DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 123039--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: June 26, 2026, 5:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you! I really appreciate your input and support
#Post#: 123054--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: NTIAEP
Date: June 26, 2026, 6:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tommytbone link ---
>
> 3. There was sufficient receiving space for my vehicle to
clear the box completely
>
> To the extent any part of my vehicle remained within the box
markings, I am confident there was sufficient space ahead of me
to have moved forward and cleared the box entirely, had I judged
it necessary.
>
> There is a manhole cover on the carriageway in the path of
travel beyond the box junction. The vehicle ahead of mine had
passed this manhole cover before coming to a stop. Using Google
Maps' distance measuring tool, the rear edge of this manhole
cover is approximately 4.8 metres from the relevant edge of the
box junction markings. My vehicle (a third-generation Toyota
Prius) is approximately 4.46 metres long [confirm exact figure
from your V5C]. Had I drawn level with the vehicle ahead — i.e.
with the front of my vehicle at the rear of the manhole cover —
the rear of my own vehicle would have been approximately 0.34
metres clear of the box junction markings. This demonstrates
there was sufficient receiving space available to me, and that I
was not prevented from clearing the box by the presence of the
vehicle ahead.
>
--- End Quote ---
If of any
help.....
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge31jentering-and-stopping-in-a-box-junction-when-prohibitedjct-ilford-la
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge31jentering-and-stopping-in-a-box-junction-when-prohibitedjct-ilford-la<br
/>where very recently I had to construct a similar argument.
FYI - it's not the entire length of your vehicle that you need
account for, rather from front bumper to middle of rear axle.
As long as you can show that no YJB would be visible in front of
your rear wheels had you been touching the vehicle (Citroen
DS5?) in front.
And rather than using Google maps, I'd go in person and
measure/take some pictures to backup your case.
Good luck!!
#Post#: 123111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 27, 2026, 8:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Check the website as it has a general box only I believe.
#Post#: 123129--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: MrChips
Date: June 27, 2026, 10:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here you go - also heed Hippocrates's comment. i've slimmed it
down a bit by removing stuff that's largely irrelevant and
focussing on the two bits which I think are your strongest
arguments.
I am writing to make formal representations against the above
Penalty Charge Notice. I deny that a contravention occurred and
request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled, for the
following reasons.
1. The contravention did not occur — any incursion into the box
junction markings was of a de minimis nature and, on balance of
probabilities, there was sufficient space to receive my vehicle.
A box junction contravention only arises where a vehicle enters
and has to stop within the box junction because there is
insufficient space beyond it to receive the vehicle, due to the
presence of stationary traffic. It is not in itself a
contravention simply to be stationary within the box markings if
the vehicle could otherwise have moved forward and exited the
box.
From the council's evidence, my vehicle stopped with only the
rear wheels resting on the extremities of the box junction
markings. I believe this is of a clearly de minimis nature.
Notwithstanding the trivial nature of the incursion, I believe
in these circumstances my vehicle could have cleared the box
junction by moving forward a foot or so into the gap to the car
directly in front. If the vehicle could exit but the driver
chose not to for whatever reason, then no contravention has
occurred.
2. The contravention did not occur - the installation of
roadworks have reduced the width of the junction with Kingsley
Road
From the council evidence, there are roadworks in the left hand
lane of Forest Road. These encroach into the junction with
Kingsley Road including into the box junction markings. I have
taken my own photograph (attached) which more clearly shows the
level of incursion is not insignificant.
These roadworks themselves block the junction to a far greater
extent than my own vehicle did. Due to the relative position of
the roadworks and the rear of my vehicle, there is no way my
vehicle could have caused any obstruction as a vehicle would
have had to drive through the roadworks first. There would seem
to be no logic or justice in enforcing a stop on the far
extremities of a box junction which itself is no longer part of
the usable junction between two roads.
The box junction regulations themselves require that box
junction markings must be installed at a junction or two (or
more) roads and as such any markings situated at a point which
is not at such a junction is not legally a box junction and so
cannot be enforced.
For these reasons, I request that the Penalty Charge Notice be
cancelled. I look forward to your response.
#Post#: 123155--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 27, 2026, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Check the website as it has a general box only I believe.
>
--- End Quote ---
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2220655455
Appellant Bysshe Wallace
Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM PK65WZA
PCN Details
PCN FR57211309
Contravention date 17 Jul 2022
Contravention time 14:12:00
Contravention location Forest Road / Russell Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Oct 2022
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons This decision has been amended under Regulation 15 of
the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations
1993.
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented
in person by Mr Morgan and her husband, Mr Emamally, also
attended.
The Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not
represented.
Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction
marking conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a
vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to
stop within the box marking due to the presence of a stationary
vehicle.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('the
2003 Act') on the basis of information provided by a camera
or other device. There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle
was at this location, as shown in the closed-circuit television
(cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that she was trying to steer clear of a
scooter rider who was cruising around on the main carriageway
and weaving in and out of the traffic. The Appellant submits
that she was deeply concerned and anxious that there could be an
accident and thinking it would minimise the chance of that, she
pulled up behind the car which was already stationary at the
lights.
The closed circuit television (cctv) images show that the
Appellant’s vehicle did enter this box junction marking when the
vehicle ahead was still in it and then had to stop within the
box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle. The images do
also show a scooter but it is some way behind the Appellant’s
vehicle even after it had stopped in the box.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check
carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to
ensure that they do so only as permitted. The contravention can
occur if any part of the vehicle’s wheels are stopped within the
box marking. No actual obstruction need be caused for the
contravention to occur.
Rule 174 of the current edition of the Official Highway Code
refers to box junctions. It explains that these have criss-cross
yellow lines painted on the road and warns: ‘You MUST NOT enter
the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may
enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only
stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles
waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT
enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without
stopping.’
A box junction is the yellow criss-cross marking prescribed by
Diagram 1043 at item 25 in Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the 2016
Regulations. The images produced show that in this case the
marking does appear to comply. I am satisfied that it is clear
to the motorist that this is a box junction.
Mr Morgan also submits that the Enforcement Authority failed to
address properly the original representations to the Enforcement
Authority and that the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice is
non-compliant.
As to the latter, Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act provides that:
A penalty charge notice under this section must-
(a) state-
(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be,
Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable
with respect to the vehicle;
(ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the
period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the
amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified
proportion;
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of
the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi) the amount of the increased charge;
(vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be
sent; and
(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be
entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1
to this Act; and
(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be
made.
Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to Act provides:
Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but
the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been
established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the
said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as "the notice of
rejection") must-
(a) state that a charge certificate may be served under
paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection-
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a
traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and
(b) describe in general terms the form and manner in which such
an appeal must be made,
and may contain such other information as the enforcing
authority consider appropriate.
Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)
(London) Regulations 1993 provides that the local authority
shall produce a copy of the relevant Penalty Charge Notice.
Page 3 of the Penalty Charge Notice states:
"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations
before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of
service of this notice an increased charge of £195 may be
payable. We may send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of
this increased amount. At this stage it would be to [sic] late
to make representations".
There is a clear, and incorrect, confluence of the two
provisions. The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice produced to
me does not comply with the legal requirements.
It might be said that the Appellant is not prejudiced as, in
effect, the time limit for initial payment of the penalty charge
is increased
However, the Appellant’s representative has referred to the
decision in R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC
2357 (Admin).
Although that case involved a Penalty Charge Notice issued under
different statutory provisions, it makes clear that the fact
that an appellant may not have been prejudiced is not a "cure"
to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty
unenforceable. make clear the importance of complying with the
requirements of the legislation. Mr Justice Jackson said in that
case "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be
established. The 1991 Act created a scheme for the civil
enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists
become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified
statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are
not met then the financial liability does not arise."
I cannot find that there is any serious possibility of real
prejudice here but the wording is not correct and, accordingly,
for the reasons set out this appeal must be allowed.
It follows that no other issue need be determined.
#Post#: 123323--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: June 29, 2026, 3:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> Here you go - also heed Hippocrates's comment. i've slimmed
it down a bit by removing stuff that's largely irrelevant and
focussing on the two bits which I think are your strongest
arguments.
>
>
>
> I am writing to make formal representations against the above
Penalty Charge Notice. I deny that a contravention occurred and
request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled, for the
following reasons.
>
> 1. The contravention did not occur — any incursion into the
box junction markings was of a de minimis nature and, on balance
of probabilities, there was sufficient space to receive my
vehicle.
>
> A box junction contravention only arises where a vehicle
enters and has to stop within the box junction because there is
insufficient space beyond it to receive the vehicle, due to the
presence of stationary traffic. It is not in itself a
contravention simply to be stationary within the box markings if
the vehicle could otherwise have moved forward and exited the
box.
>
> From the council's evidence, my vehicle stopped with only the
rear wheels resting on the extremities of the box junction
markings. I believe this is of a clearly de minimis nature.
Notwithstanding the trivial nature of the incursion, I believe
in these circumstances my vehicle could have cleared the box
junction by moving forward a foot or so into the gap to the car
directly in front. If the vehicle could exit but the driver
chose not to for whatever reason, then no contravention has
occurred.
>
> 2. The contravention did not occur - the installation of
roadworks have reduced the width of the junction with Kingsley
Road
>
> From the council evidence, there are roadworks in the left
hand lane of Forest Road. These encroach into the junction with
Kingsley Road including into the box junction markings. I have
taken my own photograph (attached) which more clearly shows the
level of incursion is not insignificant.
>
> These roadworks themselves block the junction to a far greater
extent than my own vehicle did. Due to the relative position of
the roadworks and the rear of my vehicle, there is no way my
vehicle could have caused any obstruction as a vehicle would
have had to drive through the roadworks first. There would seem
to be no logic or justice in enforcing a stop on the far
extremities of a box junction which itself is no longer part of
the usable junction between two roads.
>
> The box junction regulations themselves require that box
junction markings must be installed at a junction or two (or
more) roads and as such any markings situated at a point which
is not at such a junction is not legally a box junction and so
cannot be enforced.
>
> For these reasons, I request that the Penalty Charge Notice be
cancelled. I look forward to your response.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thats great, thanks so much for editing and reworking this for
me. Also, the wording of the PCN issue that
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] has linked applies to mine too -
Should i add it to the appeal? I've added a possible addition
below
The Penalty Charge Notice itself does not comply with the
statutory requirements
Separately from the above, I would draw the Council's attention
to a procedural defect in the Notice itself. Page 3 of the
Notice states that if the Penalty Charge is not paid or
representations are not made within 28 days, an increased charge
becomes payable, and that "at this stage it would be too late to
make representations."
This wording does not accurately reflect the statutory scheme
under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act
2003 and its accompanying Schedule. An adjudicator at London
Tribunals has previously found, in a case against this same
Council involving materially identical wording, that conflating
the increased-charge trigger with a stated cut-off for making
representations is incorrect and renders the Notice
non-compliant — and that this defect makes the penalty
unenforceable regardless of whether the underlying contravention
occurred, irrespective of whether the recipient suffered any
actual prejudice as a result (citing the High Court's reasoning
in R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357
(Admin)).
I would ask the Council to review the wording of this Notice
against that precedent and to confirm whether it intends to
maintain that the Notice is compliant.
#Post#: 123324--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: June 29, 2026, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> [quote author=Hippocrates link=topic=11074.msg123111#msg123111
date=1782568694]
> Check the website as it has a general box only I believe.
>
--- End Quote ---
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2220655455
Appellant Bysshe Wallace
Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM PK65WZA
PCN Details
PCN FR57211309
Contravention date 17 Jul 2022
Contravention time 14:12:00
Contravention location Forest Road / Russell Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Oct 2022
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons This decision has been amended under Regulation 15 of
the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations
1993.
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented
in person by Mr Morgan and her husband, Mr Emamally, also
attended.
The Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not
represented.
Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic
Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction
marking conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a
vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to
stop within the box marking due to the presence of a stationary
vehicle.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('the
2003 Act') on the basis of information provided by a camera
or other device. There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle
was at this location, as shown in the closed-circuit television
(cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that she was trying to steer clear of a
scooter rider who was cruising around on the main carriageway
and weaving in and out of the traffic. The Appellant submits
that she was deeply concerned and anxious that there could be an
accident and thinking it would minimise the chance of that, she
pulled up behind the car which was already stationary at the
lights.
The closed circuit television (cctv) images show that the
Appellant’s vehicle did enter this box junction marking when the
vehicle ahead was still in it and then had to stop within the
box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle. The images do
also show a scooter but it is some way behind the Appellant’s
vehicle even after it had stopped in the box.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check
carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to
ensure that they do so only as permitted. The contravention can
occur if any part of the vehicle’s wheels are stopped within the
box marking. No actual obstruction need be caused for the
contravention to occur.
Rule 174 of the current edition of the Official Highway Code
refers to box junctions. It explains that these have criss-cross
yellow lines painted on the road and warns: ‘You MUST NOT enter
the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may
enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only
stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles
waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT
enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without
stopping.’
A box junction is the yellow criss-cross marking prescribed by
Diagram 1043 at item 25 in Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the 2016
Regulations. The images produced show that in this case the
marking does appear to comply. I am satisfied that it is clear
to the motorist that this is a box junction.
Mr Morgan also submits that the Enforcement Authority failed to
address properly the original representations to the Enforcement
Authority and that the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice is
non-compliant.
As to the latter, Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act provides that:
A penalty charge notice under this section must-
(a) state-
(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be,
Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable
with respect to the vehicle;
(ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the
period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the
amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified
proportion;
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of
the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi) the amount of the increased charge;
(vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be
sent; and
(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be
entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1
to this Act; and
(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be
made.
Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to Act provides:
Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but
the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been
established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the
said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as "the notice of
rejection") must-
(a) state that a charge certificate may be served under
paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection-
(i) the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a
traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and
(b) describe in general terms the form and manner in which such
an appeal must be made,
and may contain such other information as the enforcing
authority consider appropriate.
Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)
(London) Regulations 1993 provides that the local authority
shall produce a copy of the relevant Penalty Charge Notice.
Page 3 of the Penalty Charge Notice states:
"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations
before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of
service of this notice an increased charge of £195 may be
payable. We may send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of
this increased amount. At this stage it would be to [sic] late
to make representations".
There is a clear, and incorrect, confluence of the two
provisions. The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice produced to
me does not comply with the legal requirements.
It might be said that the Appellant is not prejudiced as, in
effect, the time limit for initial payment of the penalty charge
is increased
However, the Appellant’s representative has referred to the
decision in R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC
2357 (Admin).
Although that case involved a Penalty Charge Notice issued under
different statutory provisions, it makes clear that the fact
that an appellant may not have been prejudiced is not a "cure"
to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty
unenforceable. make clear the importance of complying with the
requirements of the legislation. Mr Justice Jackson said in that
case "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be
established. The 1991 Act created a scheme for the civil
enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists
become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified
statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are
not met then the financial liability does not arise."
I cannot find that there is any serious possibility of real
prejudice here but the wording is not correct and, accordingly,
for the reasons set out this appeal must be allowed.
It follows that no other issue need be determined.
[/quote]
Thats brilliant! What a spot. It's on mine aswell. I'm surprised
they are still using the same wording after 4 years.
I'll add pics here in a mo
#Post#: 123325--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 29, 2026, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I was the representative. 8) And cp8759 and a few others
observed too. A nice day for all. But not all adjudicators have
to follow it. And this will be their response.
It really is important to lead with the most crucial point
because the Halton High Court case says they do not need to
consider all points.
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.pdf
Roadworks decision won by The Wizard:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240295228
Appellant Ricardo Bowden
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM R111 KBO
Decision Cost award allowed
PCN Details
PCN PN75145284
Contravention date 07 May 2024
Contravention time 09:22:00
Contravention location Barking Road / St. Bartholomews Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The Council has indicated that the Appeal is no longer
contested.
Cost Details
Application by Appellant
Decision date 02 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Decision Cost award allowed
Direction -
Reasons
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 as requested.
#Post#: 123329--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: June 29, 2026, 3:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, definitely a day to raise a glass. Bravo sir
Looks to be the same wording on mine:
[img]
HTML https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/pw/AP1GczO5Q6NWtjdt0I78LJKTU_KRkrPAolYswZi-64eQKsoBWNyDIjL_TpQTC5lGuhH-bLWdulyZNvcOhvybjiTN31RrRS07NkeBqeOqgRh9zRqAwh0g1p1urxzTyfXWaCp3HHq87edq4MHeZe8Uj4A9VLdD5Q=w1030-h1374-s-no-gm?authuser=0[/img]
#Post#: 123330--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 29, 2026, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PM sent. This is not a High Court case! As for your
representations: more is less, and less is more. We need to
curtail them. I have 6 cases on Wednesday and am a little
pressed for time.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page