DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79861--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: John_S
Date: July 7, 2025, 4:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This graphic might help. In this case boxes 4 and 6 are NOT
ticked, so there’s a good chance of success at appeal stage,
IMO.
HTML https://i.imgur.com/YETrbbs.png
#Post#: 79871--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 7, 2025, 5:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm all for looking for creative ways to beat the PCN, but the
stationary element is definitely in respect of what causes you
to get stuck in the box junction, not whether it is moving or
not at the point of entry. If to paraphrase, the offence is
showing poor judgement in entering the box junction resulting in
having to subsequently stop in the box junction because of a
stationary vehicle(s).
Think of someone who follows a moving vehicle into a box but the
vehicle in front stops at box exit blocking the exit (for
whatever reason). There's no way one could claim the
contravention didn't occur on the basis that at the point of
entry the vehicle in front was not stationary.
Save for the example posted above by Stamfordman, I've never
seen an adjudicator decision which requires more than one
stationary vehicle to be responsible, so fear this view might
not be universally accepted, but I'm all for giving it a go (but
it's not my £80 on the line!).
#Post#: 79873--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 7, 2025, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Back to the wording of the Regs:
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow
criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in
Part 6 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 junction due to the presence of stationary
vehicles.
No mention of making judgements and what might have caused an
impeding vehicle to become stationary etc. OP, at tribunal your
prospects very much depend on the adjudicator on the day. To
illustrate this, just look at the reasoning behind the decisions
posted above:
There is no minimum period since a vehicle is in contravention
immediately it is stationary.
There is no minimum portion of a vehicle since any stationary
part thereof is subject to contravention.
and...
Additionally, the Appellant’s vehicle came to a stop in the box
for three seconds at the most; that is insufficiently long to
establish that a contravention has occurred.
Given the inconsistencies in adjudicators' reasoning, I don't
see how you could get the reassurance you want...even if you
asked an adjudicator!
For me, you entered the box when you could see a vehicle which,
unless it moved, would have caused you to stop or go into the
opposite traffic lane, but you still entered. As it turned out,
this vehicle did move but you were in the lap of the Gods as to
whether its presence would prevent you having to stop.
#Post#: 79886--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 7, 2025, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The consistent point in the two cases I posted and which has
also come up in other cases is that the vehicle ahead stopped
when it seemed there was clear road ahead - ie no traffic queue.
In these two cases it was pedestrians that caused the stop that
a reasonable reading of traffic flow could not have anticipated.
A counterfactual is traffic is moving well and you follow a
vehicle into a box but it slams on the brakes for no apparent
reason.
Some adjudicators would say this goes beyond just mitigation to
unreasonable circumstances.
#Post#: 79938--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: jamapple123
Date: July 7, 2025, 9:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
thanks for your responses everyone. I feel that on balance of
what has been said so far I will just pay the £80 fine, since If
I appeal again and loose I will not be offered the 'reduced'
amount and will have to pay £160 which I don't want to risk :(
#Post#: 79947--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 7, 2025, 11:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should wait to see if there are arguable technical flaws
here, it's not just about the contravention.
#Post#: 80254--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: jamapple123
Date: July 9, 2025, 9:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> You should wait to see if there are arguable technical flaws
here, it's not just about the contravention.
>
--- End Quote ---
sure I don't mind holding out a little longer to see if that
could indeed be the case. Just to note however I only have 14
days from when I received the rejection letter to make another
appeal. So I will need to decide before 14th July.
#Post#: 80263--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 9, 2025, 10:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I only have 14 days from when I received the rejection letter
to make another appeal. So I will need to decide before 14th
July.
For accuracy, no.
The letter states:
'..pay the amount of £80 within 14 days of the date this letter
was served..'
Letter dated Tue. 1 July therefore served Thurs. 3, therefore
'within 14 days of the date this letter was served' is no later
than 17 July.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page