DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114371--------------------------------------------------
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 25, 2026, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
From The Maestro to me: 2240295228
This is an application by Mr Murray-Smith on behalf of the
Appellant for costs, following the allowing of the Appeal on the
15th October 2024. After adjourning the hearing of the Appeal to
give the Council the (further) opportunity to explain the
traffic management purpose being served by the presence of the
box junction markings when the cones were in place the Council
indicated that the Appeal was no longer resisted. It wrote to
the Appellant stating that the PCN should not have been issued.
The grounds of the application are clearly set out by Mr
Murray-Smith in his written application of the 24th October, and
these were the grounds put forward with some amplification on a
telephone hearing on the 18th December 2024 following which I
reserved my decision. No representations in response have been
received from the Council but I am proceeding on the basis that
the claim would be resisted.
It seems to me that the issue to be decided is whether the
Council’s decision to reject the representations and/or the
decision (initially) to resist the Appeal can be categorised as
“wholly unreasonable” (I do not consider that this is a case
where the Council could be said to have acted frivolously or
vexatiously).
The representations were in the following terms:-
“The footage shows that the road was blocked-off due to cones
across the carriageway, such that traffic could not turn right
from Barking Road into 1 St. Bartholomews Road. As St.
Bartholomews Road is a one-way road, no traffic could emerge
from that road onto Barking Road, so at the material time the
box markings served no purpose whatsoever and did not therefore
fulfil their statutory purpose. It follows that the penalty
charge should be cancelled”
The Council’s rejection notice, although quoting the
representations, shows no sign that this issue was actually
considered at all. It contains what are clearly a number of
pro-forma paragraphs relating to box junctions generally, but
the effect of the roadworks and the possible effect on the
statutory purpose was not mentioned.
These representations were adopted as the initial grounds of
appeal. The Council resisted the Appeal at that stage but out of
nine points raised in response only one dealt in any way with
the grounds relied on. The Council stated “ Roadworks does not
stop the enforcement of box junction unless signs are present.
In this instance no signs was (sic) present.
Having considered the matter carefully it seems to me that
although the original representation did not contain the level
of legal detail subsequently provided by Mr Murray -Smith in his
skeleton argument of the 30th August, the essential point was
made clearly enough and, in my judgement, demanded either an
acceptance by the Council or some reasoned argument why the
statutory purpose was fulfilled despite the presence of the
cones. Rejecting the representations whilst maintaining silence
on the matter was in my view a wholly unreasonable course to
take. Likewise resisting the Appeal with only the most cursory
(and in context incorrect) reference to the point, which the
Council had by that stage ample time to consider was also wholly
unreasonable.
I therefore find that the criteria allowing the making an order
for costs are made out and I can see no good reason why such an
order should not be made. The amount claimed, £84, seems to me
to be reasonable and proportionate to the amount at stake in
these proceedings and I make the order requested.
#Post#: 114379--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from YBJ in Sydenham when the junction had been closed
in two directions for roadworks. Do I have grounds?
DIR By: MrChips
Date: March 25, 2026, 10:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Brilliant - thanks for digging that out.
I knew I'd seen something similar before, but couldn't track it
down either here or on LT.
#Post#: 114401--------------------------------------------------
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 25, 2026, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> Brilliant - thanks for digging that out.
>
> I knew I'd seen something similar before, but couldn't track
it down either here or on LT.
>
--- End Quote ---
I asked cp8759 earlier aka The Wizard of Norfolk aka The
Clinician. ;D
LT does not appear to publish costs decisions occasionally?
Our leader should be on Mastermind. 8)
#Post#: 114578--------------------------------------------------
Re: 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 27, 2026, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for all these inciteful responses. Shall I draft a
challenge using these points? It looks like the main point is
the fact it wasn't being used as a junction and the second are
the points that Hippocrates mentioned about the letter not being
correct?
I have no doubt they will reject the challenge anyway no matter
what I write as they always do!
#Post#: 114693--------------------------------------------------
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 28, 2026, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do a draft first please. Also, please check the payment by post
option is not on the PCN. I will amend the point about the
missing information.
#Post#: 114711--------------------------------------------------
Re: 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 28, 2026, 3:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Do a draft first please. Also, please check the payment by
post option is not on the PCN. I will amend the point about the
missing information.
>
--- End Quote ---
I can confirm that the only options to pay are via the website
or online, no option by post.
#Post#: 114712--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from YBJ in Sydenham when the junction had been closed
in two directions for roadworks. Do I
DIR By: Lefeuvre76
Date: March 28, 2026, 3:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is a draft letter. Let me know what you think and thank you
for your continued help with this.
Dear Lewisham Council,
I am writing to formally challenge the above-referenced Penalty
Charge Notice issued for a perceived yellow box junction
contravention at Westwood Hill / Sydenham. I am contesting this
PCN on the following grounds:
1. The Contravention Did Not Occur: No Statutory Purpose
At the time of the alleged contravention, the location did not
function as a "junction" as defined by the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).
Due to extensive roadworks, the side road and the oncoming
traffic lanes were completely obstructed by cones and barriers.
As a result:
No vehicles could emerge from the side road.
No vehicles could turn right into the side road.
The box junction markings served no traffic management purpose.
The purpose of a yellow box junction is to prevent the
obstruction of a junction to crossing or turning traffic. Where
a road is closed, the box junction ceases to serve its statutory
purpose. I draw your attention to the London Tribunals Costs
Decision 2240295228, where the Adjudicator ruled that enforcing
a box junction when roadworks render the junction unusable is
"wholly unreasonable."
Furthermore, as the markings extended through a section of road
that was effectively sealed off, they were not "at a junction of
two or more roads" at the material time, rendering the
enforcement invalid (see Case 2090257179).
2. Procedural Impropriety: Defects in the PCN Paperwork
I make a collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN
itself. The document is non-compliant with the London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Missing Mandatory Information: The PCN fails to state the
mandatory information required under Section 4( 8 ) (a)(v) of
the Act, specifically in relation to the statutory timeframes
for the service of a Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice.
Payment Options: The PCN fails to clearly offer a "payment by
post" option as required for a valid notice of this type.
Legal Uncertainty: The wording regarding the 28-day period for
payment is conflated and fails to provide the clarity required
by the High Court (as per the Hackney Drivers ruling). It
incorrectly suggests that the period begins from the date of the
notice rather than the date of service, which is a significant
legal error.
Given that the "junction" was physically non-existent due to the
road closures and the paperwork contains significant legal
defects, I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.
Should you choose to reject these representations, I will not
hesitate to take this matter to the London Tribunals and will be
applying for costs on the basis that enforcement in these
circumstances is "wholly unreasonable," as established in
previous case law.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 114715--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from YBJ in Sydenham when the junction had been closed
in two directions for roadworks. Do I have grounds?
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 28, 2026, 3:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> Should you choose to reject these representations, I will not
hesitate to take this matter to the London Tribunals and will be
applying for costs on the basis that enforcement in these
circumstances is "wholly unreasonable," as established in
previous case law.
>
--- End Quote ---
Alter "as established...etc" to "as stated by an adjudicators in
a previous adjudication"
There is no "case law" with adjudications, I'm afraid; would
that there was ! We have seen adjudicators contradict not just
other adjudicators, but their own decisions in identical cases
!!
#Post#: 114716--------------------------------------------------
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 28, 2026, 3:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please hold fire. I am a very busy person at the moment. This
needs to be amended. Never threaten the Tribunal option.
#Post#: 114719--------------------------------------------------
Re: 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 28, 2026, 4:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Please hold fire. I am a very busy person at the moment. This
needs to be amended. Never threaten the Tribunal option.
>
--- End Quote ---
Roger that!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page