I have just been given this one.



Its location is here. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?gl=uk&ie...260.08,,1,12.92 As can be seen the box fails to reach the corner.

I would like to use J_Edgars points as in http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=522155 but I understand it has been further embellished.

I would also like to ask if the bus (to the left) has also received a ticket. Being that the main perpetrators of this heinous crime are these TfL busses. If they do not get ticketed then TfL are not qualified to administer any ticketing in the first place.

You need to see the full video of the event, showing entry & exit of the box at the time you entered. Contravention is entering a box when exit is blocked, not stopping in a box.

Good luck in finding out if the bus got a PCN. What do you think?

How about adding this.

If for whatever reason you are not willing to supply me with the actual moving evidence (CCTV footage) other than putting on an extra charge or demanding that I actually come to your offices for a viewing. I will need the following in order to determine if this is some form of surcharge. What would be your cost if you where to supply me with the CCTV footage a) online b) sending me a disk c) having me come to your offices with someone overseeing me all the time and show me the actual footage?

Frottage ?

I have edited.


Do we need to be so pedantic here?


This is what i have seen.



I have a spelling checker
I disk covered four my PC.
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot see.
Eye ran this poem threw it.
Your sure real glad two no.
Its very polished in its weigh,
My checker tolled me sew.

A checker is a blessing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me right awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

Each frays comes posed up on my screen
Eye trussed too bee a joule.
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.

Bee fore wee rote with checkers
Hour spelling was inn deck line,
Butt now when wee dew have a laps,
Wee are not maid too wine.
And now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
There are know faults in awl this peace,
Of nun eye am a wear.

To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud,
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaws are knot aloud.

That's why eye brake in two averse
Cuz Eye dew want too please.
Sow glad eye yam that aye did bye
This soft wear four pea seas.

This is what I intend sending (thanks J_Edgar). Any comments?


1) The alleged contravention did not occur.

I understand that you are of the opinion that I have contravened a restriction governed by a s.36 traffic sign. I am aware the alleged contravention is defined in legislation as:

“Prohibition conveyed by markings in diagram 1043 or 1044

7. - (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.”
Although you accuse me of this contravention you have not provided any evidence that confirms that the alleged contravention took place. It is quite clear from the wording of the legislation quoted above that the alleged contravention can only have taken place at the time of entry into the box junction. Your evidence must clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that all possible exits were blocked at the time of entry. It must also clearly and unequivocally demonstrate that the vehicle stopped within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles and for no other reason. It is also quite clear from the framing of the legislation that, when prohibited as used on the PCN has the meaning that the stationary vehicle, must be present and stationary within the box junction at the time of entry.

Therefore it is necessary for you to provide me with at the earliest opportunity any video evidence that you hold that you consider to demonstrate that the alleged contravention occurred, with a full and detailed explanation as to why you consider your allegation to be proved. With the advances in modern technology It is preferred that this is provided either on CD recordable media or via the internet. It would be wholly unreasonable of you to expect an onsite visit to view such evidence in light of the ease and inexspense of providing it by the options stated. It will also be necessary for you to place the alleged Penalty Charge on hold until such time that I have been provided with and had reasonable opportunity to view such evidence as you may hold, so that I am not unduly prejudiced in the event that I consider your allegation to be proved and wish to avail myself of the discounted rate.

If for whatever reason you are not willing to supply me with the actual moving evidence (CCTV footage) other than putting on an extra charge or demanding that I actually come to your offices for a viewing. I will need the following in order to determine if this is some form of surcharge. What would be your cost if you where to supply me with the CCTV footage a) online b) sending me a disk c) having me come to your offices with someone overseeing me all the time and show me the actual footage?


I will remind you that in the case between Terence Chase v Westminster City Council (Case No. 1960113778), the adjudicator emphasised that a council has a legal duty to provide all evidence at the earliest opportunity to an appellant. Failure to do so is considered by the courts to be prejudicial and I include Mr G R Hickinbottom’s comments for your reference:

“6. There is no express duty of disclosure on either an owner or an authority.
However, where an authority has relevant evidence - particularly evidence relating to a specific issue raised by an owner - it is incumbent on that authority to disclose this to the owner. A failure to do so would lead to a patent injustice to the owner. For example, where the Parking Attendant’s contemporaneous notes include relevant material - perhaps supporting the owner’s case - these must be disclosed to the owner at the appropriate time. Where the owner raises a point in representations in respect of which the authority has relevant evidence, that evidence should be disclosed at that (representation) stage: it should not be withheld until any appeal is made. The reason for this is not just that for an authority to withhold evidence in such circumstances would be patently unfair: disclosure of evidence at that stage also limits the number of unnecessary appeals to the Parking Appeals Service, because an owner may be persuaded not to proceed to an appeal if he has disclosed to him cogent evidence in the hands of the authority. Certainly, where an authority relies upon specific information in an appeal to the Parking Appeals Service (e.g. they rely upon contemporaneous notes of the parking attendant of the tax disc details, or other details concerning the vehicle), this must be disclosed to the appellant. If the appellant denies that those details relate to his vehicle, then it will be for him or her to put forward cogent evidence in rebuttal (e.g. a copy of the relevant tax disc, or a photograph of the vehicle or log book).
The circumstances in which it would be appropriate for an authority not to disclose evidence upon which it was relying - either at the stage of representations or an appeal - will be very rare indeed. An authority is bound to disclose such evidence by virtue of the rules of natural justice: and, as I have said, disclosure of the information at an early stage can only result in fewer unnecessary appeals being pursued, with the attendant saving of costs that that would entail.
An appellant should also disclose any documents upon which he or she proposes to rely and, where there is to be an oral hearing, before any hearing. Of course, where there is late disclosure of evidence by either party, it will be a matter for the adjudicator as to whether to proceed or to adjourn: it will be a question in each case of what justice requires, bearing in mind the nature of the proceedings. Certainly, it will be a very rare case when evidence, no matter how late, will be shut out.”

2) The alleged contravention did not occur.

As previously noted the alleged contravention as define in legislation is as quoted below:

“Prohibition conveyed by markings in diagram 1043 or 1044

7. - (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.”
I contend that the PCN issued fails to comply with London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (LLATLA 2003), s.4(8)(a)(i) as quoted below:

“(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;”

The alleged ground is found wanting in the fact that it states only “Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited” and I assert that it must further state “due to the presence of stationary vehicles”. In support of this point I cite PATAS case Jennings v Transport for London (Case No. MV0285GT01), the findings of which were advised to all London Boroughs in the Joint Adjudicators Report 2005/06 as quoted below:

“Yellow Box contravention

The case of Jennings v Transport for London (see Cases Digest) demonstrates the importance of understanding the precise nature of the contravention, as defined in legislation or regulations. A contravention does not occur simply because a vehicle stops in a yellow box; it only occurs when it does so due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Authorities need to assess if this has occurred before they issue a Penalty Charge Notice, and should also ensure that the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice reflects this second element of the contravention.”

I contend that the PCN issued does not substantively, correctly or lawfully state the precise nature of the contravention and therefore fails to satisfy the conditions imposed by statute with respect to LLATLA 2003, s.4(8)(a)(i).

On this point I refer to the binding High Court ruling of Jackson J in R v The Parking Adjudicator (ex p Barnet), who at paragraph 41, states:

“Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non-compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused, PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.”

The pertinent points to this case being, “Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established.” and “If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.”

Any further attempt to enforce such a fatally flawed PCN would be ultra vires and I thus require you to cancel the PCN forthwith.

3) The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

I contend that the PCN issued is again fatally flawed as it unlawfully fetters the ground for appeal of Taken Without the Owners Consent (TWOC). The ground as stated in LLATLA 2003, Schedule 1, s.1(4)© is as quoted below:

“c) that at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner;”

The PCN as issued unfairly and unlawfully restricts the ground to the case of the vehicle being “used” and I submit in support of this point PATAS case Geffen v Kensington and Chelsea (Case No. 1970002274) and refer again to R v The Parking Adjudicator (ex p Barnet) , paragraph 41 as quoted above.

The statutory conditions have not been met and financial liability has not arisen.

In the event that the enforcement authority wish to argue that this ground is not applicable in the circumstance of the case I refer them to the findings in PATAS case Elaine Patricia Lavall v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (Case No: 2040135996) , where adjudicator Martin Wood at paragraph 8 states:

“As to the argument that the circumstances do not fall within one of the statutory grounds for contesting liability in paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 6 to the 1991 Act, they seem to me to fall within ground (f): that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. If the PCN was not valid, the penalty payable would be nil and therefore would exceed the penalty claimed by the local authority. In any event, in R v Parking Adjudicator Ex p. Bexley [1998] RTR 128, the Court expressly rejected the argument that challenges on collateral matters of law could only be brought by way of judicial review and held that parking adjudicators have the power to consider issues of collateral challenge. The arguments put forward in this case have in truth already been considered by the Court in Bexley and rejected. I would also note Wandsworth LBC v Winder [1985] 1 AC 461 in which the House of Lords held that a defendant in civil proceedings brought by a public authority could raise a public law issue in his defence.”

Again any further attempt to enforce such a fatally flawed PCN would be ultra vires and I thus require you to cancel the PCN forthwith.

4) The alleged contravention did not occur.

I appeal against the penalty charge served upon me on the grounds that the council has failed in their statutory duty to sign the restriction in accordance with the law. The s.36 traffic sign used is not a permitted variant of any diagram from the TSRGD 2002. The traffic sign as marked on the road matches neither of the prescribed diagrams 1043 or 1044 or any permitted variation thereof. The sign used by the TfL does not comply with the aforementioned diagrams as it does not meet the curb at all of the corners that are adjacent to the curb as clearly depicted in TSRGD 2002 diagram 1043. In support of this point I submit the case of Robert Arthur Fielden v Transport for London (case No. 2060436860), where the adjudicator Anthony Edie, found that:

“I have considered the diagrams in schedule 6 of The Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002. I have considered in particular diagram 1043. There is no other diagram indicating a box junction at a crossroads. I note that 1043 requires all four corners of the road marking to meet the curb line…
I have decided that this appeal should be allowed because the road markings are not compliant with diagram 1043 in The Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002.”

As this is clearly not the case with respect to the box junction that TfL are trying to enforce, which fails to meet the curb line at all corners, it is necessary for it to be legally enforceable that special approval from the DfT has been sought and I put TfL to proof of this.

TfL operates moving traffic enforcement under the provisions of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 this act sets out that:

(5)Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle—
(a)acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or
(b)fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.
Section 64(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 defines a traffic sign as either being.
(a) specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly, or (b)authorised by the Secretary of State, Section 64(2) of the RTRA 1984 adds further that;
(2) Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above except where the Secretary of State authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character.

The regulations referred to in section 64(1)(a) of the RTRA 1984 are known as the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directives 2002. DfT circular 02/2003 informs about their purpose;

The TSRGD 2002 prescribe the designs and conditions of use for traffic signs to be lawfully placed on or near roads in England, Scotland and Wales.
Regulation 11 within the TSRGD 2002 reiterates this circular and section 64(2) of the RTRA 1984.

11. — (1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, a sign for conveying information or a warning, requirement, restriction, prohibition or speed limit of the description specified under a diagram in Schedules 1 to 7, Part II of Schedule 10 and Schedule 12 to traffic on roads shall be of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram.
Further to the TSRGD 2002 the DfT has compiled and published numerous manuals known as the “Traffic Signs Manuals” to provide deliberate and extensive detail and information on how Local Authorities are to apply and interpret the plethora of regulations and directions given within the TSRGD 2002. These manuals contain no confusion as to how the DfT expect Local Authorities to interpret the law on traffic signs.

The TSM Chapter 1 advises;
1.15 Authorities may only use signs–
including carriageway markings–of a
size, colour and type prescribed or
specially authorised by the Secretary of
State, The prescribed signs are included
in The Traffic Signs Regulations and
General Directions 2002.

1.18 The use on Public highways of
non-prescribed signs which have not
been authorised by, or on behalf of,
the Secretary of State, is illegal and
Authorities who so use unauthorised
signs act beyond their powers.
Additionally, an unauthorised sign in
the highway is an obstruction.

The TSM Chapter 3 advises;
2.1 All traffic signs placed on a highway or on a
road to which the public has access (right of passage
in Scotland), as defined in section 142 of the Road
Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and amended by the
New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, must be
either prescribed by Regulations or authorised by the
Secretary of State for Transport……. and that no non-prescribed
sign is used unless it has been formally authorised
in writing. Failure to do so may leave an authority
open to litigation, or make a traffic regulation order
unenforceable.

The TSM Chapter 5 advises;
2.1 All road markings placed on a highway or road
to which the public have access must be either
prescribed by Regulations or authorised by the
Secretary of State for Transport.

2.5 Care should be taken to ensure that markings
are used only in the manner prescribed in the
Regulations, and that no non-prescribed marking is
used unless it has been authorised in writing. Failure
to do so may leave an authority open to litigation, or
make a traffic regulation order unenforceable.

In addition the DfT has compiled and published more than 14 series of extensive detailed works known as “Working Drawings” to assist Local Authorities in ensuring that they get the design of traffic signs correct. It is nonsensical that the DfT would go to such extreme lengths of detail and precision if they believed legislators intended Local Authorities to be allowed freedom of action or any degree of autonomy in traffic sign design.
Although both the RTRA 1984 and the TSRGD 2002 were enacted prior to the LLATLA 2003 they are both still active and form the legal foundation for traffic enforcement under the LLATLA 2003.

Considering all the above, what it is evidently clear, ever since the introduction of the RTRA 1984 up to the publication in 2008 of the DfT “Operational Guidance to Local Authorities”, is that there has been consistent and explicit direction by both the legal profession and Government, as to what is considered to be a lawful traffic sign. The courts have helped confirm this direction, such as in Davies v Heatley[1971] RTR45 where it was determined that the fact that a traffic sign may be clear does not make it legally correct. This finding of fact has been considered correct by numerous adjudicators but most notably in the key cases between Burnett v Buckinghamhire CC (PAS case HIW0003), Mr J Letts v London Borough of Lambeth (PA 1980151656) and Mr Keivan Jalali Bijari v Bolton Metropolitan Council (case no BO05375E).

The legislators did accept that a degree of flexibility would be required by Local Authorities and this is why the law not only prescribes numerous variations of traffic signs but permits a Local Authority to approach the Secretary of State to seek authorisation to use a non prescribed traffic sign. If you as a Local Authority chose not to follow the scope of the law then you must suffer the consequences without complaint rather than act ultra vires by attempting to enforce an unlawfully signed traffic restriction.
If the law intended only that a traffic sign must not mislead a motorist then the law would simply have stated as such and neither the legislators nor Government would have gone to such extreme and costly measures in drafting and publishing volumes of legislation and guidance to assist Local Authorities in regard to the specific design of traffic signs.

If you as a Local Authority ignore the overwhelming evidence that is in my favour and assert that, although the traffic sign fails to comply with the law, it is adequate to convey the restriction and that its non-compliance with the law can be regarded as “de minimis” then I must strongly disagree. I have illustrated above that both the law and Government has gone to great trouble and effort to ensure that throughout the country motorists can be confident of finding identical traffic signs to the restrictions in force. This is not a case, where, for example, there is a very minor degree of wear to the lines or where one of the white lines is a millimetre or two out. The fact of the matter is that the council has simply used non prescribed signage without authorisation and it seems to me to be inappropriate to employ the “de minimis” principle to paper over the error. I certainly do not consider the amount of the penalty charge to be “de minimis” when compared to my disposable income.

If you do argue a case of “de minimis” then I too should be allowed, in the interest of justice and fairness, the same degree of flexibility and leniency when interpreting the traffic sign. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to apply the principle of “de minimis” to the alleged contravention just as equally as you may attempt to apply it in your defense of the unlawful traffic sign. I had not caused any traffic hindrance as a TfL bus was in anyway blocking all potential traffic.


For the reasons explained above I require TfL to acknowledge their signing error and to cancel this penalty charge forthwith or provide proof of their DfT approval.

5) I question TfL’s authority to judge.



I see on the photo that there is a stationary TfL bus within the junction. This is a regular occurrence and the main cause for many snarl-ups. It is inherently wrong if TfL are judged and at the same time judge as well. This is against basic human rights. It is of utmost importance for me to know if a ticket was issued in this instance.



Closing Statement

In light of the above and the fact that, “Local authorities are statutory creatures and can do nothing except that which is expressly or impliedly authorised by statute” - Lord Templeman in Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council [1992] 2 A.C. 1. I require the enforcement authority to cancel this penalty charge notice forthwith.

In the event that these representations are rejected I will require the enforcement authority to fully explain in their Notice of Rejection how their “PCN” complies with the above-mentioned legislation and provide all of the evidence as required above to prove their case. I will have no hesitation in taking this matter to adjudication, where I will be making a request for costs on the grounds that the enforcement authority have acted frivolously, vexatiously and wholly unreasonably in not accepting valid representations at the earliest opportunity.

"Frottage"

"Do we need to be so pedantic here?"


Occassionally. Gan merely pointed out a simple typo, not in your conversation with us, but in your written appeal draft which you had asked us to review. If not pointed out, chances are you would have just hit the SEND button.

Are you aware that "frottage" is a word, and if so, are you aware of its meaning?



It does change the meaning of the representation somewhat!

Thanks Dave. Apologies OP.

I should have been more upfront and explicit regarding its meaning.

If it wasn't a typo, the video could have been interesting.