DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 117600--------------------------------------------------
LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd near
West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 2, 2026, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
From the outset, I am happy to pay the charge if my argument is
flimsy and the contravention (as set out in the legislation)
really did occur.
Background
Date of alleged contravention: 27.12.2025
Appealed within the allotted time
Rejection letter received dated 27.04.2026
I now have until 11.05.2026 to pay the reduced charge of £80. I
would like to understand whether based on the facts, there is
any merit to escalate to the tribunal stage?
From the driver's perspective, the traffic was flowing (ie not
crawling) at the time I entered the yellow box junction. I
reasonably expected to exit the box at the time of entry.
However, there is a traffic light just in front of the box and
the space between them can only accommodate three vehicles. I
was the fourth vehicle so had to stop in the yellow box
unexpectedly.
I had appealed that alleged contravention did not occur (the
exact argument is set out in the notice of Rejection - see para
'Your challenge')
I attach the following with this message:
1. Original PCN dated 09.01.2026
2. Rejection letter dated 27.04.2026
I had made the representations online, and my argument is set
out in the Rejection letter under the heading 'Your challenge'
3. Image from the video still showing the moment my vehicle
entered the box junction
4. Video of alleged contravention
I should be grateful for any guidance, whether there is merit in
the argument or if there is another reason that would justify
escalating the matter to the next stage.
Many thanks.
Moment of box entry
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/dij9zzi_xl.jpg
Original PCN
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/U1GImHL_xl.jpeg
Rejection letter
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/84N3SKv_xl.jpeg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/E5y0hob_xl.jpeg
Video
Video
HTML https://youtu.be/WP1x8hNOUcI
#Post#: 117604--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 2, 2026, 5:37 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This YBJ must be a nice little earner for them ! Unfortunately,
the video shows a classic contravention, namely you charged into
the box with no hesitation at all, and got caught out this time.
Next time, enter slowly, and as soon as things look to be going
bad, tootle along VERY slowly in the hope the traffic ahead will
start to move again.
There may be a 'technical' appeal based on H & F mismanagement
of the enforcement process, so wait a bit to see what is
suggested, but be aware these are inevitable dealt with at
London Tribunals with the full PCN penalty in play.
#Post#: 117607--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: MrChips
Date: May 3, 2026, 2:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree you are unlikely to be able to overturn this just based
on the footage.
Do you know what date you submitted your representations? The
independent adjudicators have set out that any delay of more
than 3 months for the council to reject your representations is
likely to be unreasonable so that might be a potential argument
for you.
See here:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process
Given the original discount expired on 22 January, I'm thinking
you may well have tried to get your reps in before that date? In
which case a NOR issued on 27 April and presumed served on 29
April would technically be considered "late".
#Post#: 117615--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 3, 2026, 3:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The online rep was made on 11 January, so the NOR was definitely
issued more than 3 months
The link you have shared is very helpful, thanks. It clearly
states that "The adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement
Authority should normally respond to representations within 3
months."
However, it also states that grounds for appeal remain
unchanged, namely:
The grounds of appeal are the same as for making
representations:
You were not the owner of the vehicle at the material time;
The alleged contravention did not occur;
The person in control of the vehicle at the material time was in
control of it without the consent of the owner;
The recipient is a vehicle hire firm and the vehicle in question
was, at the material time, hired under a qualifying hire
agreement and the person hiring it had signed a statement of
liability for any Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of the
vehicle during the term of the hire agreement;
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the
circumstances of the case.
As such, it is not clear what weight does late response by LBHF
holds to contest this PCN.
If the outcome remains 50/50 the expected mathematical value of
making the appeal remains equal to paying the discounted charge
of £80.
Win = pay £0
Loss = pay £160
Expected value = (0 + 160) x 50% = £80
Unless you consider that win is likely above 50%, I am just
better off paying the discounted fee.
What do you think?
#Post#: 117618--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: MrChips
Date: May 3, 2026, 4:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
H&F are under a duty to behave fairly, so if they do not the
amount due in the circumstances of this case is zero.
I'll try and find a few previous cases won on this point.
#Post#: 117625--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: MrChips
Date: May 3, 2026, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's one (pretty sure there will be others, but the search
functionality on London Tribunals isn't the greatest). In this
case, the original appeal was dismissed, but then overturned on
review by a more experienced adjudicator purely due to the
council taking longer than 3 months to reject and not giving any
justification for the delay.
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle entered and
stopped within the box junction there owing to the presence of
another stationary vehicle. It is a contravention if a person
causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle
has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of
stationary vehicles.
To stop means to come to a stand as in the course of a journey,
to halt or to cease moving.
The contravention was created by statute: Paragraph 11 of Part
7, Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions 2016 (TSRGD).
The contravention does not apply to any person
a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a
box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right:
and
b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is
prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or
other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a
right turn.
The appellant has stated the markings need to be removed from
the location; Ealing Village is not a road. Transport for London
responded to the appellant’s representations after the 56 days
deadline.
I have considered fully the representations of both parties and
I have examined carefully the video evidence provided by the
local authority.
Did the appellant cause their vehicle to stop on the box
junction because of the presence of another stationary vehicle?
I am satisfied by it that the appellant’s vehicle followed
another vehicle onto the box junction. The first vehicle stopped
and it prevented the appellant’s vehicle from clearing the box
junction. Consequently, the appellant’s vehicle entered and
stopped on the box junction owing to the presence of another
stationary vehicle in front of it in circumstances other than
the one permitted statutory exemption. Crucially the appellant’s
vehicle did not wait outside the entrance to the box junction
before entering the box junction. Had it done so and waited for
a definite clear space there would have been no contravention. .
It is not uncommon for traffic to proceed in a line onto the box
junction but this is what box junctions try to prevent.
The appellant has asserted that the contravention did not occur.
As stated, had the appellant’s vehicle waited for clear space
before entering the box junction then it would not have been
affected by whatever occurred on the other side, such as a
change of colour of traffic lights or pedestrians crossing the
road or vehicles suddenly stopping.
A Box Junction is defined in Paragraph 11(6) of Part 7, Schedule
9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
(TSRGD). It means the area of carriageway marked with yellow
cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which
there has been placed the road marking shown in the diagram at
item 25 of Schedule 9, part 6 of the TSRGD.
I am satisfied that the box junction in this case complies with
paragraph 5 of Part 8 of the TSRGD.
A road is defined by section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation
Act 1984 as any length of highway, or of any other road to which
the public has access. I am not persuaded that the roads are not
roads within the said definition.
I must find that the local authority was entitled to issue the
penalty notice. The penalty notice in this case was issued under
Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for
London Act 2003. The local authority is entitled to issue the
penalty notice to the person appearing to them to be the owner
of the vehicle concerned.
Paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities Act
2003 states that it shall be the duty of the local authority to
consider the appellant’s representations and serve on that
person notice of their decision.
There is no statutory time limit, within which the local
authority must serve the notice.
I am satisfied that the penalty notice expressed the correct
penalty amount, a fixed penalty, fixed by law. It did not
therefore exceed the relevant amount in all the circumstances of
the case.
It follows that I must refuse the appeal.
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Previous decision
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This application by the appellants for review of the decision of
the adjudicator made on 21/05/24 to refuse the appeal is listed
before me today for determination they setting out the grounds
in support thereof in their letter of 03/06/24.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this
vehicle at the junction of Hanger Lane and Ealing Village
entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited.
The appellants assert that the adjudicator failed to address
their claim that Ealing Village was not a 'road'.
I note in passing that on 05/06/24 the parties were directed to
make submissions on the definition of a road by reference to
Bowen v Isle of Wight Council [2021] EWHC 3254 (Ch).
Neither party has complied with that direction and as I am
unassisted by that lack of response I make no determination as
the application of that decision.
The adjudicator in his decision stated: 'A road is defined by
section 142 of The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 as any
length of highway, or of any other road to which the public has
access. I am not persuaded that the roads are not roads within
the said definition'.
He therefore I find considered that matter and I am, in any
event, satisfied on the authority's submissions of 26/06/24,
made in response to the application, that Ealing Village is a
'road' within the definition of the 1984 Act.
In respect of the second ground for the application as to delay
in service of the notice of rejection the appellants having
raised that issue on appeal they making reference to guidance on
the point provided on the tribunal's website.
The adjudicator correctly stated that there is no statutory time
limit within which the authority must serve its notice of
rejection.
The 56 day time frame in which it is required to do so only
applies to parking penalty charges. It does not apply to box
junction penalty charges such as this.
Whilst however there is no requirement that an authority respond
to representations made on a box junction PCN within any set
time limit it is on the decided cases required to act with due
diligence and in a timely manner. Representations were received
by the authority in this case on 29/08/23 it issuing a rejection
notice letter on 08/02/24 well over five months later. That to
my mind amounts to an inordinate delay and in the absence of any
explanation being provided by the authority for it, and in the
context of the guidance given on the tribunal's website, I am
satisfied that the criteria set out above were not met and find
that enforcement may not therefore be pursued. I allow the
appeal.
#Post#: 117645--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 3, 2026, 9:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks MrChips.
I unleased Claude on the Tribunal website but even it struggled
to find relevant cases, given the limitations on search
functionality in the database. I fed it the case referenced in
your message but it was taking too long to analyse for similar
cases, since each case has to be reviewed one at a time.
I think on balance, it is likely worth going to the tribunal on
the grounds of inordinate delay, especially as LBHF has not
provided any justification for the delay in issuing the NoR.
For completeness, I set out below the session summary with
Claude.
Session Summary & Conclusion
What We Were Doing
You asked me to search the London Tribunals ETA statutory
register for decided cases where:
The contravention was a moving traffic offence (e.g., stopping
in a box junction)
The appellant made representations that were rejected by the
issuing authority via a Notice of Rejection (NOR)
The NOR was issued more than 3 months after the representations
The tribunal allowed the appeal on grounds of inordinate delay
A forum respondent then shared a sample case (PCN GX0883096A)
which helped significantly narrow the search strategy.
Key Finding
Only one confirmed case meeting all four criteria was found:
Case 2240112496 — Jain and Jain Ltd v Transport for London
PCN: GX0883096A | Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box
junction | Location: HANGER LANE / EALING VILLAGE W5
Representations: 29/08/2023 | NOR issued: 08/02/2024 (~5.5
months later)
First decision: 21 May 2024 – Appeal refused | Review decision:
07 Aug 2024 – Appeal allowed
Adjudicator (review): Andrew Harman
(This is the sample case shared by the forum respondent — it is
real and confirmed in the register)
The direct link to this case is session-dependent (the APEX
system generates time-limited URLs), but it can be reliably
found by:
Going to londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
Clicking "Access the statutory registers" → Search under
ETA
Searching by PCN reference: GX0883096A
What Was Searched
MonthCases FoundStatusAugust 2024185 cases✅ Fully searched
— all long-gap candidates checkedSeptember 2024158
cases⚠️ Only page 1 reviewed — incompleteOctober
2024Not searched❌November 2024Not
searched❌December 2024Not searched❌Jan–Jul 2024Not
searched❌2023Not searched❌
5 candidates were investigated and eliminated (red route cases,
HGV permit zones, medical evidence cases, costs applications —
none were inordinate delay cases).
Conclusions & Recommendations
1. These cases appear to be rare. Even with a targeted search,
only one confirmed case was found despite reviewing all 185
August 2024 decisions. The London Tribunals register does not
allow full-text search of decision reasons, which makes finding
these cases very labour-intensive — you can only infer likely
candidates from date-gap proxies.
2. The search is incomplete. There are still many months to
search (September 2024 onwards, and all earlier 2024 and 2023
decisions). If you want to continue, the most efficient approach
is to use the date-gap proxy method: search each month for TfL +
Appeal allowed, then extract cases with a
registration-to-outcome gap of >90 days, and check only those.
3. The sample case is a strong precedent. Even if it turns out
to be the only such case in the register, the Andrew Harman
review decision in GX0883096A provides excellent and clearly
reasoned precedent — it directly cites the tribunal's own
guidance, notes the absence of any explanation from TfL, and
allows the appeal unequivocally.
4. The Paul McKenna v TfL key case (already on the tribunal's
website as a key case) provides the foundational principle, and
the GX0883096A review decision applies it to a box junction
contravention specifically — which is exactly what you need.
5. If you want to resume the search, I can continue with
September 2024 through to 2023. The process is slow due to the
APEX session management limitations, but it is feasible. Just
say the word and I'll pick up from September 2024 page 2.
Practical Takeaway for You
If you or someone you know has received a box junction PCN from
TfL, made representations, and then received a NOR more than ~3
months later, the GX0883096A decision strongly supports an
appeal to the tribunal on inordinate delay grounds — especially
if TfL has offered no explanation for the delay.
#Post#: 117689--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: MrChips
Date: May 4, 2026, 2:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I figured H&F might be serial offenders wrt the 3 month limit so
looked at recent decisions involving that authority. Pretty
quickly found the two below - you can add them to your
arsenal...
Case Details
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
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Mr Jantuah appeals on the basis that the enforcement authority
breached the guidance issued by decisions of adjudicators of
this tribunal, that in moving traffic cases, authorities should
issue notices rejection within three months.
The Enforcement Authority acknowledges that Mr Jantuah made his
formal representations on 26 July, and the notice of rejection
was not sent until 12 November. I therefore find that the
authority did take over three months to send the notice.
It is true that the relevant Act lays down no actual time limit
for service of a notice of rejection in moving traffic cases.
However this tribunal has consistently decided that it is
reasonable to expect an authority to do so within three months,
and to take longer than that is unacceptable, and will be
regarded as a successful collateral challenge, unless an
adjudicator decides otherwise on the individual facts of the
case.
I can see no good reason on the evidence before me why the
authority could not comply with the three month guidance. It is
for the benefit of everyone, including the enforcement
authority, to have a clear time limit in mind, because this will
ensure that cases are dealt with in a reasonably timely manner,
whereas an expectation that an authority will do something
within an undefined 'reasonable time' will have the opposite
effect.
I therefore allow this appeal on the basis that the authority
has failed to issue the notice of rejection within the clearly
indicated three month guideline. The appeal is allowed on the
basis of that successful collateral challenge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Details
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
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
Upon the appellant complaining about the delay that occurred in
her receiving a response from the council to her
representations.
The 56 day time frame in which the council is required to serve
a notice of acceptance or rejection only applies to parking
penalty charges. It does not apply to moving traffic penalty
charges such as this. Whilst, however, there is no requirement
that the council respond to representations made on a moving
traffic PCN within any set time period, it is on the decided
cases required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner.
Representations were received by the council in this case on
09/08/25, it issuing a rejection notice letter on 11/12/25, over
four months later. I am satisfied given that delay that the
criteria set out above were not met, and find that enforcement
may not therefore be pursued. The appeal must accordingly be
allowed without consideration of any of the other issues raised
by either party to the proceedings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Post#: 117745--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 4, 2026, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> I figured H&F might be serial offenders wrt the 3 month limit
so looked at recent decisions involving that authority. Pretty
quickly found the two below - you can add them to your
arsenal...
>
>
> Case Details
> Case reference 2250654961
> Appellant Lloyd Jantuah
> Authority London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
> VRM YN67SZL
> PCN Details
> PCN HZ93508551
> Contravention date 04 Jul 2025
> Contravention time 11:46:00
> Contravention location Hammersmith Rd j/w Shortlands
> Penalty amount GBP 160.00
> Contravention Performing a prohibited turn
> Referral date -
> Decision Date 08 Apr 2026
> Adjudicator Mackenzie Robinson
> Appeal decision Appeal allowed
> Direction
> cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
>
> Reasons
> Mr Jantuah appeals on the basis that the enforcement authority
breached the guidance issued by decisions of adjudicators of
this tribunal, that in moving traffic cases, authorities should
issue notices rejection within three months.
> The Enforcement Authority acknowledges that Mr Jantuah made
his formal representations on 26 July, and the notice of
rejection was not sent until 12 November. I therefore find that
the authority did take over three months to send the notice.
> It is true that the relevant Act lays down no actual time
limit for service of a notice of rejection in moving traffic
cases. However this tribunal has consistently decided that it is
reasonable to expect an authority to do so within three months,
and to take longer than that is unacceptable, and will be
regarded as a successful collateral challenge, unless an
adjudicator decides otherwise on the individual facts of the
case.
> I can see no good reason on the evidence before me why the
authority could not comply with the three month guidance. It is
for the benefit of everyone, including the enforcement
authority, to have a clear time limit in mind, because this will
ensure that cases are dealt with in a reasonably timely manner,
whereas an expectation that an authority will do something
within an undefined 'reasonable time' will have the opposite
effect.
> I therefore allow this appeal on the basis that the authority
has failed to issue the notice of rejection within the clearly
indicated three month guideline. The appeal is allowed on the
basis of that successful collateral challenge.
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Case Details
> Case reference 2250663918
> Appellant Shanye Hazel-Marriott
> Authority London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
> VRM LY74HNB
> PCN Details
> PCN HZ93906157
> Contravention date 27 Jul 2025
> Contravention time 14:19:00
> Contravention location Imperial Rd NWbnd - NW of Fulmead St
> Penalty amount GBP 160.00
> Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
> Referral date -
> Decision Date 10 Apr 2026
> Adjudicator Andrew Harman
> Appeal decision Appeal allowed
> Direction
> cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
>
> Reasons
> Upon the appellant complaining about the delay that occurred
in her receiving a response from the council to her
representations.
>
> The 56 day time frame in which the council is required to
serve a notice of acceptance or rejection only applies to
parking penalty charges. It does not apply to moving traffic
penalty charges such as this. Whilst, however, there is no
requirement that the council respond to representations made on
a moving traffic PCN within any set time period, it is on the
decided cases required to act with due diligence and in a timely
manner. Representations were received by the council in this
case on 09/08/25, it issuing a rejection notice letter on
11/12/25, over four months later. I am satisfied given that
delay that the criteria set out above were not met, and find
that enforcement may not therefore be pursued. The appeal must
accordingly be allowed without consideration of any of the other
issues raised by either party to the proceedings.
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
--- End Quote ---
Bro this is gold - Claude is over hyped. The real MVP is
MrChips!
I'll send an appeal to the tribunals and post an update here
once I receive it.
#Post#: 117757--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: MrChips
Date: May 4, 2026, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Suggest you post a draft on here for review before you submit
it.
Definitely point out the adjudicators' own guidelines with
respect to the time limit (don't assume they will remember) and
quote those three other case numbers as examples. I'd also
point out that H&F should know better given they've had two
cases decided this way a fortnight before rejecting your
representations. On that basis they shouldn't have rejected
your representations, or at the least included some
justification for the delay when doing so.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page