DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daft adjudication decision
DIR By: MrChips
Date: June 9, 2026, 3:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Apart from the obvious balls-up re the lack of stationary
vehicles, the box junction is also sited at an invalid location.
It is required to be at a junction of two or more roads. The
vehicular access to a gated brewery doesn't count as a road.
But otherwise the lorry driver is bang to rights.
#Post#: 121320--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daft adjudication decision
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 9, 2026, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Reviews are not DIY. I suggest proper representations. I am able
to assist if nobody else wants to - do not want to tread upon
anyone's toes.
#Post#: 123716--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daft adjudication decision
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 3, 2026, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
2250677300
#Post#: 123769--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daft adjudication decision
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 4, 2026, 5:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NTIAEP link ---
>
> Is the adjudicator 'wet behind the ears'?
>
--- End Quote ---
I cannot possibly comment. :'(
#Post#: 123799--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daft adjudication decision
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 5, 2026, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Korting link ---
>
> Iwas under the impression that the contravention in yellow box
cases only occurred if the vehicle was stopped due to the
presence of another vehicle blocking the exit.
>
> If this is not the case, then if someone runs out in the road
in front of you on a yellow box and you stop, you'd be guilty of
a contravention.
>
> Total madness.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=237]Korting[/member]: "Complaints@londoncouncils.gov.uk"
<complaints@londoncouncils.gov.uk>
#Post#: 124270--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daft adjudication decision
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 10, 2026, 6:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Even Michael Burke things this junction is unenforceable!
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
The allegation in this case is entering and stopping in a box
junction when prohibited on 07.12.25. The Appellant does not
dispute this but asserts that the particular box junction is
non-compliant in that it is not at a junction of 2 roads but at
a junction between a road and the driveway of a brewery. She
says that the latter is fenced or gated off on all sides and
argues it is not therefore a ‘road to which the public have
access’. She has provided photographs as supporting evidence.
She also asserts that she saw the box junction late and would
not have been able to judge whether the traffic ahead would
require her to stop.
The enforcement camera evidence shows a poor piece of driving.
The Appellant entered the box junction markings when the traffic
ahead was already stopped and it was plain the vehicle
immediately ahead would not leave sufficient available space for
her to clear the box junction without stopping. She duly did
have to stop with most of her vehicle in the box junction.
The Appellant could have had no reasonable complaint had she
been required to pay a penalty charge. However, in order to
enforce the Enforcement Authority would have to establish the
box junction markings were placed at a junction between 2 roads.
For these purposes ‘road’ is defined by s.142 Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1984 as “any length of highway or of any other
road to which the public has access”.
While the Enforcement Authority have provided evidence that
Google appear to view this as the entrance to Telcon Rd., there
are gates across the entrance. I have considered Google
Streetview itself which shows the position in October 2024 when
it appears those gates were locked with a chain. In addition at
the time of the alleged contravention there appear to have been
additional hoardings in place. On the evidence I have seen I do
not feel able to say I am satisfied the Enforcement Authority
have established this was a road to which the public had access
and accordingly I allow the appeal.
#Post#: 124343--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daft adjudication decision
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 10, 2026, 5:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Where are we with the original case? Another adjudicator's
decision is not a ground for review.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page