DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 117766--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 4, 2026, 4:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Happy to amend/update for any suggestions the forum members may
consider relevant
DRAFT
1. Introduction
I write to appeal against the Notice of Rejection of
Representation issued by the London Borough of Hammersmith and
Fulham (“the Authority”) dated 27 April 2026 in respect of
Penalty Charge Notice HZ96242257 (“the PCN”). The PCN was issued
on 9 January 2026 in respect of an alleged contravention on 27
December 2025 at Box Junction, Uxbridge Road, approximately 25
yards west of Holland Park Roundabout, at 17:36.
My appeal is brought on two grounds:
(a) Primary ground: The Authority acted with inordinate and
unjustified delay in responding to my representations, in breach
of the guidance established by decisions of this Tribunal. This
constitutes a successful collateral challenge and the PCN should
be cancelled.
(b) Secondary ground: The alleged contravention did not occur
within the meaning of the relevant legislation.
2. Relevant Chronology
The key dates are as follows:
• 27 December 2025: Alleged contravention.
• 9 January 2026: PCN issued by the Authority.
• 11 January 2026: I submitted my formal representations to the
Authority online, within the required time limit.
• 27 April 2026: The Authority issued its Notice of Rejection of
Representation — a period of approximately 3 months and 16 days
after receiving my representations.
3. Primary Ground: Inordinate Delay in Issuing the Notice of
Rejection
3.1 The Legal Framework
I acknowledge that the London Local Authorities and Transport
for London Act 2003 does not prescribe a statutory time limit
within which an enforcement authority must serve a notice of
rejection in moving traffic cases (unlike parking cases, where a
56-day limit applies). However, this Tribunal has consistently
and repeatedly held that an enforcement authority is nonetheless
required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. The
Tribunal has established, through a series of decided cases,
that the guideline period for responding to representations in
moving traffic cases is three months. Exceeding that period,
without justification, amounts to a successful collateral
challenge and ordinarily requires the PCN to be cancelled.
This principle is reflected in the guidance published on the
London Tribunals website relating to the moving traffic PCN
enforcement process.
3.2 The Delay in This Case
My representations were submitted on 11 January 2026. The
Authority did not issue its Notice of Rejection until 27 April
2026. This is a delay of approximately 3 months and 16 days —
materially in excess of the three-month guideline established by
this Tribunal.
The Notice of Rejection itself contains no explanation
whatsoever for this delay. The Authority has offered no
justification, no reference to exceptional circumstances, and no
acknowledgment of the lateness of its response. In the absence
of any such explanation, I submit that the delay was inordinate
and that enforcement should not be permitted to proceed.
I further note that the Authority issued its Notice of Rejection
on 27 April 2026 — by which date the Authority had already had
two of its own cases decided against it by this Tribunal on the
very same inordinate delay ground (see cases 2250654961 and
2250663918, both decided in April 2026, detailed below). On that
basis, the Authority was or should have been fully aware of the
Tribunal's guidance and the consequences of non-compliance. It
nonetheless rejected my representations without any
justification for the delay and without explanation.
3.3 Relevant Decided Cases
I respectfully draw the Tribunal's attention to the following
decided cases, each of which supports my primary ground of
appeal:
Case 1: PCN GX0883096A — Jain and Jain Ltd v Transport for
London
Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box junction |
Location: Hanger Lane / Ealing Village W5
Representations received: 29 August 2023 | NOR issued: 8
February 2024 (approximately 5.5 months later)
Review decision: 7 August 2024 | Adjudicator: Andrew Harman |
Appeal allowed — PCN cancelled
On review, Adjudicator Harman found that the authority had
received representations on 29 August 2023 but did not issue a
rejection notice until 8 February 2024 — well over five months
later. He held that this amounted to an inordinate delay and
that, in the absence of any explanation from the authority,
enforcement could not be pursued. The appeal was allowed.
This case is directly on point: it involves the same category of
contravention (box junction), the same legal framework, and the
same principle — that an unexplained delay exceeding three
months in issuing a notice of rejection amounts to a collateral
challenge sufficient to cancel the PCN.
Case 2: Case Reference 2250654961 — Lloyd Jantuah v London
Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
PCN: HZ93508551 | Contravention: Performing a prohibited turn |
Location: Hammersmith Road j/w Shortlands
Representations received: 26 July 2025 | NOR issued: 12 November
2025 (over 3 months later)
Decision date: 8 April 2026 | Adjudicator: Mackenzie Robinson |
Appeal allowed — PCN cancelled
Adjudicator Robinson expressly held that, whilst the relevant
Act lays down no actual time limit for service of a notice of
rejection in moving traffic cases, the Tribunal has consistently
decided that it is reasonable to expect an authority to respond
within three months, and that to take longer is unacceptable and
will be regarded as a successful collateral challenge. He
further noted that a clear time limit benefits everyone,
including the enforcement authority, as it ensures cases are
dealt with in a reasonably timely manner. The appeal was allowed
on that basis alone.
Critically, this case involves the same issuing authority as in
my case — the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — and was
decided on 8 April 2026, just weeks before the Authority issued
its Notice of Rejection in my case on 27 April 2026.
Case 3: Case Reference 2250663918 — Shanye Hazel-Marriott v
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
PCN: HZ93906157 | Contravention: Fail to comply with prohibition
on certain types of vehicle | Location: Imperial Road NWbnd — NW
of Fulmead Street
Representations received: 9 August 2025 | NOR issued: 11
December 2025 (over 4 months later)
Decision date: 10 April 2026 | Adjudicator: Andrew Harman |
Appeal allowed — PCN cancelled
Adjudicator Harman again allowed the appeal on grounds of
inordinate delay, finding that representations received on 9
August 2025 with a rejection notice not issued until 11 December
2025 — over four months later — meant that the required criteria
of due diligence and timely action had not been met. Enforcement
was accordingly not permitted to proceed.
This is a second case against the same authority — the London
Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — also decided in April 2026,
just days before the Authority issued its Notice of Rejection in
my case. The Authority was, or ought to have been, fully aware
of both decisions at the time it rejected my representations.
3.4 Summary on Primary Ground
In summary, on the primary ground:
• My representations were submitted on 11 January 2026.
• The Notice of Rejection was not issued until 27 April 2026 —
approximately 3 months and 16 days later.
• This exceeds the three-month guideline established by this
Tribunal.
• The Authority has provided no justification for the delay.
• Two recent decisions against the same Authority (cases
2250654961 and 2250663918, both decided in April 2026) had
already confirmed the applicable principle before the NOR in my
case was issued.
I respectfully submit that the primary ground alone is
sufficient to allow this appeal and cancel the PCN.
4. Secondary Ground: The Contravention Did Not Occur
Without prejudice to my primary ground, and for completeness, I
maintain that the alleged contravention did not occur as a
matter of law.
The prohibition is set out in Schedule 9, Part 7, paragraph
11(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
2016, which provides that a person must not cause a vehicle to
enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the
box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
At the time my vehicle entered the yellow box junction, the
video recording shows that there were no stationary vehicles in
front of me. The traffic ahead was flowing and I had a
reasonable expectation of being able to exit the box junction at
the time of entry. The vehicles ahead of me subsequently came to
a halt due to a red traffic light — a circumstance which I could
not have foreseen or anticipated at the moment of entry,
particularly given the short distance between the traffic light
and the box junction and the fact that I was the fourth vehicle
in the queue.
I acknowledge that the Authority's rejection letter takes the
view that the driver's intention is not relevant and that the
contravention occurs as soon as a vehicle stops on the box
junction when the exit lane is not clear. However, I
respectfully maintain that the question of whether stationary
vehicles were present at the moment of entry — as required by
the statute — is a matter of fact which the video evidence
should be examined to determine. I preserve this ground for the
Tribunal's consideration.
5. Conclusion and Relief Sought
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that this
Tribunal:
1. Allow my appeal on the primary ground that the Authority
acted with inordinate and unjustified delay in issuing its
Notice of Rejection, in breach of the guidance established by
this Tribunal; and
2. Direct that Penalty Charge Notice HZ96242257 be cancelled.
In the alternative, should the Tribunal not allow the appeal on
the primary ground, I request that my secondary ground be
considered on its merits on the basis that the contravention did
not occur within the meaning of the applicable legislation.
Yours faithfully,
Appellant
4 May 2026
#Post#: 117790--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: MrChips
Date: May 5, 2026, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've tried to abbreviate it to make it more appealing to read
for an adjudicator, and moved the case summaries to an appendix
to better maintain the flow. When the case is this
straightforward, I don't think it's necessary to split it into
multiple sub-paragraphs and summaries of points already made.
Just hammer it home in one go. I'm also rather torn about
including your second ground as I, personally, don't think it
holds any weight, but you can keep it in if you wish (I've left
it there for now). I think it's better to either remove it (as I
think it serves to undermine the impression of your judgement to
follow your strong first ground with a second one which makes it
sound like you don't understand what you are talking about) or
to redraft it to focus instead on a de minimis offence (only
stopped for 6 seconds and a vacant exit lane which you would
have taken if you hasn't been prevented from doing so by moving,
i.e. non-stationary, vehicles on your right). I can draft
something on that to replace what you've got it you confirm
you'd like that instead.
1. Introduction
I wish to appeal against the Notice of Rejection issued by the
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham in respect of Penalty
Charge Notice HZ96242257 (entering and stopping in a box
junction when prohibited). Key dates as follows:
Date of alleged contravention: 27 December 2025
Date of PCN: 9 January 2026
Date representations submitted: 11 January 2026
Date of Notice of Rejection: 27 April 2026
My appeal is brought on two grounds:
(a) Primary ground: The Authority acted with inordinate delay in
responding to my representations which it has failed to justify,
in breach of the guideline of 3 months established by this
Tribunal for moving traffic offences. This constitutes a
collateral challenge and the PCN should be cancelled, consistent
with previous decisions (three such examples listed below).
(b) Secondary ground: The alleged contravention did not occur.
2. Primary ground: inordinate delay in issuing the Notice of
Rejection
I acknowledge that the London Local Authorities and Transport
for London Act 2003 does not prescribe a statutory time limit
within which an enforcement authority must serve a notice of
rejection in moving traffic cases (unlike parking cases, where a
56-day limit applies). However, this Tribunal has consistently
and repeatedly held that an enforcement authority is nonetheless
required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. To
this effect, the Tribunal has published on its website a
statement that "The adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement
Authority should normally respond to representations within 3
months". In this case, it took the Authority around three and a
half months to respond to my representations, and the Notice of
Rejection received included no acknowledgement, explanation or
justification for this delay.
From reviewing recent Tribunal decisions involving this
authority, I can see earlier in the same month that my
representations were rejected at least two appeals were decided
against it on precisely the same grounds (2250654961 and
2250663918 - case summaries included below for convenience). I
am also aware of a further case from 2024 where a delay in
excess of 3 months was agreed by the Tribunal as sufficient
grounds for overturning a refused appeal on review (2240112496).
On that basis, the Authority should have been fully aware of the
Tribunal's expectations and the consequences of non-compliance
but nonetheless issued a Notice of Rejection.
3. Secondary Ground: The Contravention Did Not Occur
Without prejudice to my primary ground, and for completeness, I
maintain that the alleged contravention did not occur as a
matter of law.
The prohibition is set out in Schedule 9, Part 7, paragraph
11(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions
2016, which provides that a person must not cause a vehicle to
enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the
box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
At the time my vehicle entered the yellow box junction, the
video recording shows that there were no stationary vehicles in
front of me. The traffic ahead was flowing and I had a
reasonable expectation of being able to exit the box junction at
the time of entry. The vehicles ahead of me subsequently came to
a halt due to a red traffic light — a circumstance which I could
not have foreseen or anticipated at the moment of entry,
particularly given the short distance between the traffic light
and the box junction and the fact that I was the fourth vehicle
in the queue.
I acknowledge that the Authority's rejection letter takes the
view that the driver's intention is not relevant and that the
contravention occurs as soon as a vehicle stops on the box
junction when the exit lane is not clear. However, I
respectfully maintain that the question of whether stationary
vehicles were present at the moment of entry — as required by
the statute — is a matter of fact which the video evidence
should be examined to determine. I preserve this ground for the
Tribunal's consideration.
4. Copies of relevant decisions previously referred to
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 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.
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
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#: 117828--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 5, 2026, 12:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks MrChips.
The updated letter is set out below - provisionally secondary
ground is included but happy to remove it if you consider it
would make the appeal stronger.
DRAFT
5 May 2026
London Tribunals
(Traffic Enforcement Centre / ETA)
Re: Notice of Appeal — Penalty Charge Notice HZ96242257
1. Introduction
I wish to appeal against the Notice of Rejection issued by the
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the Authority”) in
respect of Penalty Charge Notice HZ96242257 (entering and
stopping in a box junction when prohibited). Key dates are as
follows:
•
•
•
•
My appeal is brought on two grounds:
(a)
responding to my representations, which it has failed to
justify, in breach of the guideline of 3 months established by
this Tribunal for moving traffic offences. This constitutes a
collateral challenge and the PCN should be cancelled, consistent
with previous decisions (three such examples included in the
Appendix).
(b)
or in the alternative amounted to a de minimis offence.
2. Primary Ground: Inordinate Delay in Issuing the Notice
of Rejection
I acknowledge that the London Local Authorities and Transport
for London Act 2003 does not prescribe a statutory time limit
within which an enforcement authority must serve a notice of
rejection in moving traffic cases (unlike parking cases, where a
56-day limit applies). However, this Tribunal has consistently
and repeatedly held that an enforcement authority is nonetheless
required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. To
this effect, the Tribunal has published on its website a
statement that “The adjudicators have decided that an
Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations
within 3 months.”
In this case, it took the Authority approximately 3 months and
16 days to respond to my representations. The Notice of
Rejection included no acknowledgement, explanation or
justification whatsoever for this delay.
From reviewing recent Tribunal decisions involving this
Authority, I can see that earlier in the same month my
representations were rejected, at least two appeals were decided
against it on precisely the same grounds (cases 2250654961 and
2250663918, both decided in April 2026 — full details in the
Appendix). I am also aware of a further case from 2024 where a
delay in excess of 3 months was found by the Tribunal on review
to be sufficient grounds for overturning a refused appeal (case
2240112496, also in the Appendix).
On that basis, the Authority was or should have been fully aware
of the Tribunal’s expectations and the consequences of
non-compliance, yet nonetheless issued its Notice of Rejection
without any explanation for the delay. I respectfully submit
that this ground alone is sufficient to allow this appeal and
direct that PCN HZ96242257 be cancelled.
3. Secondary Ground: De Minimis / Contravention Did Not
Occur
Without prejudice to my primary ground, I maintain that the
alleged contravention did not occur, or in the alternative
should be treated as de minimis.
The video evidence shows that at the moment my vehicle entered
the yellow box junction, the exit lane ahead was vacant — there
were no stationary vehicles preventing my passage through the
box. The reason I was unable to immediately take that clear exit
was that vehicles to my right, which were themselves moving
(i.e. non-stationary), were crossing my path and preventing me
from completing my exit. I stopped within the box for no more
than approximately 6 seconds before clearing it.
The prohibition under Schedule 9, Part 7, paragraph 11(1) of the
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 is
triggered by the presence of “stationary vehicles” preventing
exit. On the facts, the impediment to my exit at the moment of
entry comprised moving vehicles, not stationary ones. The very
brief duration of the stop — approximately 6 seconds — and the
fact that the exit lane itself was clear throughout further
support the conclusion that no substantive contravention of the
kind the prohibition is designed to prevent took place.
I preserve this ground for the Tribunal’s consideration in the
event that the primary ground is not upheld.
4. Relief Sought
I respectfully request that this Tribunal:
1.
HZ96242257 be cancelled; or
2.
on the basis that the contravention did not occur or amounted to
a de minimis offence.
Yours faithfully,
Appellant
5 May 2026
APPENDIX: Copies of Relevant Decided Cases
Case 1: Case Reference 2250654961 — Lloyd Jantuah v London
Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
PCN: HZ93508551 | Contravention: Performing a prohibited turn
Location: Hammersmith Road j/w Shortlands
Representations received: 26 July 2025 | NOR issued: 12 November
2025 (over 3 months later)
Decision date: 8 April 2026 | Adjudicator: Mackenzie Robinson |
→ Appeal allowed — PCN cancelled
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 of 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 2: Case Reference 2250663918 — Shanye Hazel-Marriott v
London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
PCN: HZ93906157 | Contravention: Fail to comply with prohibition
on certain types of vehicle
Location: Imperial Road NWbnd — NW of Fulmead Street
Representations received: 9 August 2025 | NOR issued: 11
December 2025 (over 4 months later)
Decision date: 10 April 2026 | Adjudicator: Andrew Harman |
→ Appeal allowed — PCN cancelled
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.
Case 3: Case Reference 2240112496 — Jain and Jain Ltd v
Transport for London (PCN GX0883096A)
PCN: GX0883096A | Contravention: Entering and stopping in a box
junction
Location: Hanger Lane / Ealing Village W5
Representations received: 29 August 2023 | NOR issued: 8
February 2024 (approximately 5.5 months later)
First decision: 21 May 2024 (appeal refused) | Review decision:
7 August 2024 | Adjudicator (review): Andrew Harman | →
Appeal allowed on review — PCN cancelled
Reasons (review decision, 7 August 2024): 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#: 118001--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: MrChips
Date: May 7, 2026, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Suggested update to paragraph 3. Otherwise, happy for you to
release.
3. Secondary ground: contravention did not occur
Notwithstanding my primary ground of appeal, I believe that the
alleged contravention did not occur.
A box junction offence requires both a stop within a box
junction and for this stop to be necessitated by stationary
vehicles. Having viewed the footage supplied by the Authority, I
can see that as my vehicle approached the box junction, traffic
was flowing freely and there was a reasonable expectation of
space beyond the far end of this very long box junction. Due to
a change in the traffic lights ahead, this situation changed
after I was already committed to entering the box junction.
However, throughout the period of my vehicle being stopped,
there remained a vacant exit in the adjacent lane which I could
and would have taken in order to fully clear the box junction
but for moving (i.e. non-stationary) vehicles continuing to flow
through the box and pass me in that lane. This continued for
the brief period of stopping (around 6 seconds which may also be
considered de minimis) until the traffic directly in front of me
started to move off. As such, on the basis that I had the option
to fully exit the box junction and was only prevented from doing
so by moving vehicles I believe this does not constitute a box
junction offence as defined.
#Post#: 118145--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 8, 2026, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> Suggested update to paragraph 3. Otherwise, happy for you to
release.
>
> 3. Secondary ground: contravention did not occur
> Notwithstanding my primary ground of appeal, I believe that
the alleged contravention did not occur.
>
> A box junction offence requires both a stop within a box
junction and for this stop to be necessitated by stationary
vehicles. Having viewed the footage supplied by the Authority, I
can see that as my vehicle approached the box junction, traffic
was flowing freely and there was a reasonable expectation of
space beyond the far end of this very long box junction. Due to
a change in the traffic lights ahead, this situation changed
after I was already committed to entering the box junction.
However, throughout the period of my vehicle being stopped,
there remained a vacant exit in the adjacent lane which I could
and would have taken in order to fully clear the box junction
but for moving (i.e. non-stationary) vehicles continuing to flow
through the box and pass me in that lane. This continued for
the brief period of stopping (around 6 seconds which may also be
considered de minimis) until the traffic directly in front of me
started to move off. As such, on the basis that I had the option
to fully exit the box junction and was only prevented from doing
so by moving vehicles I believe this does not constitute a box
junction offence as defined.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks MrChips, appreciate you taking the time and providing
guidance.
The letter has been updated as per your suggestion and an appeal
has been lodged online. They have confirmed the case reference
number: 2260300513
The confirmation email states that they will consider the appeal
and confirm within 7 days if it is accepted.
I will post further updates here in due course.
Thanks again, appreciated :)
#Post#: 118147--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 9, 2026, 12:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> The letter has been updated as per your suggestion and an
appeal has been lodged online. They have confirmed the case
reference number: 2260300513
>
> The confirmation email states that they will consider the
appeal and confirm within 7 days if it is accepted.
--- End Quote ---
It is not clear from your post if you have chosen a personal
(=video/telephone) hearing or a decision on papers. (N.B. we
always recommend a personal hearing, never a decision on papers.
) Please confirm. Also let us know the date of the hearing, and
please copy and paste here the e-mail from LT (redact yr name
and e-mail address).
#Post#: 118358--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 11, 2026, 2:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> [quote]The letter has been updated as per your suggestion and
an appeal has been lodged online. They have confirmed the case
reference number: 2260300513
>
> The confirmation email states that they will consider the
appeal and confirm within 7 days if it is accepted.
--- End Quote ---
It is not clear from your post if you have chosen a personal
(=video/telephone) hearing or a decision on papers. (N.B. we
always recommend a personal hearing, never a decision on papers.
) Please confirm. Also let us know the date of the hearing, and
please copy and paste here the e-mail from LT (redact yr name
and e-mail address).
[/quote]
Hi John
The hearing date is Monday 8 June.
I was not aware that there it is strongly encouraged to choose
personal hearing instead of postal. As such, at the time I made
the application, I had selected postal decision. If you'd like
(and London Tribunals permit) I am happy to change it to a
personal hearing.
Hearing details per online London Tribunals portal>
Appeal key details
Your case reference 2260300513
Status: Your appeal has been listed for hearing
Hearing details
Hearing date: Monday 08th Jun 2026
Hearing type: Postal
Confirmation Email dated Friday 8 May 2026>
The tribunal will consider your appeal and let you know if it is
accepted within 7 days
You can still Return to my appeal
To return to your appeal you need:
Case reference from this email
Verification code from the notice of rejection letter
Vehicle registration number
When you return to your appeal you can:
Upload more evidence
Tell the tribunal about any changes to your appeal
Ask the tribunal any questions that you have
If your appeal is accepted, check the appeal hearing details
Withdraw your appeal
All evidence must be uploaded at least 7 days before your
hearing date.
Posted evidence must be sent at least 14 days before the hearing
date. Send it to London Tribunals, PO Box 460, Hartlepool, TS24
4JE and remember to include your appeal reference number and
your name.
#Post#: 118361--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: MrChips
Date: May 11, 2026, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe it's possible to change to in person. We strongly
recommend it as there have been numerous examples of
adjudicators not fully appreciating intended nuances of appeal
points when faced with something in writing - which would have
been easily corrected in a dialogue.
#Post#: 118366--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 11, 2026, 4:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> I believe it's possible to change to in person. We strongly
recommend it as there have been numerous examples of
adjudicators not fully appreciating intended nuances of appeal
points when faced with something in writing - which would have
been easily corrected in a dialogue.
>
--- End Quote ---
Great, I have requested a personal hearing (preferably via video
link, possible).
Further updates will be posted here, when available.
Regardless of the case outcome, thanks again to the forum
members for their help, particularly MrChips.
#Post#: 119691--------------------------------------------------
Re: LBHF PCN - Stopping in yellow box junction - Uxbridge Rd
near West of Holland Pk
DIR By: TaaSeenMeem
Date: May 25, 2026, 7:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> I believe it's possible to change to in person. We strongly
recommend it as there have been numerous examples of
adjudicators not fully appreciating intended nuances of appeal
points when faced with something in writing - which would have
been easily corrected in a dialogue.
>
--- End Quote ---
In response to my request for personal hearing, it has now been
rescheduled to take place via MS Teams on 17 November 2026.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page