whole, the motorist's
view on 10 September 2023 at 14:08 was compromised until he was
already committed to the manoeuvre. I am not satisfied that the
box is contained within the junction of the two roads, as
required by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
2016.
For the reasons set out above I allow this appeal.
#Post#: 111021--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 24, 2026, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you - I know this box junction well and it hasn't changed
since those cases - it still goes waaaaay past the junction.
#Post#: 111030--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 24, 2026, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
here is an amended draft which in a very shameless way rides on
the coat tails of the hard work of the other contributors to
this thread for which my thanks. Do we think this is potentially
a case where we can meaningfully threaten costs against them
because they clearly wont engage with the points raised below???
I make representations against this Penalty Charge Notice on
the following grounds.
Firstly, it is asserted the contravention has not occurred as
alleged or at all. Having reviewed the CCTV footage provided by
the council, the appellant’s vehicle did not come to a complete
stop until it was alongside the white vehicle to its left at
which point the appellant’s vehicle came to a stop in the box
junction with no vehicle directly in front of it. Having
measured the space available** to the appellant directly in
front of their vehicle it is noted that the space available to
the appellant was no less than 5.33m.
The Appellants vehicle’s length is 4.37.1 metres in length*.
It is clear therefore that there was more than sufficient space
in front of the Appellant’s vehicle for the appellant to have
completely cleared the box junction and therefore the appellant
did not stop in the box junction due to the presence of
stationary vehicles***. It is noted that the still image
provided by the council was taken whilst the appellant’s vehicle
was still in motion and had not come to a stop. The provision
and reliance of such an image by this council in issuing this
penalty charge notice is clearly misleading and therefore of no
evidential value whatsoever.
The second ground of challenge is that the box junction itself
is of an unlawful size as the markings extend beyond the
junction and therefore it does not meet the guidance laid down
for councils by the Department for Transport, noting the
definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 of the
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
(TSRGD)****. The Appellant puts Redbridge council to strict
proof as to why they have installed an oversized box junction in
this location and requests that the council produces evidence to
justify the introduction and retention of the full box marking.
Further, the Appellant in this case asserts that due to the
illegal layout of the box junction, it was impossible to assess
where the end of the box actually was when they turned right and
were committed to entering the box.
There is a plethora of adjudicator decisions which indicate this
box junction is of an illegal layout which makes it impossible
for drivers to see around a corner as to where the box junction
ends, the Appellant in this case makes grounds of appeal
relating to both the illegal layout of the junction (it being
too big for the purpose it serves) and the inability to see
around a corner to assess where the box junction ends and
therefore assess whether there is sufficient space on the other
side of the box junction when lawfully entering the junction to
turn right as the Appellant was so doing in this case. For the
assistance of the enforcement authority, which no doubt will be
ignored in their response to these representations, the
Appellant outlines relevant decisions of this tribunal which the
Appellant in this case relies on and adopts for the purposes of
these representations:
1)
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne in the case of Nojrul Askaari V
LB of Redbridge (case number 2230304887) which concerns the same
box junction that the appellant has been sent this penalty
charge notice for, Adjudicator Stanton-Dunne concluded the box
junction markings extended beyond the junction and therefore do
not meet the definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of
Schedule 9 and it follows therefore that the layout is unlawful.
2)
Adjudicator Harman in the case of Nassir Hussain V London
Borough of Redbridge, (case number 2230267259) concerning this
very box junction. In that case the Appellant argued that given
the illegal size of the box junction, had the box junction been
a lawful size the nuisance the enforcing authority complained of
in their PCN would not have been committed. Adjudicator Harman
accepted this reasoning, and allowed the appeal, stating that
that he was “satisfied (from) the council's online footage of
the incident, which (he) viewed, that this box was marked well
beyond the junction shown thereon it” He continued that this box
junction was, “thus not I find being marked at the junction of
two roads as required under The Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. I inferred that had the box
been marked at the junction itself the appellant's vehicle in
stopping would not have stopped within box junction markings. I
was not satisfied against this background that this box was
marked in compliance with the TSRGD 2016 and I accordingly found
that the contravention had not been proved”.
3)
adjudicator Kumar in the case of Knights V LB of Redbridge also
concerning this box junction (Case reference 2250397133). In
this case adjudicator Kumar concluded that they were “not
satisfied the box junction is compliant”. The adjudicator also
accepted that there was clear difficulty for motorists to assess
if the box junction was clear on the otherside due to the
illegal layout of the box. The Appellant in this case assets
that they were also unable to determine if their exit was clear
until they had already committed to making the right turn,
because of the size of the box – consequently it was not
possible to assess the end of the box until they had entered it.
4)
adjudicator Fantinic in the matter of Chowdhury v LB of
Redbridge case number 2230459828 concerning this box junction.
The adjudicator in this case agreed that they were not satisfied
that the end of the box junction was visible to a motorist until
they had committed to entering the box – this was due to the
unlawful layout and road furniture surrounding the box.
For the above reasons, the Penalty Charge Notice must be
cancelled.
#Post#: 111065--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 25, 2026, 2:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If anyone has any amends or thoughts on the above draft do let
me know in the next day or so, she's leaning towards paying the
ticket/being mugged but whilst it's her money, given the
numerous cases on the size of the box I think this one is as
good a bet as we see here. Tell me if I am wrong !
#Post#: 111075--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: February 25, 2026, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've ignored the part of the case I highlighted for you about
the guidance for boxes at T junctions. It is worth including.
#Post#: 111095--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 25, 2026, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
cheers - I have amended as below:
I make representations against this Penalty Charge Notice on
the following grounds.
Firstly, it is asserted the contravention has not occurred as
alleged or at all. Having reviewed the CCTV footage provided by
the council, the appellant’s vehicle did not come to a complete
stop until it was alongside the white vehicle to its left at
which point the appellant’s vehicle came to a stop in the box
junction with no vehicle directly in front of it. Having
measured the space available** to the appellant directly in
front of their vehicle it is noted that the space available to
the appellant was no less than 5.33m.
The Appellants vehicle’s length is 4.37.1 metres in length*.
It is clear therefore that there was more than sufficient space
in front of the Appellant’s vehicle for the appellant to have
completely cleared the box junction and therefore the appellant
did not stop in the box junction due to the presence of
stationary vehicles***. It is noted that the still image
provided by the council was taken whilst the appellant’s vehicle
was still in motion and had not come to a stop. The provision
and reliance of such an image by this council in issuing this
penalty charge notice is clearly misleading and therefore of no
evidential value whatsoever.
The second ground of challenge is that the box junction itself
is of an unlawful size as the markings extend beyond the
junction and therefore it does not meet the guidance laid down
for councils by the Department for Transport, noting the
definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 of the
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
(TSRGD)****. The Appellant puts Redbridge council to strict
proof as to why they have installed an oversized box junction in
this location and requests that the council produces evidence to
justify the introduction and retention of the full box marking.
Further, the Appellant in this case asserts that due to the
illegal layout of the box junction, it was impossible to assess
where the end of the box actually was when they turned right and
were committed to entering the box.
There is a plethora of adjudicator decisions which indicate this
box junction is of an illegal layout both in relation to its
size and shape which makes it impossible for drivers to see
around a corner as to where the box junction ends, the Appellant
in this case makes grounds of appeal relating to both the
illegal layout of the junction (it being too big for the purpose
it serves) and the inability to see around a corner to assess
where the box junction ends and therefore assess whether there
is sufficient space on the other side of the box junction when
lawfully entering the junction to turn right as the Appellant
was so doing in this case. For the assistance of the enforcement
authority, which no doubt will be ignored in their response to
these representations, the Appellant outlines relevant decisions
of this tribunal which the Appellant in this case relies on and
adopts for the purposes of these representations:
1) The Appellant relies on the analysis and decision of
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne in the case of Nojrul Askaari V
LB of Redbridge (case number 2230304887) which concerns the same
box junction that the appellant has been sent this penalty
charge notice for, Adjudicator Stanton-Dunne concluded the box
junction markings extended beyond the junction and therefore do
not meet the definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of
Schedule 9 and it follows therefore that the layout is unlawful.
In Askaari, the Appellant highlighted that the Department for
Transport states that implementing this specific type of box
junction at a T junction serves no useful purpose so that such
boxes should not be used or enforced. The Traffic Signs Manual,
Chapter 5, paragraph 8.3.2. (Road Markings 2018) makes it clear
that only half-boxes are appropriate for use at T-junctions and
other junctions where the traffic blocks back from one direction
only. The Appellant in this case asserts that this type of box
junction at a T junction is contrary to DfT guidance, should not
have been implemented and it is clear, that it is unlawful. The
Appellant in this matter draws the council to the following from
Askaari:
“Half boxes, in which only half the area of the junction is
marked are appropriate at T junctions and other junctions where
the traffic blocks back from one direction only. Half boxes
should be used only on the minor road side of the main
carriageway to allow emerging traffic to turn right where the
queue of traffic in the major road is to the left. A half box on
the side of the road opposite a T junction generally serves no
useful purpose. Even though it will create a gap in a queue of
traffic, drivers turning right from the minor road will not be
able to enter the box as the exit will be obstructed.”
It is abundantly clear from the guidance that a half-box on the
side of the road opposite a T-junction generally serves no
useful purpose and will cause an unnecessary obstacle for
drivers turning right from the minor road* In my judgement, the
guidance is clear that the only box marking that will normally
be appropriate at a T-junction is a half box on the minor side
of the road in a situation where the traffic blocks back from
one direction only”
For that reason alone, unless the council can address this
ground of appeal cogently and clearly (and they are, for the
avoidance of any doubt, hereby invited to so), the PCN should be
cancelled.
2) The Appellant relies on the analysis and decision of
Adjudicator Harman in the case of Nassir Hussain V London
Borough of Redbridge, (case number 2230267259) concerning this
very box junction. In that case the Appellant argued that given
the illegal size of the box junction, had the box junction been
a lawful size the nuisance the enforcing authority complained of
in their PCN would not have been committed. Adjudicator Harman
accepted this reasoning, and allowed the appeal, stating that
that he was “satisfied (from) the council's online footage of
the incident, which (he) viewed, that this box was marked well
beyond the junction shown thereon it” He continued that this box
junction was, “thus not I find being marked at the junction of
two roads as required under The Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. I inferred that had the box
been marked at the junction itself the appellant's vehicle in
stopping would not have stopped within box junction markings. I
was not satisfied against this background that this box was
marked in compliance with the TSRGD 2016 and I accordingly found
that the contravention had not been proved”.
3) The Appellant relies on the analysis and decision of
adjudicator Kumar in the case of Knights V LB of Redbridge also
concerning this box junction (Case reference 2250397133). In
this case adjudicator Kumar concluded that they were “not
satisfied the box junction is compliant”. The adjudicator also
accepted that there was clear difficulty for motorists to assess
if the box junction was clear on the otherside due to the
illegal layout of the box. The Appellant in this case assets
that they were also unable to determine if their exit was clear
until they had already committed to making the right turn,
because of the size of the box – consequently it was not
possible to assess the end of the box until they had entered it.
4) Finally the Appellant relies on the analysis and decision
of adjudicator Fantinic in the matter of Chowdhury v LB of
Redbridge case number 2230459828 concerning this box junction.
The adjudicator in this case agreed that they were not satisfied
that the end of the box junction was visible to a motorist until
they had committed to entering the box – this was due to the
unlawful layout and road furniture surrounding the box.
For the above reasons, the Penalty Charge Notice must be
cancelled.
#Post#: 111507--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 28, 2026, 7:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looking to the future and this inevitably going to the
adjudicator, what are people's thoughts on making a costs
application against Redbridge council on this one ? They are on
notice via the 6 or 7 various cases that the box junction is too
big.
I'll probably do the hearing for my neighbour on this. I am a
qualified and practising solicitor (not in motoring law) and
whilst I won't be doing the hearing as a solicitor and cannot
claim my usual hourly rate surely we can make a costs
application against them at the standard lower rate that anyone
else can?
#Post#: 111508--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: February 28, 2026, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You can make an application but it will only be awarded in the
event that Redbridge act wholly unreasonably - a high bar.
#Post#: 111510--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 28, 2026, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it not the most egregious example of being unreasonable in
circumstances where the council have a binary choice to
discontinue the proceedings against the motorist where everyone,
including them, knows the box junction is too big, they know
it's likely there will be yet another determination it's too
big, but they choose to continue? In those circumstances it's
hard to think of a more clear cut example of them persisting in
this going to a hearing and knowing they'll lose.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page