DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 31903--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Korting
Date: August 1, 2024, 6:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
How does this look?
I am appealing this PCN on the following grounds grounds.
It would appear that the size of the box is too long. The
corners of the junction have a very wide radius, but it is not
necessary for the box to cover that both corners. Indeed it
appears that the Yellow Box Junction does not conform to the
regulations as set out in the Transport Signs, Regulations and
General Directions 2016.
At the corners the footways are, for want of a better term,
shared. As the purpose of a box junction relates to vehicles and
not pedestrians then in my opinion it is more logical to
consider the extent of the side road as terminating where the
'Give Way' road markings end, which is well before the end of
the YBJ. If the box would have been the correct length, I would
have cleared it.
No obstruction to other traffic was caused, indeed you can see a
car pulling out from the side turning and turning right without
any impediment.
The white car in front of mine proceeded over the box junction
and then stopped when there was no need to and I had expected to
clear the box junction had the driver have moved up as they
should have.
There is a decision re Kingston box junction which is similar...
Case reference 2230056005
Appellant Jeff Baker
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Decision Date 28 Feb 2023
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Upon the appellant making submissions as to the extent
of box junction markings supporting evidence being provided.
This box junction is not only marked at the junction between
these two roads but also in advance and beyond that junction.
It is not therefore marked in compliance with The Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016 this penalty charge thus
being unenforceable.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Under the circumstances and bearing in mind the foregoing, I
expect the Council to cancel this PCN.
#Post#: 31928--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 2, 2024, 5:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The box does not extend excessively and is pretty much across
the mouth of the road, and a lot of other boxes are like this.
One reason is probably to give some extra sight lines.
The Kingston case cited I believe is for a box that is/was
clearly out of bounds in one direction.
It's worth a shot but I wouldn't be confident in taking it to
the tribunal.
I would say something like 'Given the traffic flow ahead and the
size of the side road I was confident if the other drivers had
taken up their space I would have cleared the junction and I
only encroached on a part of the box that does not conform to
the regulations of being marked only at the junction area of the
two roads.'
etc.
It might be better to show examples of boxes that conform
strictly - I've posted two videos here:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/2-in-one-day-help!/
This may be the Kingston box:
HTML http://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2023/05/kingston-road-new-malden-yellow-box.html
#Post#: 31941--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: August 2, 2024, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm with Stamfordman on this one. I've seen many more
adjudication decisions which state there is flexibility under
TSRGD 2016 as to how to site the box junction and strike out
appeals based on box size (far more egregiously than this one).
You may get lucky with a sympathetic adjudicator but I'd put
chances of success well below 50% if relying solely on this
argument.
#Post#: 31944--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 2, 2024, 6:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The OP isn't at adjudication yet, they're putting their case in
reps and attempting to discover the authority's reasoning for
not adopting the TSM form.
Also, the 'Give Way' road marking delineates the extent of the
carriageway in the side road. IMO, it is a leap too far to
suggest that 'road' as in 'a junction between two or more roads'
includes the furthest reaches of shared footway.
But this is just a view.
#Post#: 32081--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Korting
Date: August 3, 2024, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am appealing this PCN on the following grounds grounds.
It would appear that the size of the box is too long. The
corners of the junction have a very wide radius, but it is not
necessary for the box to cover that both corners. Indeed it
appears that the Yellow Box Junction does not conform to the
regulations as set out in the Transport Signs, Regulations and
General Directions 2016.
At the corners the footways are, for want of a better term,
shared. As the purpose of a box junction relates to vehicles and
not pedestrians then in my opinion it is more logical to
consider the extent of the side road as terminating where the
'Give Way' road markings end, which is well before the end of
the YBJ. Given the traffic flow ahead and the size of the side
road. I was confident if the other drivers had taken up their
space I would have cleared the junction and only encroached on a
part of the box that does not conform to the regulations of
being marked only at the junction area of the two roads
No obstruction to other traffic was caused, indeed you can see a
car pulling out from the side turning and turning right without
any impediment.
The white car in front of mine proceeded over the box junction
and then stopped when there was no need to and I had expected to
clear the box junction had the driver have moved up as they
should have.
There is a decision re Kingston box junction which is similar...
Case reference 2230056005
Appellant Jeff Baker
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Decision Date 28 Feb 2023
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Upon the appellant making submissions as to the extent
of box junction markings supporting evidence being provided.
This box junction is not only marked at the junction between
these two roads but also in advance and beyond that junction.
It is not therefore marked in compliance with The Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016 this penalty charge thus
being unenforceable.
The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Under the circumstances and bearing in mind the foregoing, I
expect the Council to cancel this PCN.
Hopefully the last draft
#Post#: 32235--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Korting
Date: August 4, 2024, 6:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Can someone look at my last draft and see if it's good to go?
Or if there is anything I should add or subtract from it.
It has to be submitted by tomorrow.
#Post#: 32242--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 4, 2024, 6:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Korting link ---
>
> I haven’t sent anything in yet, should I modify the appeal?
>
--- End Quote ---
It looks OK to me. Best send in so you don't miss the deadline.
#Post#: 34563--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Korting
Date: August 25, 2024, 6:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well surprise surprise, my friend got a rejection letter
HTML https://imgur.com/a/owPU6FW
HTML https://imgur.com/a/OYpfgnz
HTML https://imgur.com/a/sHIWGbs
HTML https://imgur.com/a/kRRZn7Q
Should she give up or fight it at a tribunal?
#Post#: 34576--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 26, 2024, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1. What is The Traffic Management Act 2014?
2. NOR does not mention power of the adjudicator to extend time
in which to lodge an appeal.
I say this is winnable.
#Post#: 34581--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 26, 2024, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
And the period for making an appeal itself is misstated as is
the council's power to issue a Charge Certificate both of which
must be 'no later than the end of the period of 28 days
beginning on the date of service of the NOR'(they had two bites
at this and both are wrong!).
OP, in principle nothing has changed i.e. the authority wouldn't
accept that their YBJ had been placed improperly. But what their
rejection does show is their lack of understanding of the law
(it's the TMA 2004 but this is not relevant because the regs
regarding YBJ are made under completely different legislation,
the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) and IMO your friend stands
a good chance at adjudication with 'contravention did not occur'
to which they would add what is known as a collateral challenge
based upon the lack of cogent reasons to rebut the argument
regarding the extent of the YBJ and misinformation regarding the
owner's rights of appeal.
Wait for others.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page