DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80328--------------------------------------------------
Barnet high street box junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 9, 2025, 4:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Someone online shared this video with me. What's the consensus
as to whether this is a contravention?
HTML https://youtu.be/_ydkU2QTDGk?feature=shared
To me there seems to be enough space to exit the box junction
and pull alongside the other car in the adjacent lane. The
stopping point is also beyond the junction with the side road...
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/wrHoaP4hYcxm5ACu9?g_st=ac
#Post#: 80345--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet high street box junction
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 9, 2025, 5:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Stopping due to the presence of stationary vehicles doesn't mean
they have to be directly ahead of the vehicle. It's clear here
that there wasn't room for the car to squeeze past. Against that
is the fact that the YBJ extends beyond the junction of the
roads, in fact one does wonder why the stop line and traffic
lights are so far back for the opposite direction. There is no
reason at all for the YBJ to be so close after the stop line.
#Post#: 80407--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet high street box junction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 10, 2025, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks to me there was plenty of room to exit the box but who
knows if an adjudicator would agree. It's probably one where
some adjudicators would allow it but others wouldn't.
#Post#: 80408--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet high street box junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 10, 2025, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully the recipient can at least show there's sufficient
uncertainty from Barnet's evidence on this fact to throw it out
#Post#: 80534--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet high street box junction
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 10, 2025, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> Stopping due to the presence of stationary vehicles doesn't
mean they have to be directly ahead of the vehicle. It's clear
here that there wasn't room for the car to squeeze past. Against
that is the fact that the YBJ extends beyond the junction of the
roads, in fact one does wonder why the stop line and traffic
lights are so far back for the opposite direction. There is no
reason at all for the YBJ to be so close after the stop line.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would disagree and say there was enough room.
as for the stop line being so far back it's because St albans
road joins at an angle.
this is a good money earner for barnet.
#Post#: 80781--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet high street box junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 13, 2025, 6:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here's what I've drafted. For sure Barnet will reject,
following which a tricky decision for the recipient!
The contravention did not occur
1)
A box junction contravention only occurs if the vehicle “has to
stop” within the box junction due to the presence of stationary
vehicles. The exit to the box junction contains sufficient space
for two vehicles (it is the same width as the two lanes marked
out in the carriageway for vehicles travelling in the opposite
direction). The video footage shows that after a brief pause on
the approach to the box junction to check there would be
sufficient space to accommodate my vehicle and the vehicle in
front, I slowly advanced my vehicle into the box and then
directed it into the vacant right hand space. On the approach
to this space, I adjusted my angle of approach best to ensure my
vehicle would be aligned with the vacant exit lane which was
relatively narrow and akin to a regular parking space. While I
acknowledge my vehicle eventually came to rest with part of it
within the box junction, my front right wheel can be seen to be
aligned with my chosen route into the exit space, and I am
confident that there was sufficient clear space beyond it for my
vehicle to move into. At the very least Barnet’s video evidence
does not sufficiently demonstrate on the balance of
probabilities that my exit was not clear and that I could not
have completely cleared the box junction (to this end Barnet
could check the following ten seconds or so of footage beyond
what was made available to me, so that my eventual path out of
the box junction could be mapped relative to the other
stationary vehicles – should it reject these representations I
request that these are provided for my subsequent appeal to
London Tribunals to enable me to prove my case). The reason I
stopped my vehicle where I did was because I was under the
impression I had already cleared the majority of the box
junction, was not going to be an obstruction to any vehicles
having cleared the junction with the side road (see my second
point below) and could see the vehicles ahead starting to move
off meaning there was no need to pull fully alongside the
vehicle to my left.
2)
junction
This sort of box junction only exists under the relevant
legislation to the extent the markings are situated at a
junction of two or more roads. The box junction markings within
which my vehicle stopped are laid well beyond the junction with
the side road (Bath Place) and the junction with St Albans Road
further to the northwest. As such the box junction markings I
stopped within are not technically part of the enforceable box
junction and it should not be a contravention to stop there.
#Post#: 80800--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet high street box junction
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 13, 2025, 7:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
pretty sure this has been mentioned before, but can't remember
where, bath place is a private entrance to private property,
does it fit the criteria of a road in the legal sense?
#Post#: 80861--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet high street box junction
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: July 14, 2025, 3:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I have been arguing for some time that it is a road and if that
goes away my win in tribunal case 2190038219 which has been
followed a dozen times might become less persuasive.
The locus of the contravention is correct. The junction box is
sited on Barnet High Street and has junctions with Bath Place
and St Albans Road. The Penalty Charge Notice states the
contravention occurred at High Street, junction with St Albans
Road. I am satisfied the Penalty Charge Notice adequately
detailed the location of the alleged contravention.
A box junction must be located at ‘a junction between two or
more roads.’ The purpose is to ensure vehicles have unrestricted
access at the junction and traffic flow is not impeded. However,
plainly a box junction must not extend beyond the junction as it
would serve no useful purpose and would not achieve the
statutory objective. A box junction need not be inch perfect and
may, depending on the road layout, extend beyond the junction.
If a box junction extends beyond the junction and a vehicle only
stops within the extended portion of the box junction it may be
the case that no contravention has occurred. Any extension would
not, in my view, render the whole of the box junction
unenforceable. Each case is highly fact specific.
This box junction in this case is sited at a junction of two or
more roads. The box junction substantially complies with the
statutory specification up until it appears to extend about a
car length or so beyond the junction. The appellant’s vehicle
was within this extended portion.
The issue was raised by the appellant. The Enforcement Authority
addressed this matter as follows:
“The Council can confirm that the junction is compliant with the
requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General
Directions (TSRGD) 2016 (Evidence Category J).”
The Enforcement Authority provided copies of the 2016
Regulations but provided no argument as to how this junction is
compliant. It is the Enforcement Authority's role to present
evidence and submissions to prove their case.
On the state of the evidence in this case I am not persuaded
that the contravention occurred. On this basis, and this basis
alone, I allow this appeal.
#Post#: 80877--------------------------------------------------
Re: Barnet high street box junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 14, 2025, 4:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Mr M - definitely a helpful case reference. I had
difficulty finding previous cases at this location on the London
Tribunals site as there doesn't seem to be much consistency in
how it is named in the statutory register.
The representations were submitted in line with my earlier draft
(so I'm told) so fear not, we have not argued that Bath Place is
not a road for this purpose.
If you could provide some/all of your other successful case
references argued on this point, I feel it could be very
persuasive for a future appeal and would be much appreciated.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1