DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 63960--------------------------------------------------
Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: Robina267
Date: March 24, 2025, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have received a PCN from Kingston Council. 31J:31j Entering and
stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement).
I have stopped in a yellow box, I naively thought it was okay as
I was not blocking the junction from access (the yellow box is
huge).
Location:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/FxtpQ4MbHYNY3XBp8,
51.400706,
-0.265359
Video:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/xhdfkJf
Photos:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/2G4Hj8D
PCN:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/FyRtitx
Any advice on whether I can appeal this?
#Post#: 63961--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 24, 2025, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Doesn't look like space ahead to clear.
There may be something in the extent of the box as where you
stopped is before the junction.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/0rGUYM2.gif
#Post#: 63962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: 666
Date: March 24, 2025, 12:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Doesn't look like space ahead to clear.
>
> There may be something in the extent of the box as where you
stopped is before the junction.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Not really. It's blocking anyone behind from turning left.
#Post#: 63966--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: MrChips
Date: March 24, 2025, 2:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2023/05/kingston-road-new-malden-yellow-box.html?m=1
[member=7]mrmustard[/member] may be able to assist
#Post#: 63969--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 24, 2025, 2:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Kingston Road is a vague location and we can see two boxes in
the video. But assuming it's the same... There are about 200
appeals at the or a Kingston Road box junction.
-------
Case Details
Case reference 2220802028
Appellant Stanmore Quality Services Ltd
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM MF22 VOO
PCN Details
PCN QT06663041
Contravention date 01 Sep 2022
Contravention time 15:50:00
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 03 Dec 2022
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Murray-Smith, for the appellant, appeared before me
today via telephone. This was an alleged box junction
contravention. I was satisfied upon Mr Murray-Smith raising the
point at paragraph 2 of his Grounds of Appeal uploaded to the
case on 21 11 22 that this box was marked beyond the junction it
served. I was not satisfied for that reason that it was
correctly marked. I made no finding as to any other issue raised
by Mr Murray-Smith but for the reason given this contravention
had not I found been proved and I allowed the appeal.
---------
Case Details
Case reference 2230101289
Appellant Grahame Gould
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM GK22GYX
PCN Details
PCN QT07152977
Contravention date 01 Jan 2023
Contravention time 14:38:00
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Mar 2023
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant has attended his appeal by telephone.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped
in the box junction when prohibited when in Kingston Road on 1
January 2023 at 14.38.
The Appellant denies the contravention and argues, principally,
that the box junction commences too soon and extends too far
after the junction.
The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD)
2016 has relaxed the stricter requirements of box junctions as
in the previous TSRGD 2002.
In that respect whilst I find that box junctions are no longer
required to touch the kerb or require Departmental approval, I
find that they still have to be at a junction.
In this particular case I find that this box junction is neither
compliant or substantially compliant with the TSRGD because it
extends too far before and past the junction.
I also find that, whilst the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in
the box junction, it was not due to another vehicle travelling
in the same direction as his vehicle.
There was ample room for the Appellant's vehicle to move
forwards in this box junction and I am, therefore, not satisfied
that his vehicle was stopped '...due to the presence of a
stationary vehicle.'
Taking these matters together I find that this PCN cannot be
upheld and is not proved.
The appeal is allowed.
----------
Case Details
Case reference 2240084051
Appellant susan Strank
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM NJ17BFK
PCN Details
PCN QT08637767
Contravention date 18 Dec 2023
Contravention time 09:42:00
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 May 2024
Adjudicator John Lane
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
A Box Junction is defined in Paragraph 11(6) of Part 7, Schedule
9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
(TSRGD). 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 the TSRGD.
The appellant has stated that the location expressed on the
penalty notice is ambiguous; there are four Kingston Roads
across the borough.
In the case of Hackney Drivers Association Limited v The Parking
Adjudicator and Lancashire County Council CO/7565/2012 on 31st
October 2012 Mr. Justice Raynor when considering a penalty
notice asked at paragraph 11 of his judgment, "what was fairly
conveyed by the penalty notice, read as a whole?" The recipient
requires certainty.
I agree with the appellant; she did not receive certainty. As
stated above, a box junction must be at the junction of two
roads; there is no mention of the road at the junction of
Kingston Road where the box junction is situated.
I will therefore allow the appeal.
-------
Case Details
Case reference 2250036623
Appellant Pawel Nieczuja-Ostrowski
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM BJ73ELH
PCN Details
PCN QT10165048
Contravention date 16 Dec 2024
Contravention time 20:43:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 18 Mar 2025
Adjudicator Philippa Alderson
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons
The Appellant is appealing a PCN issued in respect of entering
and stopping on a box junction at the location.
The Appellant has not attended the hearing which has been
listed, nor provided any explanation in relation to such
non-attendance. I therefore find it proportionate to decide the
matter in the Appellant's absence.
The Enforcement Authority relies upon photographic capture of
the vehicle, copy of the PCN, map/site report and
correspondence.
The Appellant contends that this box junction pre-dates the
current road layout and is obsolete, non-compliant and not fit
for purpose. He also contends that the road was not blocked and
no obstruction was caused. He has provided photographic evidence
in support of his contention.
I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle
entered the box junction and then stopped in the junction owing
to stationary traffic impeding its exit from the box. 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.
Somewhat unhelpfully, I have not been provided with CCTV footage
of the incident. However, the photographic evidence that the
Authority has provided includes two photographs of the vehicle
showing its front wheels within the box. One photograph is timed
at 20.43.47 and another at 20.43.30. Having enlarged and studied
these photographs, I am satisfied that the vehicle is in the
same position and was stationary on the box for some 2-3
seconds, due to stationary traffic ahead.
The contravention is an immediate one, and occurs as soon as a
vehicle becomes stationary on the junction. I find that the "de
minimis" principle is therefore not applicable in this case.
A box junction must be located at a junction between two or more
roads. Its purpose is to ensure that vehicles have unrestricted
access at the junction and that traffic flow is not impeded. A
box junction should not extend significantly beyond the junction
as it would serve no useful purpose and would not achieve its
objective, although there is an element of flexibility. If a box
junction extends significantly beyond the junction, then it may
be that no contravention has taken place if a vehicle stops in
that section of junction which extends significantly past the
junction. Each case is highly fact specific.
EA has provided an aerial view of the junction. However, this
view is undated and I cannot determine with certainty whether or
not it accords with the road layout as it was at the time of the
contravention. Having considered the photographic capture of the
vehicle provided by the EA, I find it likely that that road
layout has since changed - the kerbline appears to have been
altered and the aerial view does not accord with one
ascertainable in the still captures.
In this case, the Appellant's vehicle stopped at the start of
the box. A significant section of this junction appears to
protrude past the junction itself, and the location where the
vehicle stopped appears to be in a section of the box which
extends significantly past the mouth of the junction. It is hard
to see how a vehicle crossing the main carriageway could be
impeded by the Appellant's vehicle or how this first section of
the box assists in the statutory objective.
I therefore allow this appeal.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/XJh67Bb.gif
#Post#: 63979--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 24, 2025, 3:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I am more than happy to do this one as I have also won costs
against them re the same box.
#Post#: 63986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: Robina267
Date: March 24, 2025, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all the information. Should the appeal be based on
ambiguous location then or on the fact the yellow box extends
too far before the junctions? Or both?
#Post#: 63989--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 24, 2025, 4:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is for later:
Representation Grounds*
Select all that apply, you have the opportunity to add
additional information on the next screen.
Any other ground
At the time of the alleged contravention the vehicle was in the
control of someone without my consent
General Representation
I was not the owner at the material time
I was not the owner of the vehicle
Other grounds
Procedural impropriety
The CEO was not prevented from serving the PCN
The contravention did not occur
The order was invalid
The PCN has been paid
The penalty charge exceeded the amount
The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances
of the case
The person who was in control of the vehicle at the time was in
control without my consent
The police are taking action
The vehicle was taken without my consent
There was no breach of the bus lane order/ regulation
We are a hire firm
We are a hire firm and have supplied the name of the hirer
Registered Keeper*
The red parts are rubbish as they are not grounds.
Draft:
Dear RBK
I make these formal representations against the PCN:
1. The locus as given is too vague.
2. The yellow box junction does not comply with the legislation
as it is too large.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN as the alleged
contravention is not proved.
********
When they reject, I am more than happy to do battle on your
behalf with one of my favourite opponents.
#Post#: 64015--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: Robina267
Date: March 25, 2025, 4:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That's great! :) Thanks so much. Have sent you a PM for some
clarifications.
#Post#: 64031--------------------------------------------------
Re: Kingston opon Thames - 31J yellow box - Kingston Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 25, 2025, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No worries. Just replied. ;D
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page