DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 24433--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 29, 2024, 6:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sod the Review Criteria, you have the right to request a review
! Hopeflly, you'll get one of the more experienced adjudicators
on the review.
I would go for "in the interests of justice", because over the
years since decriminalise enforcement came in in 1991 nearly 35
years ago, there have been High Court rulings on the process,
one of which clearly stated that if a public authority are given
penal powers by Parliament, the expectation is that those powers
will be exercised fairly and expeditiously
Information on the London Tribunals website as you posted,
mentions the problems that can arise for excessive delay in
enforcement. This adjudicator ignored his own website !
I'm afraid your case is a classic example of why we recommend
never to opt for a papers-based hearing.
#Post#: 24513--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: meaty
Date: May 30, 2024, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NotFair link ---
>
> I am just wondering what to write and how to phrase, as the
review criteria seem very specific.
>
--- End Quote ---
Please see below. Add a photo of the gate with the yellow box if
not already clear. Was the gate closed when you got your ticket?
Use template at link below. I have emailed review request to
them in the past
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/ruc/your-hearing/i-dont-agree-ruca-adjudicators-decision-what-can-i-do<br
/>
I am requesting a review in the interest of justice. The
adjudicator failed to address and consider the very specific
fact that the second alleged "road" is private and gated and the
public does not have access. It is therefore not a "road" as per
the RTA 1988 definition and the yellow box is not in a permited
location. I quote below some legal cases that further confirm
this viewpoint. There is no information/detail as to how the
adjudicator came to his conclusion. TfL also failed to provide
any evidence that it is a "road" to which the public have
access.
HTML https://www.londondrinkdrivingsolicitor.co.uk/-What-is-a-road-anyway<br
/>
"Mrs Justice Rafferty held in Hallett v DPP that the presence of
a sign or barrier lends weight to a claim that the land is open
only to a special class of the public and thus that it is not a
road to which the public has access."
"The Divisional Court, presided over by Lord Widgery, heard the
case of Deacon v AT (A Minor) and concluded that the land must
be open to the public in general and not merely a special class
of the public, such as residents or visitors."
#Post#: 24645--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: MrChips
Date: June 1, 2024, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Worth also including a reference to the fact the adjudicator
seems to have ignored the fact that (as quoted on London
Tribunals own website) "the adjudicators have decided that a
Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations
within 3 months." In this case, TFL have given no explanation
to justify the undue delay in sending their Notice of Rejection.
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process
#Post#: 24805--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: NotFair
Date: June 3, 2024, 8:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks all.
There is a helpful website which actually has a pretty perfect
photograph of the exact junction in question, gate and all,
which I've included in my appeal for review:
HTML https://www.yellowboxes.co.uk/1-the-box
I've submitted this:
---
Following the decision of Adjudicator Mr John Lane, in which my
appeal was refused, I now wish to apply to the adjudicator for a
review of the decision under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to The
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. I am
making this application within 14 days of the date of the
adjudicator’s decision.
I am seeking review on the following ground(s): The interests of
justice require a review.
My reasons for applying for a review are as follows:
1.
specific fact that the second alleged "road" is private and
gated to which the public does not have access. It is therefore
not a "road" as per the Road Traffic Act 1988 definition and the
yellow box is therefore not in a permitted location. This was
detailed in the original appeal to TfL, but does not appear to
have been considered by the adjudicator. I enclose a photograph
below of the supposed “road” in question, and the yellow box.
This is clearly private, gated, closed, and thus the “road” is
not at all accessible to the public. It therefore fails to meet
the legal definition of “road”. It should be noted that the gate
was closed at the time of the alleged contravention.
I quote below some legal cases, and also a London Tribunals
adjudication, that further confirm this viewpoint. There is no
information/detail as to how the adjudicator came to his
conclusion. TfL also failed to provide any evidence that it is a
"road" to which the public have access.
London Tribunals case 2220655535 (Kate Gardener vs London
Borough of Croydon):
This is a case in which a box junction has been placed at a
junction between a private driveway and a road. The appeal was
allowed. The junction above, Ealing Village, is also a private
driveway, and so this case sets an important precedent.
“Second, I find that the box junction in this particular case
extends beyond a junction, it appears to extend for some
distance in front of the driveway of a private building. Whilst
the TSRGD 2016 has relaxed the law in relation to box junctions,
such as the need for Departmental approval and to touch the
kerb. They did not dispense with the requirement for box
junctions to be at junctions (or outside police or fire
stations); they cannot be placed anywhere.”
From
HTML https://www.londondrinkdrivingsolicitor.co.uk/-What-is-a-road-anyway:
"Mrs Justice Rafferty held in Hallett v DPP that the presence of
a sign or barrier lends weight to a claim that the land is open
only to a special class of the public and thus that it is not a
road to which the public has access."
"The Divisional Court, presided over by Lord Widgery, heard the
case of Deacon v AT (A Minor) and concluded that the land must
be open to the public in general and not merely a special class
of the public, such as residents or visitors."
2.
adjudicator seems to have ignored the fact that (as quoted on
London Tribunals own website:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process)<br
/>"the adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement Authority
should normally respond to representations within 3 months." In
this case, TfL have given no explanation to justify the undue
delay in sending their Notice of Rejection.
#Post#: 24828--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: MrChips
Date: June 3, 2024, 11:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Reads well to me, but I've got no experience in submitting a
review application so wait for others to comment.
Just to check, as the video link no longer works. Was the gate
definitely closed when you stopped there? Seems like it's open
quite often so wouldn't want you to undermine your case when the
video is reviewed.
#Post#: 25247--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 7, 2024, 5:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=325]NotFair[/member] well if you've fixed your spam
filter and your case gets listed for a review hearing I can
still represent you, let me know if you get a review listing.
#Post#: 25669--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: meaty
Date: June 12, 2024, 6:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NotFair link ---
>
> Thanks all.
>
> There is a helpful website which actually has a pretty perfect
photograph of the exact junction in question, gate and all,
which I've included in my appeal for review:
HTML https://www.yellowboxes.co.uk/1-the-box
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes that's my site and I took that photo :)
Personally I would not have referenced the croydon case. I've
seen adjudicators use other references as an excuse to refuse
because it's different.
#Post#: 31508--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: newbie819
Date: July 29, 2024, 4:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NotFair link ---
>
> Thanks all.
>
> There is a helpful website which actually has a pretty perfect
photograph of the exact junction in question, gate and all,
which I've included in my appeal for review:
HTML https://www.yellowboxes.co.uk/1-the-box
>
> I've submitted this:
>
> ---
>
> Following the decision of Adjudicator Mr John Lane, in which
my appeal was refused, I now wish to apply to the adjudicator
for a review of the decision under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to
The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. I am
making this application within 14 days of the date of the
adjudicator’s decision.
> I am seeking review on the following ground(s): The interests
of justice require a review.
> My reasons for applying for a review are as follows:
> 1. The adjudicator failed to address and consider the very
specific fact that the second alleged "road" is private and
gated to which the public does not have access. It is therefore
not a "road" as per the Road Traffic Act 1988 definition and the
yellow box is therefore not in a permitted location. This was
detailed in the original appeal to TfL, but does not appear to
have been considered by the adjudicator. I enclose a photograph
below of the supposed “road” in question, and the yellow box.
This is clearly private, gated, closed, and thus the “road” is
not at all accessible to the public. It therefore fails to meet
the legal definition of “road”. It should be noted that the gate
was closed at the time of the alleged contravention.
>
>
> I quote below some legal cases, and also a London Tribunals
adjudication, that further confirm this viewpoint. There is no
information/detail as to how the adjudicator came to his
conclusion. TfL also failed to provide any evidence that it is a
"road" to which the public have access.
>
>
> London Tribunals case 2220655535 (Kate Gardener vs London
Borough of Croydon):
>
> This is a case in which a box junction has been placed at a
junction between a private driveway and a road. The appeal was
allowed. The junction above, Ealing Village, is also a private
driveway, and so this case sets an important precedent.
>
> “Second, I find that the box junction in this particular case
extends beyond a junction, it appears to extend for some
distance in front of the driveway of a private building. Whilst
the TSRGD 2016 has relaxed the law in relation to box junctions,
such as the need for Departmental approval and to touch the
kerb. They did not dispense with the requirement for box
junctions to be at junctions (or outside police or fire
stations); they cannot be placed anywhere.”
>
>
> From
HTML https://www.londondrinkdrivingsolicitor.co.uk/-What-is-a-road-anyway:
>
> "Mrs Justice Rafferty held in Hallett v DPP that the presence
of a sign or barrier lends weight to a claim that the land is
open only to a special class of the public and thus that it is
not a road to which the public has access."
>
> "The Divisional Court, presided over by Lord Widgery, heard
the case of Deacon v AT (A Minor) and concluded that the land
must be open to the public in general and not merely a special
class of the public, such as residents or visitors."
>
> 2. TfL took 5 months to respond to representations. The
adjudicator seems to have ignored the fact that (as quoted on
London Tribunals own website:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process)<br
/>"the adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement Authority
should normally respond to representations within 3 months." In
this case, TfL have given no explanation to justify the undue
delay in sending their Notice of Rejection.
>
--- End Quote ---
Have you heard anything yet from the adjudicator? I recently got
a PCN with maybe half of my vehicle remained in the box. I think
in such a heavy traffic road it is really harsh to have such a
yellow box, and no wonder it is one of the most fined yellow box
in London...
So if your appeal is successful, i would try to do the same...
#Post#: 34579--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: NotFair
Date: August 26, 2024, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN was cancelled on review of the appeal. Unfortunately,
though, not because of the yellow box issue but because TfL took
such a long time to respond to reps.
#Post#: 43329--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Yellow Box - Hanger Lane
DIR By: finesbreakingmybank
Date: October 31, 2024, 9:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've literally JUST received this fine and completely shell
shocked at the cost of the fine at £160 discounted price. Is
there a high chance of a successful challenge here? I see that
the PCN was dropped for other reasons and not in contest to the
yellow box being illegal.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page