DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 106801--------------------------------------------------
Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley Street.
DIR By: Tod
Date: January 21, 2026, 6:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I’ve received a PCN for Contravention 31J (box junction) at
Piccadilly / Berkeley Street. I was turning left in heavy
traffic. My understanding up to now has always been that when
turning left or right, it’s acceptable to pause briefly in a box
junction if traffic ahead slows, as long as you’re not blocking
cross traffic.
In this case, I entered the box while turning left, traffic then
didn’t move and I was stopped for about 7 seconds, with part of
my car in the box because there was nowhere else to stop. The
CCTV shows I was turning and didn’t obstruct other vehicles.
I’m now learning that enforcement may be stricter than I
thought, so I’d appreciate any advice on whether my
understanding was wrong and whether there are any realistic
grounds to challenge, or if paying at the discount is the
sensible option.
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member]
Thanks in advance.
Tod
HTML https://ibb.co/twYX6Wjw
#Post#: 106811--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley
Street.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 21, 2026, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your understanding is wrong, unfortunately. The only time you
can stop in a YBJ is if you enter to turn right, and cannot
complete the turn because of oncoming traffic.
Their video shows a clear contravention, but the camera is
'on-high'. Please post a GSV link to the exact location. You
have an appeal argument if buildings prevent you from seeing to
the left of the YBJ.
#Post#: 106815--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley
Street.
DIR By: Tod
Date: January 21, 2026, 7:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, thanks for your reply.
Here is the exact location link to the junction so you can check
it on GSV:
📍
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/BTvM4w87vm5aVnuE6
#Post#: 106826--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley
Street.
DIR By: MrChips
Date: January 21, 2026, 9:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think there may be a flaw in the wording of the PCN.
The law requires the PCN to state (amongst other things):
"(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the
period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the
amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified
proportion;
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;"
Clearly, in that context, the 28 date period in part (v) is 28
days beginning with the date of the notice.
Your PCN states "If the penalty charge is not paid before the
end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service
of the Notice, an increased charge of £240.00 (less money paid)
may be payable".
Date of service is different to the date of the notice (presumed
to be 2 business days different by law). As such the PCN does
not comply with the legal requirements and ought to be
unenforceable.
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] is the go to member when it
comes to technical deficiencies - see what he thinks.
#Post#: 107329--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley
Street.
DIR By: Tod
Date: January 25, 2026, 4:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for that — I’ve checked the PCN and it does state “28
days beginning with the date of this notice”, so it looks
compliant on that point. Happy to hear if there are any other
angles worth exploring.
#Post#: 107336--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley
Street.
DIR By: MrChips
Date: January 25, 2026, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It clearly doesn't.
Reread the final sentence under the section "2 Challenge the
PCN"
#Post#: 107338--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley
Street.
DIR By: Tod
Date: January 25, 2026, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Fair point — my earlier comment was based on the payment
wording. On re-reading, the PCN later refers to “28 days
beginning with the date of service”, which appears inconsistent.
That’s the issue I’m now looking at.
#Post#: 107340--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley
Street.
DIR By: MrChips
Date: January 25, 2026, 5:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There's plenty of references to various 28 day periods. The
relevant one is the one linked to when they may increase the
penalty charge to £240.
It would be good to get Hippocrates' input to check he agrees
this is enough to get the PCN overturned as he is the true
expert on PCN compliance.
#Post#: 107341--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley
Street.
DIR By: Tod
Date: January 25, 2026, 5:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Understood — I’m focusing on the 28-day period linked to the
issue of a charge certificate.
The PCN refers to both “28 days beginning with the date of this
notice” and later “28 days beginning with the date of service”,
which appears inconsistent.
I’d welcome Hippocrates’ view on whether that ambiguity is
sufficient to render the PCN non-compliant.
#Post#: 107344--------------------------------------------------
Re: Contravention 31J - Piccadilly Junction with Berkeley
Street.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 25, 2026, 6:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This law is an ass. Back later.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page