DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 117053--------------------------------------------------
TfL - Box Junction - Not Evidenced Cause of Stoppage - Albany
Road/Genista Road
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: April 26, 2026, 12:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Three weeks ago I appealed three TfL box junction PCNs all at
different locations, as none of the three showed the reason for
the stop. Two of them the evidence strongly implied the vehicle
stopped due to pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, where
the vehicle did not fit between the lights and the end of the
box junction. These were both accepted the day after.
However, this third one they rejected, and in their reasoning
they contradict themselves. They state:
"Under the relevant legislation, a contravention occurs when a
vehicle enters and stops within a box junction due to the
presence of stationary vehicles, regardless of whether the
footage shows the traffic conditions ahead. The footage in this
case demonstrates that your vehicle was stopped within the box,
which constitutes a contravention as defined by the Act.
Therefore, the Penalty Charge Notice has been correctly issued
on this basis." But then further down quote what the regulation
actually says.
I submitted that the vehicle stopped due to debris in the right
hand lane, and the HGV straddled the left lane to get around it.
Due to the width of a HGV and the swept path of the trailer it
was necessary to straddle the left lane to avoid it, it can't
just go around it in a short distance like a car could or the
trailer wheels would go over it and potentially puncture the
tyres or cause other damage.
TfL believe our vehicle followed the vehicle ahead in the left
lane into the box junction, which caused the stop. Our vehicle
was in the right lane and continued in the right lane after the
box junction, so it wasn't a case of attempting to change lanes
to the left lane. None of the evidence suggests that, whilst the
right lane was evidently clear of traffic, there must have been
something else there that caused the stop and prevented the
vehicle continuing in the right lane.
TfL also stated: "You also mentioned that your vehicle stopped
to avoid damaging vehicles on the road". This is a
misrepresentation of what I actually stated, which was: "the
stop was made to avoid damaging the [our] vehicle on debris in
the road".
Whilst I believe there was debris in the road which caused the
stop and therefore no contravention occured, as logically there
was no other apparent reason for the stop, I need a fresh
perspective on what the evidence looks like.
As there is no conclusive evidence either way, I assume the
adjudicator would decide this on the balance of probabilities?
Or could they decide it on the fact of the terrible camera
placement not showing the cause of the stop and the
contravention therefore not being proven?
A dashcam still image shows the right lane clear, and our
vehicle at some weird angle as if turning back into the middle
of the right lane. The car that was ahead, is not seen and
presumably on our vehicles left. Perhaps the driver was arguing
with Porsche driver or complimenting his whip, who knows. I
spoke to the driver at the time, a non British national, he
mentioned debris pieces in a road going under an overpass and
having to use both lanes to get past, but doesn't remember
stopping in a box junction.
Please see the original PCN, my appeal, the Notice of Rejection
and the CCTV footage provided by TfL:
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1msixYWzLv9z3Ze14p2Ra9zRhe1dAKr7t
Google Street View location:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/p9pbDZRvJLempp8P8
#Post#: 117171--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL - Box Junction - Not Evidenced Cause of Stoppage -
Albany Road/Genista Road
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: April 27, 2026, 6:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
No need to read the spiel, but if someone could provide a fresh
perspective of what the evidence shows that would be much
appreciated.
#Post#: 117191--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL - Box Junction - Not Evidenced Cause of Stoppage -
Albany Road/Genista Road
DIR By: ryan93
Date: April 28, 2026, 3:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Good news, there are many points that you can challenge and I
would be surprised if they contest.
*Edit...Just realised someone else responded to your post and
they might have more knowledge on box junction cases. Even if an
adjudicator applied a balance of probabilities test, you can
still appeal on administrative grounds like a collateral
challenge or procedural (as I mentioned earlier).
#Post#: 117202--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL - Box Junction - Not Evidenced Cause of Stoppage -
Albany Road/Genista Road
DIR By: MrChips
Date: April 28, 2026, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll reply this evening, but agree the video does not provide
any meaningful evidence for cause of stop so I think TFL are
bluffing.
#Post#: 117229--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL - Box Junction - Not Evidenced Cause of Stoppage -
Albany Road/Genista Road
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: April 28, 2026, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your responses.
TfL's NoR reasoning was exceptionally poor considering they have
accepted all 4 of my box junction appeals in the last month
alone, and several others since a successful Tribunal decision
against TfL in November on the same grounds. I feel like they
have failed to consider my representations, as they have even
misquoted me, stating "You also mentioned that your vehicle
stopped to avoid
damaging vehicles on the road", when I had actually said "the
stop was made to avoid damaging the vehicle on debris in the
road", 'the vehicle' (i thought) obviously refers to our
vehicle.
Anyway, it is objective that TfL's evidence does not show the
cause of the stop here. My concern, I guess, is whether the
adjudicator can dedude on the balance of probabilities that the
vehicle stopped due to stationary vehicles without the evidence
actually showing that should they be swayed by TfL's claim that
our vehicle followed the Porsche in the left lane, into the box
junction.
#Post#: 117534--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL - Box Junction - Not Evidenced Cause of Stoppage -
Albany Road/Genista Road
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: May 1, 2026, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is my London Tribunal appeal draft:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/12l54pyvyQzq5KzVOT4eC0JBTEt4IyD54/view?usp=drivesdk
Is this okay, or should I make changes?
#Post#: 117543--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL - Box Junction - Not Evidenced Cause of Stoppage -
Albany Road/Genista Road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 1, 2026, 2:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It reads OK to me, and congratulations on your very detailed
work. The adjudicator decides, based on the evidence submitted
by both parties, and then the civil law test of "the balance of
probabilities". You should win this.
#Post#: 117805--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL - Box Junction - Not Evidenced Cause of Stoppage -
Albany Road/Genista Road
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: May 5, 2026, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> It reads OK to me, and congratulations on your very detailed
work. The adjudicator decides, based on the evidence submitted
by both parties, and then the civil law test of "the balance of
probabilities". You should win this.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for the positive words. I have posted my appeal today and
requested a personal hearing (video call). Hopefully TfL submit
a DNC pretty quickly, I hate it when they submit it 2 days
before the hearing.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1