DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79062--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 1, 2025, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As this is on a red route, also have a read of this thread:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/tfl-red-route-postal-pcns/
tho' I am not sure if CP's fault extends to YBJs?
#Post#: 79065--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: July 1, 2025, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, it was too long ago to get the vehicle dashcam
footage, but the camera takes and saves a still shot every 2
minutes. Luckily, it took the picture when the vehicle was
stopped at the pedestrian crossing and shows more than enough
room ahead for the vehicle to clear the box, I included that in
my appeal as you may have seen.
As you say they don't show why the vehicle stopped in their
video. I noticed they quoted the regulation in their rejection
notice too, adding that the contravention and rules of yellow
box junctions are defined there, but then didn't apply it
🤔
#Post#: 79075--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 1, 2025, 8:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They don't have evidence of stopping owing to stationary
vehicles so I would go on with this. At a personal hearing your
testimony would be heard as credible no doubt.
As with a lot of TFL cases I expect they won't contest.
A related point is that crossings close to box junctions often
cause such issues. Redbridge has got rid of two boxes recentlyy
because of this.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/wanstead-redbridge-council-stopping-in-a-yellow-box-junction/15/<br
/>
#Post#: 79082--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 1, 2025, 8:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think HCA is slightly overthinking it. Even if the stop was
due to the HGV in front (which we all seem to agree it likely
isn't), if the HGV isn't in shot, who's to say it was actually
fully stationary? It could have been crawling along at a snail's
pace, enough to make you stop but not stationary as the
regulations require for your stop to be a contravention.
It's for the authority to demonstrate an offence has taken
place. An adjudicator shouldn't have to guess.
#Post#: 79106--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: July 1, 2025, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> I think HCA is slightly overthinking it. Even if the stop was
due to the HGV in front (which we all seem to agree it likely
isn't), if the HGV isn't in shot, who's to say it was actually
fully stationary? It could have been crawling along at a snail's
pace, enough to make you stop but not stationary as the
regulations require for your stop to be a contravention.
>
> It's for the authority to demonstrate an offence has taken
place. An adjudicator shouldn't have to guess.
>
--- End Quote ---
Perhaps, but I understand why he's saying that from the video
they provided. The dashcam still that I put in my appeal is
timestamped about 13 seconds after the vehicle becomes
stationary in the video, so doesn't show that the pedestrian
crossing is the reason the vehicle became stationary, but does
show it is the reason it continued to be stationary. Their video
doesn't show exactly why the vehicle became stationary, but does
show the vehicle infront continuing at speed and not looking
like it stops right out of frame of the camera.
But yes as you say it is on them to demonstrate the offence took
place, but the respondent to my appeal clearly believes the
highway code is the law and not the actual law. He doesn't argue
that the vehicle infront suddenly became stationary. He's just
claiming that not following the highway code is the
contravention.
#Post#: 79109--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 1, 2025, 11:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've yet to see a Notice of Rejection written by someone who
applies the law correctly. Councils/TFL seem to have the view
that any stop in a box junction for whatever reason justifies a
PCN.
Adjudicators will take the view that if the video doesn't show
all aspects, there's insufficient evidence of a contravention.
For example even where the video shows a stop and a stationary
vehicle necessitating the stop, if the video doesn't also show
the moment of entry into the box that's insufficient (as the
offence is based on traffic conditions at this moment).
#Post#: 79111--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 1, 2025, 12:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
What gets me cross, is that even if this case is won, they
council will continue to serve PCNs even though the camera can
never, ever, show an alleged contravention properly. Then
because most people don't know the exact nature of the
contravention, they just cough-up. For me, this behaviour is
close to, or even is, malfeasance.
#Post#: 79114--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 1, 2025, 1:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The legal test is balance of probabilities.
You stopped but there isn't concrete proof that this was because
of a stationary vehicle. You've already advanced the argument
that you stopped because the pedestrian lights were against you.
But the vehicle ahead didn't stop, so why did you? They're
pedestrian operated, so where's the pedestrian. Sorry if this is
overtinking, and some adjudicators might just say: no evidence
of stationary vehicle ahead, appeal allowed. But some might not.
You refer to a dashcam snap(s), may we see this/these pl.
Any of our posters live near? A video of the cycle of these
lights would be invaluable. You could also ask TfL, but not the
highways arm not the enforcement authority.
#Post#: 79134--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: July 1, 2025, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> The legal test is balance of probabilities.
>
> You stopped but there isn't concrete proof that this was
because of a stationary vehicle. You've already advanced the
argument that you stopped because the pedestrian lights were
against you. But the vehicle ahead didn't stop, so why did you?
They're pedestrian operated, so where's the pedestrian. Sorry if
this is overtinking, and some adjudicators might just say: no
evidence of stationary vehicle ahead, appeal allowed. But some
might not.
>
> You refer to a dashcam snap(s), may we see this/these pl.
>
> Any of our posters live near? A video of the cycle of these
lights would be invaluable. You could also ask TfL, but not the
highways arm not the enforcement authority.
>
--- End Quote ---
The dashcam still is in the pdf I called my appeal attached to
the original post. I'll attach the image itself on to this
comment though.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 79182--------------------------------------------------
Re: TfL Box Junction - Vehicle stopped for pedestrian crossing
not due to other vehicles.
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: July 2, 2025, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> What gets me cross, is that even if this case is won, they
council will continue to serve PCNs even though the camera can
never, ever, show an alleged contravention properly. Then
because most people don't know the exact nature of the
contravention, they just cough-up. For me, this behaviour is
close to, or even is, malfeasance.
>
--- End Quote ---
True, I had a paid PCN refunded recently from Bexley Council.
Some of our drivers had been parking on this industrial estate
road called Hailey Road in Bexley, a prime location for HGV's
to park up over night as there are no signs on or approaching
this road with parking restrictions. But I got 3 PCN's for this
place, for different vehicles. First one they rejected the
appeal and it was paid, £110 (wasn't my decision). The second
and third I eventually got cancelled, I had to complain to the
council and make an information request, as they were claiming
our vehicles were in contravention of an overnight waiting ban
on commercial vehicles. I live and work in Cumbria so I had no
idea about this prohibition on the entire borough of Bexley and
it took me complaining to the council and making a request for
information to actually find out about it.
They were relying on sign posts indicating a no waiting
prohibition zone for commercial vehicles on the perimeter of the
borough to enforce this throughout the entire 60km²+ of the
Borough of Bexley. Absolutely ridiculous and quite likely
against the regulations.
I eventually got dashcam footage showing no sign posts on the
perimeter either and made a complaint for a refund and got one
in full. But they still insist our vehicle would have passed a
sign for the prohibition.... even after I sent them dashcam
footage of our vehicle driving from half a mile out of Bexley,
driving into Bexley, and 10km to Hailey Road, and not a single
sign for the prohibition is passed.
In terms of these box junctions, I think maybe they should just
have a camera on each corner or atleast 2 opposing corners for
multiple angles. Would probably save money in the long run by
cutting out the crap and time wasting cases like this one.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page