Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Please help - H&F state box junction rule allowing waiting while turning right in box junction does not apply at T Junctions
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Deborah*
I am looking for help on the question as to whether Hammersmith and Fulham are right in claiming that I was not allowed to wait behind right turning traffic in a box junction because it was a T Junction.

H&F claim the rule giving the right to wait while turning right only applies where there is oncoming traffic and because I was at a T Junction I no longer have a right to wait while turning right behind other vehicles waiting to complete a right turn. It doesn't seem to be an accurate interpretation of the law to me.

Has anyone been given a PCN this way and successfully appealed?








interlog
In my opinion in the letter of the law they are correct as you can only be in a yellow box junction for the purpose of turning right and are prevented from completing the turn because of oncoming traffic or because of other vehicles waiting to complete the right turn.

The question to ask is whether there was any oncoming traffic and that would not be the case with a T-junction.

It is a mood point.

However, if you post up the PCN and the 2nd page of the rejection letter there may be some other faults.
Deborah*
But I was behind other vehicles waiting to turn right, although stopped due to traffic lights and not due to oncoming traffic. Does that not apply?
interlog
Not in my opinion.

Was there enough space for you to move into at the exit of the box junction when you moved into it?
hcandersen
Without wishing to usurp the authority of the moderators - one issue, one thread. You've got two.

HCA
Deborah*
Sorry -I didn't know it wasn't allowed. Can I link them? I just wanted the answer to a specific question about the T Junction and thought maybe I hadnt worded it properly.

I guess there isn't a clear answer to the T Junction question regarding box junctions. I might just give up and pay as it seems to only be me who things the LA has got this one wrong.

I could not see if there was space to exit when I entered the box. I just blindly followed the right turning vehicle that moved off ahead of me when the lights I was waiting at went green. The right exit lane was blocked back with traffic due to more lights so it was probably not visible whether the left lane exit was clear. As it happens, the right turning vehicle ahead of me stopped in a queue to the lights just in front of the box, leaving me stuck wholly in the box until the lights changed.
interlog
Post up the second page of the rejection letter as it is bound to say that they WILL issue a Charge Certificate rather than MAY issue a Charge Certficicate.

That point won me a case at the PATAS.
Deborah*
I just posted it. As you can see, it says "may issue a charge certificate". Looks like they learned from your case!
hcandersen
I've posted my reply in your other thread and will reply further there.

HCA
interlog
Looks like they indeed did learn.
Enceladus
QUOTE (interlog @ Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 08:36) *
In my opinion in the letter of the law they are correct as you can only be in a yellow box junction for the purpose of turning right and are prevented from completing the turn because of oncoming traffic or because of other vehicles waiting to complete the right turn.

The question to ask is whether there was any oncoming traffic and that would not be the case with a T-junction.

It is a mood point.

However, if you post up the PCN and the 2nd page of the rejection letter there may be some other faults.

I don't admit to any expertise concerning YBJs. But I just don't get how this can be right. Where in the highway code (not strictly legally binding, I know) is a different set of rules applied to a T-Junction?

Bluedart


http://www.2pass.co.uk/boxjunction.htm
interlog
The OP did a right turn when there was no oncoming traffic so that excludes waiting to complete the right turn.

The second one is waiting behind another vehicle that is waiting to complete the right turn. Given that such vehicle (if it exists in this case) was doing so, it shouldn't have been in the box too as there was no oncoming traffic.

Basically, the right turn the OP made would equal going through the box junction straight and those rules would apply.
hcandersen
IMO, there is nothing in the regs which states or implies that the only reason for stopping has to be as a direct or indirect consequence of the presence of oncoming traffic. (b) offers two alternatives i.e. oncoming traffic or another vehicle waiting to turn right.

When you think about it, there would be no need to have the "or" if it was predicated on the same or substantially the same condition that preceded it. IMO, logically it must refer to another condition which is being caused to stop by the presence of a stationary vehicle executing a right turn and wholly or partly in the box.

HCA



interlog
But the vehicle in front completed the turn and wasn't waiting to turn. According to the pictures on the PCN, the black car was stood in the junction not having fully completed the turn. The car in front (assuming this is the car the back car followed) wasn't waiting to turn.

hcandersen
But we're discussing the regulations, not the actual events. As I've posted in the other thread and we've yet to have confirmed, it's unclear when the OP's car first stopped and why. In any event, as the NOR did not acknowledge that there was an exemption if the OP's car was stopped by another vehicle situated within the box and if the OP made that point then the NOR is, IMO, flawed. In any event, it rests on their "finding of fact" as regards the exact cause of the OP's vehicle stopping and not the law. If they make an incorrect finding and don't know the law then it's possible that their consideration was flawed.

We need to see the PHOTO(s) that establish the contravention and the OP's reps.

OP - docs and pics pl, not more words.


HCA
zamzara
I see what interlog, and the council, are saying. The stationary vehicles are very likely not waiting to complete a right turn as most of them probably went straight on, and the video would presumably show this. They would also likely be found to have already completed it in any case.

I do agree that they have mis-stated the law somewhat in the rejection, but would this be enough to make it flawed?
Enceladus
I see two lanes on New Kings Road that the OP could have turned right into.
The view to the nearside lane is blocked or obscured by the white van.
The OP appears to follow a dark coloured saloon turning right. The saloon disappears into the nearside lane and is maybe hidden from camera view by the van.
It seems that the OP wanted the offside lane so chose to stop in the box.
If the nearside lane was still available to exit then no contravention occurred.
That is one possibility.
So I would want to see the video.

Another possibility! This box junction stretches across both sides of the road. The normal rules for a T junction are that only the half adjacent to the side road has the YB. So where the OP was stopped would not normally have a YB which could be stopped in. However this particular junction has a non compliant YB layout that has been authorised by the Secretary of State.

If the junction had the standard YB layout then the OP appears to have have legally crossed the junction and then turned right. However the non-standard extension of the YB onto the destination carriageway now comes into play.

I think the H&F reasoning is flawed and if it is not flawed it is simply not reasonable and does not reflect the intent that the SoS approved. It is entirely a technical infringement contrived from an omission in the legislation that might address a non-standard layout. If the OP had another car behind her, then this hypothetical car would not be in contravention. It is a just ridiculous notion. How is a person to know that some non-standard special set of rules happens to apply to this junction? Therefore common sense must apply. The OP was entitled to stop and wait in the YB until the right turn could be safely completed.

This is just another example of Council's trying to milk the system.
Bluedart
QUOTE (Deborah* @ Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 08:29) *
I am looking for help on the question as to whether Hammersmith and Fulham are right in claiming that I was not allowed to wait behind right turning traffic in a box junction because it was a T Junction.

H&F claim the rule giving the right to wait while turning right only applies where there is oncoming traffic and because I was at a T Junction I no longer have a right to wait while turning right behind other vehicles waiting to complete a right turn. It doesn't seem to be an accurate interpretation of the law to me.

Has anyone been given a PCN this way and successfully appealed?











In picture three, I am looking at the pedestrian on the crossing and in the following sequence of stills, it does look as if you are stationary. That's if I am following the car in picture three which appears to be just entering the box. If that is the case, who are you obstructing?
SchoolRunMum
Using a full yellow box at that T junction is pointless and only there as a cash cow, surely. No obstruction of anyone and as the OP says, as you are performing a right turn, there is not a clear view when you first enter the junction which could tell you soon enough whether both lanes around the corner are clear! There's no reason at all for that side of the YBJ to be there, a half-size one across the junction itself would suffice to prevent obstruction. How on earth did they get special authorisation for it?

There is a big chunk of the yellow markings missing on the YBJ itself so could it be argued the junction doesn't match the authorisation?
Deborah*
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 16:58) *
I see two lanes on New Kings Road that the OP could have turned right into.
The view to the nearside lane is blocked or obscured by the white van.
The OP appears to follow a dark coloured saloon turning right. The saloon disappears into the nearside lane and is maybe hidden from camera view by the van.
It seems that the OP wanted the offside lane so chose to stop in the box.
If the nearside lane was still available to exit then no contravention occurred.
That is one possibility.
So I would want to see the video.

Another possibility! This box junction stretches across both sides of the road. The normal rules for a T junction are that only the half adjacent to the side road has the YB. So where the OP was stopped would not normally have a YB which could be stopped in. However this particular junction has a non compliant YB layout that has been authorised by the Secretary of State.

If the junction had the standard YB layout then the OP appears to have have legally crossed the junction and then turned right. However the non-standard extension of the YB onto the destination carriageway now comes into play.

I think the H&F reasoning is flawed and if it is not flawed it is simply not reasonable and does not reflect the intent that the SoS approved. It is entirely a technical infringement contrived from an omission in the legislation that might address a non-standard layout. If the OP had another car behind her, then this hypothetical car would not be in contravention. It is a just ridiculous notion. How is a person to know that some non-standard special set of rules happens to apply to this junction? Therefore common sense must apply. The OP was entitled to stop and wait in the YB until the right turn could be safely completed.

This is just another example of Council's trying to milk the system.


Yes, I was following the dark saloon in front and it is me entering on picture 3. I seem to recall that I was confused about which exit to take as by the time I had crossed over the junction, both lanes were tailing back to the box junction due to the lights although there might have been a little more space for me to move into on the nearside and might have got some of the car out of the box junction. I think the nearside was marked as left turn only and I was going straight on, so under stress and trying to follow my satnav in unknown territory, I froze!

QUOTE (Bluedart @ Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 17:52) *
QUOTE (Deborah* @ Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 08:29) *
I am looking for help on the question as to whether Hammersmith and Fulham are right in claiming that I was not allowed to wait behind right turning traffic in a box junction because it was a T Junction.

H&F claim the rule giving the right to wait while turning right only applies where there is oncoming traffic and because I was at a T Junction I no longer have a right to wait while turning right behind other vehicles waiting to complete a right turn. It doesn't seem to be an accurate interpretation of the law to me.

Has anyone been given a PCN this way and successfully appealed?











In picture three, I am looking at the pedestrian on the crossing and in the following sequence of stills, it does look as if you are stationary. That's if I am following the car in picture three which appears to be just entering the box. If that is the case, who are you obstructing?


I was in the car entering the box in picture three. I wasn't obstructing anyone and moved when the lights changed. Is this of any help to me?
Deborah*
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 15 Dec 2011 - 11:09) *
But we're discussing the regulations, not the actual events. As I've posted in the other thread and we've yet to have confirmed, it's unclear when the OP's car first stopped and why. In any event, as the NOR did not acknowledge that there was an exemption if the OP's car was stopped by another vehicle situated within the box and if the OP made that point then the NOR is, IMO, flawed. In any event, it rests on their "finding of fact" as regards the exact cause of the OP's vehicle stopping and not the law. If they make an incorrect finding and don't know the law then it's possible that their consideration was flawed.

We need to see the PHOTO(s) that establish the contravention and the OP's reps.

OP - docs and pics pl, not more words.


HCA


Here is my appeal that I initially sent to H&F. It seems that this is much more complicated than I anticipated!


Challenge against penalty charge notice. - Ref.

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

Challenge Details
Registration Number:
Driver or Keeper: I am the Driver
PCN:
Challenge Details:
The image provided is not very clear and does not prove there as been a contravention. I do not personally recall being guilty of any such contravention.

At the time, I was returning from a party at Gambado Chelsea in Townmead Road to my home in Hendon, North London. I was turning right onto the New Kings Road from Bagleys Lane.

The Highway Code 174 states:

Box junctions. These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road (see 'Road markings'). You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you MAY enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right.

The Law states:

[Law TSRGD regs 10(1) & 29(2)]
This is what The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 say about box junctions

Interpretation of Part II of Schedule
6. In this Part of this Schedule -

(a) "box junction" means the area of carriageway marked with yellow cross-hatching at a junction between two or more roads on which there has been placed the road marking shown in diagram 1043 or 1044; and

(b) a reference (however expressed) to a vehicle which is stationary or stops within a box junction includes a vehicle which is stationary whilst part of it is within the box junction.

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.

(2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person -

(a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right; and

(b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.


http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/redroutes/959.aspx:

Yellow Box Junctions and Banned Turns
Yellow box junctions

? These have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the Road
? They need to be kept clear for through-traffic to avoid traffic jams
? Don't enter a yellow box junction until your exit road or lane is clear
? You can stop in a yellow box junction if you want to turn right and are stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right

As I was turning right and clearly behind another vehicle, there does not appear to be a contravention here.

I demand to see better photographic evidence and proof of this alleged contravention and the videotape as I don?t believe it is valid.










Just thinking about it further, I imagine it could be argued that the car in front of me had completed it's right turn and was going straight. Nevertheless, they didn't use that point in my appeal rejection, rather this argument about the exemption not applying to T Junctions as there must be oncoming traffic. Could they lose simply for getting the law wrong, even if it could be argued that I did commit the contravention?
interlog
From experience, Yellow Box Junction PCNs are very difficult to defend at PATAS when it comes to "contravention did not occur".
hcandersen
The council's view of the law is, IMO, incorrect. But what we still do not know is the sequence of events. For example, you must have seen the video or photos that in the council's opinion establish the contravention - what do they show?

When did you fist stop? At what time? Caused by what? At what time exactly? Is this the time of contravention? What were the circumstances at the time of contravention? Where were you? Were you stopped? Why?


You must let us know. The debate about individuals' interpretation of the regs has been done to death - we need facts and only you've got them. And pl don't just post pics -we need a narrative from you because you've seen the video.


HCA
Deborah*
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 16 Dec 2011 - 07:27) *
The council's view of the law is, IMO, incorrect. But what we still do not know is the sequence of events. For example, you must have seen the video or photos that in the council's opinion establish the contravention - what do they show?

When did you fist stop? At what time? Caused by what? At what time exactly? Is this the time of contravention? What were the circumstances at the time of contravention? Where were you? Were you stopped? Why?


You must let us know. The debate about individuals' interpretation of the regs has been done to death - we need facts and only you've got them. And pl don't just post pics -we need a narrative from you because you've seen the video.


HCA


As far as I recall, the lights I was waiting at before entering the box junction changed to green and I entered the box junction following the dark saloon in front intending to turn right onto New Kings Road. I enter on picture 3 in the black xsara picasso. I seem to recall that I was confused about which exit to take as by the time I had crossed over the junction, both lanes were tailing back towards the box junction due to the lights although there might have been a little more space for me to move into on the nearside and might have got some of the car out of the box junction but I don't think all. I think the nearside was marked as left turn only and I was going straight on, so under stress and trying to follow my satnav in unknown territory, I could have been confused so just sat for a few seconds. I think that the lights then changed and I moved off on the nearside lane as that emptied quicker. I don't think visibility of the nearside lane was good from my starting point, but there was undisputably room for the saloon in front of me to exit. So when I entered the box, there were no stationary vehicles blocking the exit, however, the car in front of me became stationary and blocked my exit due to the tailback to the lights after I had already entered the box junction.
zamzara
It might be interesting to find out why this particular junction has been authorised to be marked in a way normally considered unfair.

IMO the only rational justification would be to assist cars making the right turn into the main road, so there is a space to move into. In that case, to enforce the unusual half of the box against the same cars is irrational and amounts to using the special authorisation as an engine of fraud. Even more so when you consider that it is impossible to make that turn unless the traffic is stationary.
Enceladus
The OP should arrange to view the video as suggested by HCA. Get a good description of what happened. And request still images that show the whole incident, not just the bit the Council want you to see. A copy of the video would be nice to see.
Of particular interest:
Was the dark saloon that you followed stuck in the box completing his right turn?
Can you see if there was room in the nearside lane?
Was the traffic on New Kings Road stationary when you first entered the box?

QUOTE (zamzara @ Fri, 16 Dec 2011 - 08:04) *
It might be interesting to find out why this particular junction has been authorised to be marked in a way normally considered unfair.

IMO the only rational justification would be to assist cars making the right turn into the main road, so there is a space to move into. In that case, to enforce the unusual half of the box against the same cars is irrational and amounts to using the special authorisation as an engine of fraud. Even more so when you consider that it is impossible to make that turn unless the traffic is stationary.

Indirect taxation. This junction netted £861,257 in the 12 months to end March 2011. No I did not forget the decimal point.
The documents to be found at this FOI request make it clear that H&F believe that a right turn at a T with YB is a contravention if the turn is attempted and the exit is not clear. Or maybe not believe, but nonetheless resolve to enforce.
GUIDELINE POLICY ON ENFORCEMENT OF BOX JUNCTIONS IN LBHF

NEW KINGS ROAD JCT WITH BAGLEYS LANE BOX GUIDANCE
QUOTE
...if the cross flow traffic is blocking the box exit area whilst being stationary before the right turning vehicle pulls onto the box junction, and it is obvious any vehicle pulling out from Bagley's Lane cannot make the turn , this is not allowed and a PCN should be issued.



Deborah*
QUOTE (Enceladus @ Fri, 16 Dec 2011 - 13:25) *
The OP should arrange to view the video as suggested by HCA. Get a good description of what happened. And request still images that show the whole incident, not just the bit the Council want you to see. A copy of the video would be nice to see.
Of particular interest:
Was the dark saloon that you followed stuck in the box completing his right turn?
Can you see if there was room in the nearside lane?
Was the traffic on New Kings Road stationary when you first entered the box?

QUOTE (zamzara @ Fri, 16 Dec 2011 - 08:04) *
It might be interesting to find out why this particular junction has been authorised to be marked in a way normally considered unfair.

IMO the only rational justification would be to assist cars making the right turn into the main road, so there is a space to move into. In that case, to enforce the unusual half of the box against the same cars is irrational and amounts to using the special authorisation as an engine of fraud. Even more so when you consider that it is impossible to make that turn unless the traffic is stationary.

Indirect taxation. This junction netted £861,257 in the 12 months to end March 2011. No I did not forget the decimal point.
The documents to be found at this FOI request make it clear that H&F believe that a right turn at a T with YB is a contravention if the turn is attempted and the exit is not clear. Or maybe not believe, but nonetheless resolve to enforce.
GUIDELINE POLICY ON ENFORCEMENT OF BOX JUNCTIONS IN LBHF

NEW KINGS ROAD JCT WITH BAGLEYS LANE BOX GUIDANCE
QUOTE
...if the cross flow traffic is blocking the box exit area whilst being stationary before the right turning vehicle pulls onto the box junction, and it is obvious any vehicle pulling out from Bagley's Lane cannot make the turn , this is not allowed and a PCN should be issued.



This is interesting as you can see from the images that the traffic in the nearside lane was not stationary but moving forward when I entered the box junction.

I don't think the dark saloon was stuck in the box completing his right turn, but it's hard to recall the exact events.
Enceladus
QUOTE (Deborah* @ Fri, 16 Dec 2011 - 15:50) *
This is interesting as you can see from the images that the traffic in the nearside lane was not stationary but moving forward when I entered the box junction.

I don't think the dark saloon was stuck in the box completing his right turn, but it's hard to recall the exact events.

That is why you would be best served by viewing the video and noting exactly what it shows. The discussion on here should give you some idea as to what you are looking for. Be aware that the alleged contravention occurred when you entered the box, not when you were in the box. Ask for a copy of the video. If they refuse, then ask for the still images that you want to have. Not just those that they want to give you. AIUI they have to let you view the video and they have to supply the still images.

Be aware that asking to view the video or for images does not put stop the clock or put the case on hold. So keep an eye on the deadlines

Given the value of the indirect taxation stream from this one junction, I imagine you are in a for a fight. On the other hand, if you have a good case, I imagine H&F will drop out before adjudication. They will not want to risk that the adjudicator rules for you, and thereby risk the revenue stream.


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.