Box Junction Edgware Bus Station (Barnet Council PCN) Options

[bella(trying to ...]

Hi again Guys,

This is our new dilemma.....Box Junction on Edgware high street adjacent to the tube station taxi rank (tube drop off and turn around & Edgware bus station)

I know there's another resent post about this area that Mr Mustard has been looking into, and we've been watching, as we have fallen foul of this peculiar strange box Junction also.

So....I've started my own thread as our video adds some further info on the area and the activity of the traffic flow.

In the video attached we are the white vehicle. the bus station and tube/taxi area is on the right of the image and there's a right hand turn lane in the middle of both of the Yellow Box "Junction"

There is also a set of traffic lights up ahead of the North bound flowing traffic which is a pedestrian crossing but this is not visible to the driver when 1st entering the YB.

https://imgur.com/4rHXhFc PCN pg1
https://imgur.com/0UMXw4U PCN pg2
https://imgur.com/wZJoqna PCN pg3
https://imgur.com/zzwO1p0 PCN pg4
https://imgur.com/LnMetz6 PCN pg5

https://imgur.com/GitUUPZ still image 1

https://imgur.com/j0Q9Mdc Still image 2

https://imgur.com/ldmhLsW Still image 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sZq8IMGpM8...eature=youtu.be Video footage

You'll also note that the bus turning left (south bound of the frame) gets itself caught in the adjacent YBox.

Hopefully by starting a new thread about this area might help bring about a discussion if not a warning about Edgware Bus station YBox "Junction" as I think this is cash cow area for Barnet.

I'll be interested in your views and opinions.

This post has been edited by bella(trying to work): Sun, 15 Mar 2020 - 20:32

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

Thanks, yes it does give the option to select both as reasons for appeal.

There's also an option to select "further evidence to follow"

Is it worth selecting YES on this, just in case there might be an addendum or adding somethings later nearer the time? Its possible this will get held up given the current lock down situation.

we'd like to appear in person, but are aware that given covid situation they might not be able to accommodate for awhile.

Is it better to attend in person or just let this unfold through the post and email?

Just trying to covering every base.

no leave it blank you can submit anything you want to before the hearing and it will be considered, but you do not want to risk hiding the key grounds behind a load of irrelevant (from the legal view) drivel

[hcandersen]

Why is this YBJ being considered a a single, homogeneous YBJ when prima facie there are two distinct YBJ markings. So, is this one YBJ or two?

If two, then the issue of the bus station doesn't arise, because that's a separate box, in fact the other side of the moon.

And if it's two as opposed a single YBJ, then the only considerations are those which apply to the YBJ literally and metaphorically in the frame.

And this meets none of the criteria set out in the TSRGD.

And if it's a single YBJ, then why is it shaped contrary to the regulations with part of one 'half' longer than the other - a YBJ must be a parallelogram, surely?

[PASTMYBEST]

Why is this YBJ being considered a a single, homogeneous YBJ when prima facie there are two distinct YBJ markings. So, is this one YBJ or two?

If two, then the issue of the bus station doesn't arise, because that's a separate box, in fact the other side of the moon.

And if it's two as opposed a single YBJ, then the only considerations are those which apply to the YBJ literally and metaphorically in the frame.

And this meets none of the criteria set out in the TSRGD.

And if it's a single YBJ, then why is it shaped contrary to the regulations with part of one 'half' longer than the other - a YBJ must be a parallelogram, surely?

The shape of the box requirements were relaxed by TSRGD 2016 and no longer need to be a parallelogram.

The argument re it being a separate box has been made as has the argument re the length of the box . The location outside a bus station is made as an alternative to not an instead of

[Mad Mick V]

@hca

There are two current appeals on this YB and perhaps the earlier case might answer some of your queries:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...l=barnet+yellow

We have guessed the traffic management purposes of the two boxes, with the "bus lane" in the middle.

If we treat the L/H box as a singleton it would IMO weaken the appeals in terms of box length etc. Whilst, as a singleton, it has no junction it must have been installed to assist buses turning right out of the station.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Sat, 9 May 2020 - 16:42

[hcandersen]

@PMB:

'The' box junction.......!!


Let's try 'the yellow markings' on the left in the video and the ones within which I stopped. Even calling it a box junction and then claiming it's no such thing is a tad cart and horse.

But if you say this is and has been front and centre, fine.

And as for the 'Maurice' decision, I've just read and re-read it. It's predicated on 'the statutory scheme' - a phrase used repeatedly by the adjudicator and therefore not directly applicable to this case because the former was brought under the TMA whereas this is being enforced under the LLA. And the - very badly worded - decision actually relates to the authority's failure to serve their response because the TMA requires an owner's positive consent to having the notice served other than by post.

I am satisfied there was no consent from Mr Maurice for him to receive the Notice of Rejection by email. There is no evidence this was posted to Mr Maurice

So, surely not whether the appeal form was included but the NOR wasn't even served!

[PASTMYBEST]

@PMB:

'The' box junction.......!!


Let's try 'the yellow markings' on the left in the video and the ones within which I stopped. Even calling it a box junction and then claiming it's no such thing is a tad cart and horse.

But if you say this is and has been front and centre, fine.

And as for the 'Maurice' decision, I've just read and re-read it. It's predicated on 'the statutory scheme' - a phrase used repeatedly by the adjudicator and therefore not directly applicable to this case because the former was brought under the TMA whereas this is being enforced under the LLA. And the - very badly worded - decision actually relates to the authority's failure to serve their response because the TMA requires an owner's positive consent to having the notice served other than by post.

I am satisfied there was no consent from Mr Maurice for him to receive the Notice of Rejection by email. There is no evidence this was posted to Mr Maurice

So, surely not whether the appeal form was included but the NOR wasn't even served!

HCA

Have you read the appeal, it is at post 32. I gave basically the same appeal to both cases running. I do not think I called it a box junction at all in the appeal referring to it as yellow box markings.

I did not argue the no appeal form sent as I felt it would detract and was not a winner

Allowing for differences in style, have a read of it then offer any advise or point out any missed grounds that might aid the OP

[bella(trying to ...]

Full Appeal letter with both PMB POST #32 & Mr Mustards additions POST #37 and reps that were sent and rejected are at POST #18 (if it helps)


Appeal against the imposition and continued enforcement of

PCN number xxxxxxxxxxxxx

VRM AA 23 BCE

(your details)

I make this appeal under schedule one of The London local authorities and transport for London act of 2003. There are two statutory grounds used for this appeal

1:- 1(4)(b) that there was no contravention of a prescribed order or failure to comply with an indication (of a s36 sign) or failure to comply with the London lorry ban order

and

2:- 1(4)(e) that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case I use the ground in order to make a collateral challenge that the box junction marking fail to comply with the regulations .

I would use the rationale of adjudicator Jack Walsh in case number 2190374806 He reached this conclusion having examined various authorities

“THE JURISDICTION TO ENTERTAIN A COLLATERAL CHALLENGE

I am satisfied that traffic adjudicators retain a jurisdiction to entertain what is known as a collateral challenge to a PCN the enforcement of which is governed by the 2003 Act. A collateral challenge is one that does not fall within the parameters of the statutory grounds for a challenge to liability for a PCN contained in paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act.

It is clear that the scope of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (“the 2007 Appeals Regulations”) and, in particular, the power of an adjudicator to direct an enforcement authority to cancel a PCN on the grounds of a procedural impropriety, effectively ousts the collateral challenge to PCNs in respect of parking contraventions under the Traffic Management Act 2004 (“TMA 2004”) (see R v. Parking Adjudicator, ex parte LB Camden [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) at paragraphs [46] to [49]).

However, that authority is confined to the effect of the TMA 2004 and 2007 Appeals Regulations. In relation to contraventions governed by the 2003 Act the position remains unaffected. Some ambiguity was suggested by Chadwick LJ in Walmsley v. Transport for London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540 at [53] but there is no clear authority that adjudicators have no jurisdiction to entertain a collateral challenge in a non-TMA 2004 case. The decisions of Mr. Justice Scott Baker (as he then was) in R v. Parking Adjudicator, ex parte Bexley London Borough Council [1998] RTR 128 and Mr. Gary Hickinbottom (as he then was) in Davis v. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea (case 1970198981) at page 51, clearly support the view that an adjudicator does have a residual power in a non-TMA 2004 case to allow an appeal on the basis of a collateral challenge.

An example of potential grounds for a collateral challenge (indeed an example provided by Mr. Hickinbottom) would be where the enforcement authority did not comply with the mandatory terms of the statutory scheme for penalty enforcement.
In terms of expressing the reason for allowing any appeal, that must be done in the terms of paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 1 to the 2003 Act. The best way of expressing the position in those terms is to say, if the collateral challenge is made out, that the penalty exceeds the amount applicable. That is because, in effect, the Adjudicator has found that the EA is not entitled to collect the penalty at all.”

There are three limbs to this ground.


----------------------------------------------------------------------



1:- 1(4)(b) that there was no contravention of a prescribed order or failure to comply with an indication (of a s36 sign) or failure to comply with the London lorry ban order

I would contend that no contravention occurred, in that at the point of entry into the box, I could readily see ahead, and could see that a clear place would become available for me to exit the box without stopping.

See GSV showing the clarity of the view ahead




As it was the blue car in front of me was just exiting the box, for an inexplicable and totally unanticipated reason stopping perhaps one to two car lengths short of the car in front of them. By this time, I had already entered the box, they still moving forward when I did so.

I contend that the actions of the driver ahead were not able to be anticipated, I entered the box with a moving vehicle in front of me with a reasonable expectation that they would and should continue to move forward leaving a clear space for me.

I would seek to cite as support for this argument the key case of Essoo -v- L.B. of Enfield (2130232767) in particular paragraphs 36, 37 and 38

“36. In our view the Regulation, describing as it does a consequence that a vehicle has to stop in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles, does not thereby impose a necessity upon a driver that he must wait outside the box to see if traffic ahead will become stationary before he decides to enter. The traffic may still be moving when s/he enters and yet a contravention still occur if the traffic stops thereafter. This is the driver's risk in the judgment s/he exercises unless, as in Mr Essoo's case, the driver could not have predicted the reason for the stopping of the vehicles ahead.



37. We have had regard to the relevant paragraph advising motorists in the Highway Code. The warning is " You must not enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear." However we are of the view that this steps rather beyond what is required by the Regulation. A driver may exercise a prediction in his judgment as to whether the exit space will be clear. He is not to blame if the exit is thereafter blocked by an unexpected event such as the intervening action of another vehicle cutting into his right of way without warning.



38. We are therefore of the view that the interests of justice are served by a review here. Applying the finding of fact to the Regulation, we believe that the Adjudicator has made a misdirection in viewing the circumstances as only proving a contravention subject to mitigation. We review the decision and find that no contravention occurred. The appeal is therefore allowed”

I invite the adjudicator to find that the similarities in my case and that of Essoo are such that the same conclusion can be reached, and the appeal is allowed
------------------------------------------------------------------

2:- 1(4)(e) that the penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case

The first limb of this ground is that contrary to the regulations that require that box markings be placed only at a junction of two roads. (The applicable provision in this case TSRGD 2016 schedule 9 part 7(11)(6) )

This google satellite view shows the junction and the box


Using the google measure function it can be seen, as marked that the box extends some 4.5 metres beyond the end of the junction.

Had the box been marked only within the confines of the junction between two roads (disputed further in other limbs) then the position I stopped would have been outside the box markings and no contravention would occur.

I seek support in this argument from cases 2170285940 (Adjudicator Anthony Chan)

“The Appellant attended his personal hearings.
I have heard the Appellant's explanation as to why he had to stop in the junction. I have also noted his evidence3 that the stoppage was brief and no construction was caused. I do not think that these factors offer him a defence.
The Appellant did point out further the length of the junction and I note that the exit of the box junction exceeded the junction by at least one car length.
The prohibition applies to a box junction. A “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is at a junction between two or more roads. Markings which extends beyond the junction of two or more roads do not therefore mark out a box junction covered by the prohibition. I am in no way suggesting that the Authority has to be inch perfect but, in my view, extending the box junction by a car length or more beyond the actual junction is neither compliant nor substantially compliant with requirements.
I allow the appeal.”

And also, Carl Teper 217057585A and Monica Hillen 2170582946

I would once again submit that my case is similar to the extent that the findings of the adjudicators be persuasive to the adjudicator here and they find the box fails to meet the regulatory requirements to the extent the appeal be allowed

The second limb

This also relies on the contention that the box is not situated at a junction of two or more roads.
TSRGD 2016 relaxed substantially the requirements of box design. Nothing in the regulations however allows a part of the box to be omitted to allow a right turn lane through the middle of that box


Schedule 9 part 8(5) 5(1) The overall shape and size of the road marking, within the overall dimensions shown, may be varied as appropriate.
(2) Parts of a boundary line may be omitted when the edge of the marking is adjacent to a raised kerb.
(3) Parts of the marking may be omitted where tram rails cross the marking.
(4) Parts of the marking may be omitted to indicate the edge of the path taken by a tramcar and, where parts of the marking are so omitted, the remaining parts must be bounded by a continuous yellow line.

It would follow therefore that at this location there are two separate boxes. The box on the northbound carriageway (the one it is alleged I contravened) is not at a junction of two or more roads nor is it placed on a carriage way where the overall width is less than 4.5 metres and not at the entrance to a police, fire, or ambulance station
It must be that a box junction with what effectively is an island to which a motorist can seek shelter from a contravention and in doing so cause the exact obstruction which the boxes are no doubt designed to eliminate is counter intuitive to say the least .
I contend that the box it is alleged I contravened, is not placed in a legal position and as such cannot be enforced.

The third limb

Again, that the box is not situated at the junction of two or more roads.
S192 of RTA 1988 defines (in relation to England and Wales, means any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes)
The yellow box under discussion is situated on Station road outside the Edgeware bus station. I submit that in dealing with a moving traffic contravention the purposive interpretation of public having access, must be confined to access by vehicular traffic.
Only buses have access along the entrance/exit road of the bus station,
I contend that taking this view the box is not situated at a junction of two or more roads and is thus placed illegally and no enforcement possible.

To add to this appeal, I would direct the adjudicator to a press article. Although it is from 2008 and the regulations in force at that time would be the TSRGD 2002. The present incarnation TSRGD 2016 has in place exactly the same regulation as regards placement of yellow box junction
This as the article points out, does not include outside bus stations.


https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppVyUXtGLl_a10EMUMo?e=FdgryE (Mr Mustard addendum post #37)


https://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/23...-traffic-fines/

I thank the adjudicator for their consideration of my arguments, I invite them to find any one or all correct interpretations of the regulations and it would follow to allow my appeal

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This post has been edited by bella(trying to work): Sat, 9 May 2020 - 18:21

[hcandersen]

From the OP's last post:

I would contend that no contravention occurred, in that at the point of entry into the box, I could readily see ahead, and could see that a clear place would become available for me to exit the box without stopping.

As it was the blue car in front of me was just exiting the box,

The first limb of this ground is that contrary to the regulations that require that box markings be placed only at a junction of two roads. (The applicable provision in this case TSRGD 2016 schedule 9 part 7(11)(6) )

This google satellite view shows the junction and the box

Not an exhaustive list of examples by any means.

The issue of what exactly is shown on GSV i.e. 2 separate sets of markings - I am not going to dignify the orphan set on the OP's side of the road with anything that suggests it is a legally enforceable YBJ marking - has been relegated to an also ran IMO.

[PASTMYBEST]

Fair points see amended draft

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppVzE6c0-W...NG4zWL?e=uuhHAd

[bella(trying to ...]

Thank you for the amendments and advise.

We've added Mr Mustards artical and converted the appeal to PDF format ready to send to London Tribunals online before Wednesday 13th May.

We will wait until this afternoon in hope that hard copy of the form (previously requested as a reasonable adjustment request) might turn up by post, but is unlikely as its been emailed to us.

given the current covid situation etc, does anyone know if the Tribunals will hold off hearing this until after the lockdown has been fully lifted??

We'd like to appear in person, but not sure it would be best to opt for online response from the adjudicator? Does it make much of a difference appealing online instead of appearing in person?

[cp8759]

We'd like to appear in person, but not sure it would be best to opt for online response from the adjudicator? Does it make much of a difference appealing online instead of appearing in person?

London Tribunals has indicated hearings in person might resume in June, though they did experiment with telephone hearings in early April. A hearing in person is generally best because if the adjudicator misses a fundamental point you can focus their attention on something relevant. If you go for a postal hearing and they've missed something, by the time you find out it's too late.

[bella(trying to ...]

We'd like to appear in person, but not sure it would be best to opt for online response from the adjudicator? Does it make much of a difference appealing online instead of appearing in person?

London Tribunals has indicated hearings in person might resume in June, though they did experiment with telephone hearings in early April.

Thank you cp8759

Is it worth us requesting telephone hearing on the appeals applications? considering covid issues? so we at least have some involvement? we are planning to submit appeal online today. (as still not received paper copy of forms in the post)

Online application states to tick if we will be attending in person or opting for a postal outcome to the hearing which seems as though we agree to no further involvement after attaching appeal, written submission.

is there any further appeal/recourse after adjudicator's decision?

This post has been edited by bella(trying to work): Tue, 12 May 2020 - 11:21

[PASTMYBEST]

We'd like to appear in person, but not sure it would be best to opt for online response from the adjudicator? Does it make much of a difference appealing online instead of appearing in person?

London Tribunals has indicated hearings in person might resume in June, though they did experiment with telephone hearings in early April.

Thank you cp8759

Is it worth us requesting telephone hearing on the appeals applications? considering covid issues? so we at least have some involvement? we are planning to submit appeal online today. (as still not received paper copy of forms in the post)

Online application states to tick if we will be attending in person or opting for a postal outcome to the hearing which seems as though we agree to no further involvement after attaching appeal, written submission.

is there any further appeal/recourse after adjudicator's decision?

tick the box for personal appearance, the tribunal wiil contact you to see if you will agree to telephone.

The adjudicator is the last step, unless there are grounds for review. Either that the adjudicator failed to consider a pertinent point or gave consideration to a point that has no relevance or was not brought before them. or that the adjudicator makes an error in law

You cannot ask for a review if you do not agree with the adjudicator. You can also apply for a judicial review but that cost a fair few quid

[Mad Mick V]

Sorry to those who have contributed to that appeal; it's good but it is pretty indigestible.


Would a bullet point introduction setting out the key arguments be possible?


Maybe have the cases referred to as attachments?


Mick

[PASTMYBEST]

Sorry to those who have contributed to that appeal; it's good but it is pretty indigestible.


Would a bullet point introduction setting out the key arguments be possible?


Maybe have the cases referred to as attachments?


Mick

Did you read it in the post by Bella or did you open the link? Personally I think it if quite concise ( for me)

[Mad Mick V]

@PMB

Yes, the concise version looks better. I didn't open the link!

Mick

[bella(trying to ...]

Just wanted to thank everyone who participated and got involved and advised on this again. Massive respect and thanks to you all. We will be clapping for you all as well on Thursday evening, (IMO your all secret key worker hero's )

We submitted the appeal yesterday, and have received a confirmation email from London Tribunals, and was given an available slot of 12:00 - 14:00 pm Wednesday 15th July 2020 requested hearing date and time.

Its possible this may change though "covid providing" etc.

If we are not able to attend on this day, will be be able to contact them to change this? (we've been given email address, contact phone number and case ref number detailed in the confirmation email) and will be tracking the Appeals application via they're site.

We also selected online that we had evidence that may follow, and the confirmation email states that we have 5 days before the hearing date to send/upload it. (just to keep this option open)

We will keep you all updated to the progress of this case and the events as they unfold, but wanted to thank you all again for your invaluable help. We will be donating again, your help, valuable time, advise and efforts are more than appreciated.

Here's hoping for a successful Appeal !!



This post has been edited by bella(trying to work): Wed, 13 May 2020 - 13:10

[cp8759]

If we are not able to attend on this day, will be be able to contact them to change this? (we've been given email address, contact phone number and case ref number detailed in the confirmation email) and will be tracking the Appeals application via they're site.

If there's a good reason why you can't attend on that day, you can ask for an adjournment. Personally I would try and keep that day free.

[PASTMYBEST]

If we are not able to attend on this day, will be be able to contact them to change this? (we've been given email address, contact phone number and case ref number detailed in the confirmation email) and will be tracking the Appeals application via they're site.

If there's a good reason why you can't attend on that day, you can ask for an adjournment. Personally I would try and keep that day free.

post the council evidence pack as soon as te upload it to the tribunal

[bella(trying to ...]

Just an update for this case

The London Tribunal hearing was switched to a telephone hearing and then got rescheduled for 29th July 2020 telephone hearing again, but for 10am.

We still haven't received the evidence pack from Barnet council so are unable to post anything up hear for review.

All that we can see on the appallant portal is that Barnet have requested the reschedule on 7th July 2020

How many times can they request a postponement in practice?

Is there anything else we need to do or just wait for 29th July 2020?

This post has been edited by bella(trying to work): Fri, 17 Jul 2020 - 10:54