DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114076--------------------------------------------------
PCN from YBJ in Sydenham when the junction had been closed in
two directions for roadworks. Do I have grounds?
DIR By: Lefeuvre76
Date: March 23, 2026, 6:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The yellow box junction at the bottom of Westwood Hill coming
into Sydenham, London SE26 has just got a camera having not ever
had one before.
I got a PCN last week having not noticed it had gone up. On the
face of it it looks like i'm bang to rights but does the fact
that there are roadworks completely blocking the right turn and
oncoming traffic make any difference to the issuing of this PCN?
The box junction cannot be used as nobody can turn right or come
out of that road onto the junction so it is not currently a
junction.
I would be really grateful if the experts can cast their gaze
over the paperwork and see if anything is untoward (as it
usually is) and whether the roadworks make any difference,
before I pay it.
Thank you as always for your amazing help. Please let me know if
I need to post any other information.
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/qrB8DTx
HTML https://streamable.com/74vm5c?src=player-page-share
- Video take
from Lewisham PCN website
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdLHg
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdPl1
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdriB
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdgVV
#Post#: 114078--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from New box junction camera Westwood Hill, Sydenham.
Any redress?
DIR By: mickR
Date: March 23, 2026, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
you need the video. its the only evidence to prove a
contravention
#Post#: 114086--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from New box junction camera Westwood Hill, Sydenham.
Any redress?
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 23, 2026, 7:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The video shows what would normally be a clear contravention, no
doubt on that at all, but the situation was not normal, because
the opposite lane was closed, and with it, the side road that
allows vehicles to join the main road.
So basically this is a typical money-grubbing PCN and it has to
be doubted if the video has been viewed before the PCN was sent
out; I suspect not.
The law is that a YBJ must be at the junction of two or more
roads, and with the closures that no longer applies, so I would
submit representations on that basis and question why
enforcement is being undertaken during the road works, because
the YBJ has no purpose while they are in progress. One could say
that the YBJ is not valid during the works because it is not at
the junction of two or more roads. However, wait a bit a see
what the others say.
#Post#: 114099--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from New box junction camera Westwood Hill, Sydenham.
Any redress?
DIR By: Lefeuvre76
Date: March 23, 2026, 8:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mickR link ---
>
> you need the video. its the only evidence to prove a
contravention
>
--- End Quote ---
Video now attached.
#Post#: 114101--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from New box junction camera Westwood Hill, Sydenham.
Any redress?
DIR By: Lefeuvre76
Date: March 23, 2026, 9:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> The video shows what would normally be a clear contravention,
no doubt on that at all, but the situation was not normal,
because the opposite lane was closed, and with it, the side road
that allows vehicles to join the main road.
>
> So basically this is a typical money-grubbing PCN and it has
to be doubted if the video has been viewed before the PCN was
sent out; I suspect not.
>
> The law is that a YBJ must be at the junction of two or more
roads, and with the closures that no longer applies, so I would
submit representations on that basis and question why
enforcement is being undertaken during the road works, because
the YBJ has no purpose while they are in progress. One could say
that the YBJ is not valid during the works because it is not at
the junction of two or more roads. However, wait a bit a see
what the others say.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you for your thoughts. It seems there is mixed messaging
from doing some research online. I have seen quite a lot saying
it does not matter how many roadworks are up, even if the entire
other side of the road is sealed off including the right turn,
the box junction and the 31J PCN would still be valid.
Then there are some who say it could be argued that the
roadworks mean that this is no longer a junction of any kind so
should not function as one.
#Post#: 114121--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from New box junction camera Westwood Hill, Sydenham.
Any redress?
DIR By: MrChips
Date: March 23, 2026, 11:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think I've seen a previous adjudicators decision that agreed a
box junction shouldn't be enforced when there is no longer a
junction due to a road closure. Will try and find it.
#Post#: 114132--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from New box junction camera Westwood Hill, Sydenham.
Any redress?
DIR By: MrChips
Date: March 23, 2026, 12:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No luck so far - I'll keep looking (hope I didn't imagine it).
Meanwhile, this blog post by Mr Mustard offers encouragement
HTML https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2017/10/up-junction-in-enfield.html
There is also a key case on the London Tribunals website which
sets out very clearly that box junction markings which extend
beyond a road junction itself are not valid to enforce, and this
seems to me to be analogous to your situation.
Extract as follows:
"The problem with the special authorisation is this. Part of the
box that it purportedly authorises is not within the junction of
the roads. At its southern side it includes a triangle of road
that is not within the junction and is therefore not 'at a
junction between two or more roads'. The prohibition, however,
relates only to a box junction as defined. The special
authorisation therefore purports to extend the prohibition
outside the junction. It does not seem to me that the power to
authorise signs empowers the Secretary of State to effectively
redefine the prohibition prescribed by Schedule 19.
This is not an insignificant matter. The box as purportedly
authorised extends for a significant distance beyond the
junction itself. This increases the distance the motorist has to
traverse without stopping, and therefore makes it more difficult
for them to make progress without falling foul of the box. It is
also difficult to see what the point of extending the box beyond
the junction is, given that the purpose of the prohibition
plainly is to stop stationary vehicles blocking the junction to
crossing traffic. Clearly, stopping in the area beyond the
junction would not block the junction.
I accordingly find that this yellow box is not a lawful road
marking. Therefore the contravention did not occur. I allow this
appeal."
#Post#: 114138--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from New box junction camera Westwood Hill, Sydenham.
Any redress?
DIR By: Lefeuvre76
Date: March 23, 2026, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> I think I've seen a previous adjudicators decision that agreed
a box junction shouldn't be enforced when there is no longer a
junction due to a road closure. Will try and find it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you I would be very grateful if you could.
#Post#: 114290--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from YBJ in Sydenham when the junction had been closed
in two directions for roadworks. Do I have grounds?
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 24, 2026, 5:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The key case: 2090257179.
The PCN has issues too.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN
as it does not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v)
of
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii). Therefore, the PCN is not
valid as it is missing mandatory information. And so it follows
that the statement beginning with "If you fail................."
is not only conflated but also does not even mention the said
information thus exacerbating the lack of clarity of this PCN.
Whether the "or" is interpreted as conjunctively or
disjunctively, is somewhat further complicated by the missing
information. Therefore, it must be read as to be paid before
the end of 28 days from the date of service, which is wrong. The
High Court has ruled that there must be such clarity in Hackney
Drivers.
Also, I cannot see if the PCN states payment by post option.
#Post#: 114293--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from New box junction camera Westwood Hill, Sydenham.
Any redress?
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 24, 2026, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Lefeuvre76 link ---
>
> [quote author=MrChips link=topic=10326.msg114121#msg114121
date=1774282882]
> I think I've seen a previous adjudicators decision that agreed
a box junction shouldn't be enforced when there is no longer a
junction due to a road closure. Will try and find it.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you I would be very grateful if you could.
[/quote]
Me too please.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/news-press-articles/that-kingston-box-junction/msg114107/#msg114107
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page