DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 34582--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 26, 2024, 5:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am happy to represent if the friend wishes to go the full
distance.
#Post#: 35416--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Korting
Date: September 3, 2024, 4:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My reps to the appeal service:
--- Quote ---
> 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.
>
> Barnet have refused to accept that their box is too large and
doesn't comply with the regulations.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Also, 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'
>
> It would appear that the authority (Barnet) shows a lack of
understanding of the law, I base this on there being a lack of
cogent reasons to rebut the argument regarding the extent of the
yellow box junction and also missinformation regarding my rights
of appeal. and therefore I consider that the appeal should be
allowed.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Is this okay?
#Post#: 35431--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 3, 2024, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll call you later this evening.
#Post#: 35583--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 4, 2024, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
μολὼν λαβέ 8)
#Post#: 37483--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 19, 2024, 5:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Trying to find a case re "within" apart from Al's Bar.
2160257053 is the nearest which criticises the NOR.
This case does not support the argument:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-31j-box-junction-violation-durnsford-road/msg37478/#msg37478
#Post#: 39368--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 4, 2024, 4:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Trying to find a case re "within" apart from Al's Bar.
2160257053 is the nearest which criticises the NOR.
>
> This case does not support the argument:
>
>
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-31j-box-junction-violation-durnsford-road/msg37478/#msg37478
>
--- End Quote ---
I have abandoned this thought and see nothing wrong with the 28
days period as expressed in the NOR.
#Post#: 87454--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN for being in a box junction
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 27, 2025, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://t.co/Xx9WebQYix
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page