DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 126166--------------------------------------------------
Yellow Box PCN
DIR By: Skywalker95
Date: July 29, 2026, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I require your assistance as I believe this is a bit unfair.
It's the first time I have got a Yellow box ticket as usually
try to be very careful. Only the bumper is on the yellow and
it's not obstructing anything.
Contravention Description: Entering and stopping in a box
junction when prohibited
Contravention Explaination:
Location: Box Jct Fulham Palace Rd J/w St Dunstans Rd (va)
Contravention Date: 26/06/2026
Contravention Time: 15:46
Outstanding Amount: £80.00
Detected by a camera/operator known as and is supported by
recorded video evidence: HFB105
PCN Number: HZ99958889
Vehicle Reg: LP73 JUF
Date of this notice: 17/07/2026
This is from London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
I have not appealed it yet.
I would hugely appreciate your advice if this holds grounds for
appeal or not
#Post#: 126181--------------------------------------------------
Re: Yellow Box PCN
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 29, 2026, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Box seems a bit beyond side road and can't tell if you had more
space ahead to clear bar triviality.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/GfdFCHNg/Get-Video11-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif
#Post#: 126217--------------------------------------------------
Re: Yellow Box PCN
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 29, 2026, 2:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Op, I suggest you look at their video again, zooming if
necessary, because about 1/3-1/2 of your car is in the box.
Soory to have to say it, but you would certainly not win this on
a de minimis argument. YOur only hope is a technical appeal, (at
London Tribunals). These are based on mismanagment of the
enforcement process and have nothing to do with the
contravention itself.
#Post#: 126271--------------------------------------------------
Re: Yellow Box PCN
DIR By: Skywalker95
Date: July 30, 2026, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The car in front brake, I can only see the back car. The bumper
was in the yellow box for approx 13 seconds according to the
video.
What would you advice?
#Post#: 126292--------------------------------------------------
Re: Yellow Box PCN
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 30, 2026, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, so don't just cough-up, make them do at least some work for
their money. Submit reps on the basis that at the time, you
thought you had cleared the YBJ, and it was only the PCN and
video that showed you hadn't. Point out that the YBJ intrusion
was minimal, and the car was not blocking any other traffic
movements, because the YBJ extends well beyond the cross roads.
Of course they'll reject it, but will re-offer the discount.
If you really want to make them work, take the matter to London
Tribunals, but your "minimal intrusion" case is not all that
strong, and you will have to risk the full PCN penalty. Of
course, if you win, you pay nothing.
#Post#: 126305--------------------------------------------------
Re: Yellow Box PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 30, 2026, 9:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Top end of box is too big surely?
#Post#: 126326--------------------------------------------------
Re: Yellow Box PCN
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 30, 2026, 12:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Top end of box is too big surely?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes, but not hugely so, hence my reckoning of a reasonable case,
but not slam-dunk.
#Post#: 126341--------------------------------------------------
Re: Yellow Box PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 30, 2026, 4:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I observed this case:
Case reference 2250655658
Appellant Shivakumar Kenchayikoppad
Authority London Borough of Bromley
VRM YE20VYZ
PCN Details
PCN BY9771901A
Contravention date 30 Sep 2025
Contravention time 18:41:00
Contravention location Croydon Road / Langley Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Jun 2026
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Mrs Nicole Kalyan attended the hearing on 19 May 2026, as the
authorised representative of Mr Kenchayikoppad.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering
and stopping in a box junction when prohibited.
Mrs Kalyan raised in the hearing a final point of appeal,
arguing that the box is too large. Having looked at the CCTV
footage, I could see that the box markings do appear to start
well before the junction with Langley Road.
A Box Junction is defined in Paragraph 11(6) of Part 7, Schedule
9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
(TSRGD 2016). 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 TSRGD 2016.
I adjourned the hearing on 19 May to give the Council the
opportunity to respond to this ground of appeal. Mrs Kalyan
agreed that the hearing be converted to a postal hearing.
The Council has explained that the box was extended in 2021 as
an accident reduction measure because of collisions occurring at
the junction with Langley Road. The Council refers to the
greater freedom for box junction markings allowed by TSRGD 2016
and it refers to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual which says
that the previous design rules are relaxed, allowing designs to
cover all situations at junctions without the need for
authorisation.
It is correct that TSRGD 2016 relaxed the strict requirements
for box junction markings contained in the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2002. TSRGD 2016 do not
require DfT approval for markings which do not comply with the
diagram in Schedule 9, Part 6. There is, however, still a
requirement for substantial compliance with the diagram. If
there was no such requirement, the Regulations would become
meaningless.
Looking at the CCTV footage from the Council, I can reach only
one finding which is that the box marked by the Council is not a
box junction as defined in Paragraph 11(6) of Part 7, Schedule 9
of TSRGD 2016. The markings show the very opposite of
substantial compliance to the extent that the hatched area
before the junction is far greater in size than the hatched area
which covers the junction mouth. This is very substantial
non-compliance and, for that reason, I must allow the appeal.
The Council says that it does not enforce against vehicles
stopping in the box area before the junction mouth and, whilst
that is commendable, it does not remedy the non-compliance.
****
Two highly relevant decisions by two Chief Adjudicators
Former Chief Adjudicator Martin Wood said in the Key Case No.:
2090257179 Sam Yorke v The London Borough of Camden
YELLOW BOX; SPECIAL AUTHORISATION; BOX ENTENDING BEYOND
JUNCTION; AUTHORISATION ULTRA VIRES
There is a Secretary of State's special authorisation
purportedly authorising this yellow box. There seems to me,
however, to be a difficulty with it. The prohibition that the
yellow box is supposed to indicate is that in Part II of
Schedule 19 to the Traffic signs Regulations 2002. That
prohibition relates to box junctions. Paragraph 7 of the
Schedule states the prohibition. The relevant part for these
purposes is as follows. ' ... no person shall cause a vehicle to
enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within
the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.'
Paragraph 6 of the Schedule defines a box junction as follows. '
"box junction" means the area of carriageway marked with yellow
cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which
there has been placed [a yellow box]' (my emphasis). The problem
with the special authorisation is this. Part of the box that it
purportedly authorises is not within the junction of the roads.
At its southern side it includes a triangle of road that is not
within the junction and is therefore not 'at a junction between
two or more roads'. The prohibition, however, relates only to a
box junction as defined. The special authorisation therefore
purports to extend the prohibition outside the junction. It does
not seem to me that the power to authorise signs empowers the
Secretary of State to effectively redefine the prohibition
prescribed by Schedule 19. This is not an insignificant matter.
The box as purportedly authorised extends for a significant
distance beyond the junction itself. This increases the distance
the motorist has to traverse without stopping, and therefore
makes it more difficult for them to make progress without
falling foul of the box. It is also difficult to see what the
point of extending the box beyond the junction is, given that
the purpose of the prohibition plainly is to stop stationary
vehicles blocking the junction to crossing traffic. Clearly,
stopping in the area beyond the junction would not block the
junction. I accordingly find that this yellow box is not a
lawful road marking. Therefore the contravention did not occur.
I allow this appeal.
And in Case No.: 2170285940 Stephen Thurston v London Borough of
Richmond Upon Thames the current Chief Adjudicator, Mr Anthony
Chan said:
The Appellant did point out further the length of the junction
and I note that the exit of the box junction exceeded the
junction by at least one car length.
The prohibition applies to a box junction. A “box junction”
means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been
placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads.
Markings which extends beyond the junction of two or more roads
do not therefore mark out a box junction covered by the
prohibition. I am in no way suggesting that the Authority has to
be inch perfect but, in my view, extending the box junction by a
car length or more beyond the actual junction is neither
compliant nor substantially compliant with requirements. I allow
the appeal.
#Post#: 126348--------------------------------------------------
Re: Yellow Box PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 30, 2026, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Skywalker95 link ---
>
> The car in front brake, I can only see the back car. The
bumper was in the yellow box for approx 13 seconds according to
the video.
>
> What would you advice?
>
--- End Quote ---
Cite the cases in my previous post and simply say the box is
non-compliant. Cancel the PCN therefore. A YBJ can be placed
BETWEEN two or more roads=the law.
Forget all the other stuff re bumpers and admissions. Never
admit to anything. Short and sweet. Sorry, rather sour.
BTW: the two cases will form part of submissions in upcoming JR
v Kingston.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1