Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: General questions about Yellow Box Junctions
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
IoT
Hi,

my wife has just got a PCN that has cited her for contravention "31J Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited". I can't upload the PCN, photos and video until tomorrow. We have been doing some research and have two general questions:

1. Is it legal to enter a box junction where there is another vehicle already ahead of you that is moving and not stationary? If this vehicle subsequently stops and causes you to stop within the YBJ have you then committed a traffic offence? TSRGD Guidance 2016 seems to indicate that the law should be interpreted that you can enter a LBJ Box as long as there isn't a stationary vehicle already in the box.

I ask as it seems to me the only 100% safe way to navigate would be to not enter the YBJ until it was completely free of vehicles with space beyond to exit. I would think that in many cases this would make flow worse.

2. Do the TSRGD: Traffic Signs Manual still regulate the proper layout of legal YBJs? I ask as the the YBJ in question is fairly new and I don't think it conforms to the relevant regulations (We are going out this afternoon to take photos and measurements as they do not appear on google maps).

What p***** us off is that the junction in question is fully traffic light controlled and I have never personally seen this junction blocked by traffic (I fully intend to place a FOI request to the council to get a copy of the traffic assessment report that should have been undertaken).

Any answers would be appreciated and I intend to make a complete post tomorrow.
fedup2
The general Rule of box junctions is you do NOT enter it until you can clearly see that there is room to fully exit it.Life isnt always that simple though but many of the tickets i see could very of easily been and should have been avoided.

I think many recently added traffic lights are unnecessary and they cause unessercary hold ups but it doesnt change the fact that going through on any thing but a green is illegal.

Unfortunatly we are where we are,post up the paperwork and let people have a look at it.
Neil B
QUOTE (IoT @ Sun, 23 Jul 2017 - 11:35) *
We have been doing some research and have two? general questions:

1. Is it legal to enter a box junction where there is another vehicle already ahead of you that is moving and not stationary? YES
If this vehicle subsequently stops and causes you to stop within the YBJ have you then committed a traffic offence? YES
TSRGD Guidance 2016 seems to indicate that the law should be interpreted that you can enter a LBJ Box as long as there isn't a stationary vehicle already in the box.
Wishful thinking. It says nothing of the kind.
I ask as it seems to me the only 100% safe way to navigate would be to not enter the YBJ until it was completely free of vehicles with space beyond to exit. YES
I would think that in many cases this would make flow worse. Nonsense; a common fallacy. No vehicles are magically added to the road

2. Do the TSRGD: Traffic Signs Manual still regulate the proper layout of legal YBJs? NO
hcandersen
'I ask as it seems to me the only 100% safe way to navigate would be to not enter the YBJ until it was completely free of vehicles with space beyond to exit. YES '

Strangely enough, there's no 100% safe way because even if your exit, if more than single carriageway, or the only (ahead) exit, if only one, is clear then this still leaves the possibility that some other motorist might take the space which you've allocated to yourself. We've seen this recently and adjudicators seem to take different views on whether the motorist should be held responsible.

Without the video we're blind. And you weren't there and have no first-hand knowledge.

Focus your attention on this matter and forget extraneous FOI matters which seem more to do with salving your frustration than the events.
Jo Carn
If someone takes your space then you appeal and would almost certainly win. As you entered the box did you have a reasonable expectation of clearing. It seems in your case you did not unless you can prove that you could see beyond the car in front of you and they did not move up as predicted. I just won a case on similar grounds. if, however, you entered the junction on a "hope" or "what usually happens" then good luck.

Next time, if traffic does not move as it should then slow right down. I mean, RIGHT DOWN. The contravention is not about blocking or being a nuisance it is about stopping. So crawl but don't stop for more than 3 or 4 seconds.
PASTMYBEST
Post ALL of the PCN and the video also a GSV
IoT
Got all of the info I need now:











And video (wife's car is red mini with roof bars)

https://vimeo.com/226803028
stamfordman
It's one of those horrible long boxes but both cars including your wife's charged into the box with no indication the exit was clear and stopped in the box owing to stationary traffic. There does not seem to be any mitigating circumstances.
Neil B
I don't recall these PCNs being duff -- but it is.

Last para page 1.
PASTMYBEST
I cannot see an argument against the contravention, there are two technical arguments that can be made.

1/ the length of the box far exceeds the junction as per this recent case

2170285940

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
2/ the PCN states that a charge certificate may be issued if the PCN is not paid or representations are made before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of the PCN

This is incorrect. The law allows that a CC may be served 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, this is two days later in the normal course of events

The PCN does not contain information as it is required to by law and is thus invalid for the purpose of pursuing a penalty.

The council would not accept these arguments so would need to go to adjudication at risk of the full penalty
stamfordman
I think the reason they mark some of these T junctions like this is to help drivers from the side road get out into the main road turning left. However, as we know this also leads to said drivers cutting up those on he main road...

The upshot is that yellow boxes are crude and unfair traffic management devices in some road layouts, in my view.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Mon, 24 Jul 2017 - 22:16) *
I think the reason they mark some of these T junctions like this is to help drivers from the side road get out into the main road turning left. However, as we know this also leads to said drivers cutting up those on he main road...

The upshot is that yellow boxes are crude and unfair traffic management devices in some road layouts, in my view.

yep but they can't make money from keep clear markings

hcandersen
I cannot see the vehicle stopping in the clip.

Whether the vehicle stopped within a road junction is questionable, and it is only if it stops 'at a junction between two or more roads' that a contravention occurs. IMO, the junction ends at the furthest point of the nearside radiused kerb irrespective of whether the yellow paint goes on further.
IoT
Hi,

thank you all for your responses. Below is a draft of the representation my wife intends to make to Richmond Council. Any suggestions? Items 3 and 4 have not been discussed in this thread and can be cut if necessary. I understand that the Council are likely to dismiss the appeal out of hand but she intends to take it as far as she can.

1. I submit that the Box Junction where I was alleged to have committed the contravention far exceeds the extent of the junction. The video evidence available on the London Borough of Richmond web-site clearly shows that I had cleared the Box Junction when the alleged contravention was claimed to occur. I have personally measured that the Box Junction extends at least 15 feet beyond the junction. This is more than than at least one car length.

This general view has been upheld by recent adjudication 2170285940 and I quote the relevant judgement from this case:

“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”

2. The PCN states that a charge certificate may be issued if the PCN is not paid or representations are made before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of the PCN. This is incorrect. The law allows that a charge certificate may be served 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, this is two days later in the normal course of events. Because of this the PCN is not valid so no charge applies.

3. The road markings that indicate that there is a Box Junction do not go all of the way to the kerb as is required unless there valid exemption issued by the DfT. If no valid exemption has been issued then the Box Junction in question is not validly marked and therefore no contravention occurred.

4. The video evidence available on the London Borough of Richmond web-site clearly shows that my vehicle was still in motion at 12.30.24 where upon a pedestrian walked directly in front of my vehicle necessitating me to stop. Said pedestrian was not crossing at the marked pedestrian crossing near to where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.
PASTMYBEST
That's fine IMO. point 3 is no longer a requirement, but a have seen a case where the motorist claimed it was and the council did not respond so the adjudicator found in the motorists favour

point 4 is very relevant. stopping for a pedestrian is not a contravention
IoT
Hello again,

my wife finally got the expected rejection of representations (see below).

My wife is all fired up to appeal via adjudication - any advice on what to do next appreciated.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment
Neil B
Ooops.

Apart from a probable pile of other areas, THEY'VE NICKED A DAY.

Deadline for pay/appeal is 4/10/17
IoT
QUOTE (Neil B @ Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 11:39) *
Ooops.

Apart from a probable pile of other areas, THEY'VE NICKED A DAY.

Deadline for pay/appeal is 4/10/17


Presumably because it's 28 days from the date of service and not date of the letter?

When we make the application on line do we need to put in other grounds for appeal or is this a slam dunk for us to win?
Neil B
QUOTE (IoT @ Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 12:03) *
When we make the application on line do we need to put in other grounds for appeal or is this a slam dunk for us to win?

Don't do anything yet.

Imo - yes.
DancingDad
To me it is a slam dunk
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted
Schedule 1(3) 28 days from date of service.

In two places they use the day before as the final day.
Statutory deadlines are just that, they must be correctly stated.
And there is real prejudice arising as the unwary who forgets to deal may well pick up the NOR on the 4th and panic, believing they have missed the deadline when in fact, they could still pay or appeal.

The authority seeks to penalise drivers for minor errors, which may be breaking the law but cause no real harm, obstruction or delay to other drivers.
They cannot then ignore their own errors, these to have penalties which must be applied, in this case by cancelling the PCN.
PASTMYBEST
Can we see your representations?
IoT
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 9 Sep 2017 - 14:02) *
Can we see your representations?



Representations were:

QUOTE (IoT @ Sat, 29 Jul 2017 - 12:57) *
1. I submit that the Box Junction where I was alleged to have committed the contravention far exceeds the extent of the junction. The video evidence available on the London Borough of Richmond web-site clearly shows that I had cleared the Box Junction when the alleged contravention was claimed to occur. I have personally measured that the Box Junction extends at least 15 feet beyond the junction. This is more than at least one car length.

This general view has been upheld by recent adjudication 2170285940 and I quote the relevant judgement from this case:

“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”

2. The PCN states that a charge certificate may be issued if the PCN is not paid or representations are made before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of the PCN. This is incorrect. The law allows that a charge certificate may be served 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, this is two days later in the normal course of events. Because of this the PCN is not valid so no charge applies.

3. The road markings that indicate that there is a Box Junction do not go all of the way to the kerb as is required unless there valid exemption issued by the DfT. If no valid exemption has been issued then the Box Junction in question is not validly marked and therefore no contravention occurred.

4. The video evidence available on the London Borough of Richmond web-site clearly shows that my vehicle was still in motion at 12.30.24 where upon a pedestrian walked directly in front of my vehicle necessitating me to stop. Said pedestrian was not crossing at the marked pedestrian crossing near to where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.
Irksome
They haven't shown that they've considered your reps at all as far as I can see.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Irksome @ Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 09:27) *
They haven't shown that they've considered your reps at all as far as I can see.


No they haven't have they. With all the errors on the PCN and the rejection, this one seems very strong. Don't rush lets get all the ducks in a row
IoT
Hi,

thank you all for your responses. My wife is getting twitchy, about the timing. Any thoughts on what I / she should do next and when?
Hippocrates
Has the appeal been registered yet? Even their deadline of 3rd October is wrong.
IoT
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 21:39) *
Has the appeal been registered yet? Even their deadline of 3rd October is wrong.


Hi,

I've just made an electronic application for a hearing. I've not added any evidence yet as the application for a hearing indicates that evidence can be submitted up until 5 days before the hearing.

My wife says she's not able to attend in person - which I've indicated.
Neil B
QUOTE (IoT @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 22:08) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 21:39) *
Has the appeal been registered yet? Even their deadline of 3rd October is wrong.


Hi,

I've just made an electronic application for a hearing. I've not added any evidence yet as the application for a hearing indicates that evidence can be submitted up until 5 days before the hearing.

My wife says she's not able to attend in person - which I've indicated.

Did you notice there you haven't mentioned a hearing date so 5 days means nothing?

What have you sent so far?
IoT
QUOTE (Neil B @ Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 00:48) *
QUOTE (IoT @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 22:08) *
QUOTE (Hippocrates @ Mon, 25 Sep 2017 - 21:39) *
Has the appeal been registered yet? Even their deadline of 3rd October is wrong.


Hi,

I've just made an electronic application for a hearing. I've not added any evidence yet as the application for a hearing indicates that evidence can be submitted up until 5 days before the hearing.

My wife says she's not able to attend in person - which I've indicated.

Did you notice there you haven't mentioned a hearing date so 5 days means nothing?

What have you sent so far?


So far the tribunal has not allocated a hearing date - but I presume it's likely to be at least a week or two away if not longer. I haven't entered any evidence so far as the advice so far in this thread was to wait. From what I can gather so far, I should resubmit the original 4 grounds, made in my submission to Richmond Borough Council. I should also add that the PCN was defective due to the appeal date being incorrect and that failure to respond individually to each of the points made on my representation indicates a failure to properly consider my appeal submissions.
PASTMYBEST
Draft your intended appeal and post it here, We will help you fine tune it
Neil B
QUOTE (IoT @ Tue, 26 Sep 2017 - 09:06) *
So far the tribunal has not allocated a hearing date -

My mistake; I see now you've opted for postal.
IoT
Just a quick update.

Our appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. ETA Case

Richmond Council failed to provide any evidence to the Tribunal! We can't complain, but I think we would have liked the decision to have been made on the merits of the appeal but I guess then there is always the chance that the appeal would have been refused.

Due to family circumstances I didn't have time to post a draft here of our submission to the Tribunal but I have posted a copy of it below for anyone interested in the arguments we supplied. In particular Richmond Council decided to issue us a Charge Certificate Notice while the appeal was still live. Which came as a huge shock and for a very brief amount of time we considered paying it to make sure everything went away.

I'd like to thank everyone who contributed advice and provided moral support. Having now gone through the procedure fully we would be much more prepared in the future if a similar circumstance was to arise.


Appeal Submission (All of the 'see below' - refers to documents scanned and submitted to the tribunal in support of the submission but not reproduced here):

It is my contention that the grounds for appeal made in the original representations to the London Borough of Richmond still stand (see below):

Namely that:

1. The box junction far exceeds the extent of the junction.
2. The PCN was defective because it stated that an appeal should lodged within 28 days of the date of the notice when by statute it is within 28 days of the date of service which is normally 2 days later in the normal course of events.
3. The Box Junction markings do not conform to the requirements for a Box Junction to be valid.
4. The video evidence provided by The London Borough of Richmond shows that at 12.30.24, whilst still in motion and prior to a contravention occurring, a pedestrian stepped into the road necessitating me to stop the vehicle. Said pedestrian was not crossing at the marked pedestrian crossing near to where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.

Further it is my belief that in failing to specifically address each of the grounds for appeal (see below) that the London Borough of Richmond has failed to properly consider the representations made. This view has been upheld in previous Tribunal Adjucations (ETA Case Ref 2140086060)

I further submit that the Notice of Rejection (see below) sent by the London Borough of Richmond was unlawful in that the law allows 28 days from the date of service to lodge an appeal with PATAS (Schedule 1(3) of London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003). The Notice of Rejection clearly states in two places that the appeal should be lodged by 3rd October 2017. However this is clearly erroneous as 28 days from the date of service is the 4th October 2017. Therefore the Notice of Rejection failed to include all of the information required by law.

Finally I believe that the Charge Certificate Notice issued by the London Borough of Richmond dated 11/10/2017 (see below) constitutes procedural impropriety on behalf of said council. The original Notice of Rejection was dated 05/09/17 and an appeal to PATAS was properly lodged within time on 25/09/17. Previous ETA adjudications (214008540A and 2050339777) have concluded that the issuance of Charging Certificates whilst there was a live appeal pending constitutes an unlawful demand that fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the enforcement process and undermines the authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal. This unlawful act debars the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty. Further the erroneously issued Charge Certificate Notice is prejudicial to my appeal as the intimidatory tone of the charge notice might have led me to feeling compelled to pay at which point my appeal would have automatically failed as any payment to the council in respect to this PCN would have been considered an admission of guilt.
John U.K.
Well done!

QUOTE
Our appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. ETA Case


Links to the decision on 'Search the Register' will not work as register must be searched first.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to post the case number?
IoT
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Sat, 28 Oct 2017 - 13:05) *
Well done!

QUOTE
Our appeal was allowed by the Tribunal. ETA Case


Links to the decision on 'Search the Register' will not work as register must be searched first.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to post the case number?


2170462092

John U.K.
Many thanks: for others, here is the relevant passage

QUOTE
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons

The Enforcement Authority have failed to provide any evidence in this case. It follows I cannot be satisfied that a valid PCN was properly issued and served and accordingly I allow the appeal


This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.