Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 31J - Entering and Stopping in a box junction when prohibited - Opinion please
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
jayant
I received the PCN from Redbridge council for the contravention "Entering and Stopping in a box junction when prohibited". The location is the junction of Barley Lane and Chadwell Heath Lane. I appealed to the council which was rejected. Below is the appeal I emailed to council which describes the events took place. I have also attached the images the council sent me.

I was intending to turn right and the exit of the yellow box was clear when I entered the box as evident from the image which shows enough space to accommodate my car. There was no traffic arriving from the right. The traffic from left was stationary and the car on my left (adjacent to my car) was not present when I entered the box. I entered the junction driving slowly (I was driving slow as it was raining) and suddenly saw this car (car from left in the picture) approaching very fast. I had to brake to avoid any incident. I was in the box for few seconds (was not stopped and waiting in the box) and not blocking any oncoming traffic from right and from left. Unfortunately, the officer failed to notice the fast moving car and only saw me entering the junction. I think it is unfair to judge that I did not follow traffic rule based on the few seconds I had to brake because of this person driving fast even while it was raining.
As far I remember, before entering the box, I allowed the traffic to clear before entering the box and only entered when my path was clear. It will be evident if you check the images before I entered the box. I am aware disrupting traffic can be dangerous and may cause delays to me and others. I am also aware that stopping in the box incurs fine.
The images on the notice do not depict the whole sequence of events. I immediately moved on to avoid any disruption to the traffic making sure it is safe to continue.
Based on the explanation I provided, I request you to cancel this Penalty Charge Notice. If you have any queries, please feel free contact me on the contact details provided above.


Turning right from Chadwell Heath Lane on to Barley Lane is a nightmare. It joins the A12 on the right just a few yards away where a signal is installed which usually causes traffic jam at this junction.
The CCTV monitoring is recently introduced at this junction (not sure but I think few months ago). The junction was marked fully before but recently they only painted hald side of the carriageway. The fainted lines for the entire junction can still be seen.

I have booked an appointment to view the video.

I am planning to appeal to Environment and Traffic Adjudicator based on the above appeal. Also want to add more facts, that the markings at the junction are confusing as the old markings can still be seen.
Will this be a valid argument?
Please advice of any points I can put forward to the adjudicator.
John U.K.
As usual, for best advice please post up PCN (both sides) and the Council's rejection letter

Do not attach docs/photos, but use this method:
Photo or scan. see http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=36858&st=0
for how to do it. I use Tinypic for stage 2 with no problems.
STAGE 1 takes care of resizing. If you use Tinypic for Stage 2, on the left each image in Tinypic is a list of links. Highlight and copy the entire link 'for forums' from the list for each image, and paste each link into your post. Each copied and pasted link will embed a thumbnail link in your post.

Using the attachment method is not advised as it means quickly running out of attachment space.
Redact/obscure personal details, PCN no. Reg No.

Also post up a GSV (Google Street View) link to the location.
LEAVE IN all dates/times; precise location, Contravention code and description.
jayant
Hi John

Thanks for the reply. I have uploaded the requested info.
Jo Carn
If you can prove that it was clear AS YOU ENTERED, then there is no problem.
I had a similar one involving one of our trucks and they cancelled as they knew they hadn't a leg to stand on.
The contravention is stopping AND it not being clear as you entered.

Perhaps this might help as the start of the bones of a reply
The footage clearly shows that there was room for me to clear the junction. It further shows that upon entering the junction another vehicle clearly impeded my space. When the entered the junction I could clear the junction. It was the action of other traffic that forced me to stop.

Contravention code 31 states the contravention is “entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited.” The evidence clearly shows that, when entering, I had every reasonable expectation to clear the box, therefore no contravention took place. Given there was no contravention of code 31, I politely request that the PCN is withdrawn
Bagshot
Numpties. Call them that too.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, SCHEDULE 19, BUS STOP AND BUS STAND CLEARWAYS AND BOX JUNCTIONS, PART II, SIGNIFICANCE OF BOX JUNCTION MARKINGS

...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.

You had to stop because of the presence of moving vehicles. There was no stationary vehicle when you entered the box. There was no stationary vehicle when you stopped in the box.

They know the law. They are trying to enforce a law which does not exist. They are being completely unreasonable. Tell them that you will apply for costs for this reason if they force you to adjudication.

Oh, and don't forget to call them numpties.
PASTMYBEST
It is very important that you see the video. This id the contravention

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.

You can see the exemption, IMO you would be entitled to claim (b) due to the bit I have highlighted in bold
jayant
Thanks all for your reply.

Definitely, there was space available to accommodate my car at the exit of the YBJ. The car next to me (blue car) as I mentioned in my appeal was not there when I entered. But in my appeal I have mentioned "The traffic on the left was stationary". I meant to say that the traffix on extreme left of the carriageway. This is a problem at this junction. All the time, two rows of vehicles form. The extreme left row was stationary. There was space for more than one car on the inner row, which can clearly be seen in the image. Do I need to explain this in detail?

Will it make any sense to raise the issue of faded markings as well?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (jayant @ Wed, 25 May 2016 - 12:30) *
Thanks all for your reply.

Definitely, there was space available to accommodate my car at the exit of the YBJ. The car next to me (blue car) as I mentioned in my appeal was not there when I entered. But in my appeal I have mentioned "The traffic on the left was stationary". I meant to say that the traffix on extreme left of the carriageway. This is a problem at this junction. All the time, two rows of vehicles form. The extreme left row was stationary. There was space for more than one car on the inner row, which can clearly be seen in the image. Do I need to explain this in detail?

Will it make any sense to raise the issue of faded markings as well? looking at the photos no



Earl Purple
From the photo there is space for the white car to go. Does the blue car to the left move into that space and occupy it, thus leaving you with nowhere to go?

Technically necking out like that is never really permitted but lots of vehicles do it. I'd rather they did so like you did, i.e. diagonally and leaving space to pass behind you than haflway out in the first lane making it unsafe to pass as that is into the space you are about to drive and you might not be looking.

Roundabouts or signals help this kind of junction.
jayant
@Earl Purple: The blue car, on the inner side next to the YBJ was not present when I entered the box. I checked before entering the box. I stopped because of this person who came fast. Apparently he signalled me to continue and let me occupy the space. But it was too late. The enforcement officer thought I have entered the box when exit is not clear. One suspicion I have is he just switched lane and tried to grab that space after I entered the box. Good I looked and stopped but still received the fine.
Mad Mick V
I'd call them something worse than numpties--con artists who try to extort money by breaking the law.

OP you have all the answers in previous posts, don't dilute your principal ground with other issues.

The contravention is utterly without foundation and is being misrepresented as legal by this Council.

It states "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited".

You are permitted to enter this YBJ for the purposes of turning right. You are even permitted to enter this box even if your exit is blocked by traffic at the moment of entry. PMB has given you the legislative basis for these comments.

My real concern is why this Council has decided to put cameras up at this junction. It cannot be for traffic management purposes because no one turning right can ever be in contravention of the legislation. How many people have paid up because of this Council "con".

I think I got the following from bama:-

"The tort of misfeasance in public office is designed to target “the deliberate and dishonest abuse of power”. Public officers are not liable merely because a bona fide administrative act is later found to be unlawful. However, there is a misfeasance in public office if a person suffers loss or damage as a result of administrative action known to be unlawful by those persons taking it, and those persons knew that the plaintiff would suffer loss or were recklessly indifferent as to whether the plaintiff would suffer loss. A deliberate and vindictive act by a public official, targeted at the plaintiff, is not necessary".

Mick
Mortimer
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 25 May 2016 - 12:10) *
(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.

[/i]You can see the exemption, IMO you would be entitled to claim (b) due to the bit I have highlighted in bold


But none of the vehicles are "oncoming" and as stated before none of them were stationary either. Is the right turn exemption perhaps a distraction here?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Mortimer @ Wed, 25 May 2016 - 13:21) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 25 May 2016 - 12:10) *
(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.

[/i]You can see the exemption, IMO you would be entitled to claim (b) due to the bit I have highlighted in bold


But none of the vehicles are "oncoming" and as stated before none of them were stationary either. Is the right turn exemption perhaps a distraction here?


I would define the traffic proceeding along the road crossing your path, as oncoming, but a fair point open to interpretation, moving vs stationary is not
jayant
When I write the appeal to the adjudicator, as per the suggestions I think the best will be to stick to the original appeal.

I would like to provide additional arguments. It ends on double yellow lines for which I read on some forums, permission must be sought by council from DFT.

I rarely use this junction as it is always packed. I always take a long route to avoid this junction but on this occasion, it was Saturday evening (easter weekend), I thought it should be less busy.

As an evidence, I want to provide the video clipping. Does the council provide the video footage direct to adjudicator or I have to request a copy from the council?
Incandescent
The council must send a copy of the video to the adjudicators when you register an appeal. It is their sole evidence of the contravention. However, you have no legal right to a copy, only a right to view it at council offices; have you done so ?
John U.K.
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 25 May 2016 - 18:06) *
The council must send a copy of the video to the adjudicators when you register an appeal. It is their sole evidence of the contravention. However, you have no legal right to a copy, only a right to view it at council offices; have you done so ?


If the video forms part of the Council's evidence, should a copy not. therefore, be included in the Council's Evidence Pack sent to the OP?
Bagshot
Just noticed that the junction is not controlled by traffic lights, but that there are traffic lights further along the main road which will cause a tail back. The council should have addressed these issues when considering a box junction there. The guidance is that box junctions should not be used where there are not traffic lights unless special consideration is given. See the traffic signs manual. I would be asking the council for a copy of whatever surveys and reports they carried out to see what consideration they gave to this exact issue before implementing the YBJ.
Incandescent
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Wed, 25 May 2016 - 19:21) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Wed, 25 May 2016 - 18:06) *
The council must send a copy of the video to the adjudicators when you register an appeal. It is their sole evidence of the contravention. However, you have no legal right to a copy, only a right to view it at council offices; have you done so ?
If the video forms part of the Council's evidence, should a copy not. therefore, be included in the Council's Evidence Pack sent to the OP?


Sorry, I didn't put it correctly. There is no legal right to the video before an appeal is registered. Once an appeal is registered, the council must supply their evidence to the adjudicator, and the appellant. If this includes a DVD, then the appellant must receive it too.

jayant
Hi All

Thanks for the useful replies. I viewed the footage today. I actually entered the box junction at 19:17:29. The earliest time shown on the images on PCN is 19:17:39. So I entered the box at 19:17:29 after which 5 to 6 seconds later a car arrived and went past without stopping, behind which was the blue car shown on the image. Now this blue car arrived at the earliest time recorded on the first image on the notice. It is clear from the footage that this car breaked and allowed me to go. As I mentioned earlier the space was there to receive my car at the exit when I entered. Do they have to capture and provide on PCN the first image at the time I entered the box? Or just the time when the other car stopped. Please advise.

Also in my appeal to council I did not mention the car that passed before the blue car. But definitely both the cars were going fast and I being more cautious was slow as it was raining. I think I forgot as it was already 2 weeks past after the incidence when I re received the notice and replied to it.
Mr Meldrew
OP, you entered and stopped in the box when there was no prohibition in stopping for moving vehicles to your left. You have been advised not to dilute your challenge, and already a sound ground has been proposed, see Post #5.

Ask yourself to identify which stationary vehicle(s) was present that caused you to stop your vehicle in the box, and if you can't, then neither could the council at adjudication.
jayant
Thanks Mr Meldrew.

There was no stationary vehicle that caused me to stop my car in the box. It was the moving vehicles from the left.


Hi All

I have drafted the below text for the appeal. Just want to check with you all experts if this looks OK. Let me know if you think any changes are required.

Thanks

Respected Sir/Madam
On 26th March, my vehicle was seen entering the yellow box junction at the junction of Barley Lane and Chadwell Heath Lane in Ilford. I received a Penalty Charge Notice from the London Borough of Redbridge dated 11/04/2016 alleging the contravention “31J – Entering and Stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)”. I challenged this Notice by sending an email to the council on 12/04/2016, explaining the sequence of events making clear that when I entered the yellow box, the exit was clear and there was enough space to accommodate my car at the exit. This is also visible in the image sent by the council. I was forced to brake and stop in the junction by another car. The council has rejected my appeal stating the Penalty Charge Notice was issued correctly. I have received the Notice of Rejection from the council dated 19/05/2016.

I would like to challenge this Notice and appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator on the grounds “The contravention alleged by the Authority on the Penalty Charge Notice did not occur”.

The Regulations governing the use of Box Junctions are found in “The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002” (TSR&GD 2002) in part II Schedule 19 articles 6, 7 & 8. Further guidance & understanding can be found in “Chapter 5 Traffic Signs Manual: 2003 Road markings”. The TSR&GD 2002 states as follows;

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.

Prohibition conveyed when markings are placed in conjunction with signs in diagrams 615 and 811

8. When the road marking shown in diagram 1043 or 1044 is placed in conjunction with the signs shown in diagrams 615 and 811 on an area of carriageway which is less than 4.5 metres wide at its narrowest point, the road marking shall 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 oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

As per the explanation provided in my appeal to the London Borough of Redbridge, my actions were compliant with the regulations as I only entered the box junction when there was enough space to receive the vehicle at the exit. As I was forced to stop by another car, I would like to claim the exemption “b” in sub-paragraph 2 of article 7 mentioned above.

There are some additional concerns about this box junction which I want to highlight in my appeal.

The junction is a very busy junction and the queues usually tail back on both lanes forming the T junction. There is large number of cars turning right at this junction which reduces the effectiveness of this box junction. Below is one of the factors mentioned in Chapter 5 of Traffic Signs Manual which influence decisions about laying box junctions:

“there should preferably not be a high proportion of right-turning traffic,since experience has shown that the effectiveness of the marking is reduced under these conditions.”

Just a few yards further from the junction, Barley Lane (B177) joins the road A12. This junction is controlled by traffic signals. It is obvious and from experience, these traffic lights always cause a tail back on both the lanes (Barley Lane and Chadwell Heath Lane). I hope the council has addressed these issues before considering the box junction and conducted appropriate survey. This box should be deemed as non-compliant unless necessary approval is obtained by the Redbridge council. The council must instead look into alternative methods to effectively manage traffic flow at this junction.

Attachments:
1. Penalty Charge Notice from London Borough of Redbridge
2. Email to Redbridge Council challenging the Penalty Charge Notice
3. Notice of Rejection from London Borough of Redbridge
4. Images of the contravention provided by London Borough of Redbridge – enlarged versions downloaded from Redbridge council website
5. Google Street view images of the junction


Bagshot
It's a little long winded, and you don't need to quote the law. The adjudicators are familiar with it. No worries though, it shows you've done your homework. One thing you have missed in the criticism of the junction is from the Traffic signs manual. Chapter Five. I quote it below, but the nub of it is that the junction should ideally be controlled by traffic lights. this sort of junction should really have keep clear markings rather than a yellow box.

Also I would reinforce your sentence, "I was forced to brake and stop in the junction by another car." to "I was forced to stop in the junction by a moving car. Stationary vehicles played no part in this incident, and therefore no contravention occurred."



12.8 Factors which influence a decision to provide
box markings include the following:
(i) the junction should preferably, though not
necessarily, be controlled by signals (see
also para 12.3),
(ii) blocking back from a junction ahead
should occur under existing conditions,
even if only for short periods,
(iii) there should preferably be heavy traffic
flows on both opposing arms of the
junction. At unsignalled junctions with
minor roads where blocking of the mouth
of the minor road is infrequent, a KEEP
CLEAR marking (see paras 22.11to 22.14)
may be more appropriate.
Mr Meldrew
jayant, I'm no expert but the contravention does require your vehicle to have been stopped within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles (which the council fail to mention) and you have a defence. Anyhow, use this for brevity if it fits:

Respected Sir/Madam

On 26/3/16, my vehicle was seen stationary in the yellow box at the junction of Barley Lane and Chadwell Heath Lane in Ilford. Later I received a Penalty Charge Notice dated 11/04/2016 from the London Borough of Redbridge alleging contravention “31J – Entering and Stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)”. The council has since rejected my challenge of 12/4/16, and I have received a Notice of Rejection dated 19/05/2016.

I would like to challenge the council's notice and appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator on the ground, “The contravention alleged by the Authority on the Penalty Charge Notice did not occur”. This is because stationary vehicles played no part in stopping my car within the box for the reason that I had allowed vehicles to clear sufficient space in the lane occupied by the blue car to the left of mine in the council's evidence, which was my chosen exit lane. Throughout there was sufficient space to receive my vehicle and in the process of heading across the box towards my chosen lane, what in fact briefly brought my car to a halt in the box before moving on again, was the moving vehicles to my left in my chosen lane, especially the blue car.

There are some additional concerns about this box junction....
Neil B
You should listen to Mr Meldrew.

It would be good if you can somehow link the video for members to view.
Bagshot
+1
Mr Meldrew
If the OP (or anyone in similar circumstances reading this forum) needed convincing that contravention code 31, “Entering and Stopping in a box junction when prohibited” requires your vehicle to have been stopped within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles (as apposed to moving vehicles), then it might help to refer to the opinion of Adjudicator Edward Houghton in the following London Tribunals key case (2130483643, 14 February 2014).

http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/de...14031218240.pdf

For convenience, Mr Houghton’s opinion on the matter is:

In my view a Council has to prove:-
1) that the driver caused the vehicle to enter (i.e. that it was not pushed by another vehicle)
2) that it then stopped within the junction.
3) that the reason it stopped was the presence of vehicles, and that those vehicles were stationary vehicles

If the vehicle continues to move, or it stops due to the presence of moving vehicles, or it stops for some other reason, such as, to allow the driver to make a phone call or admire the view, no contravention occurs.


Of course, one Adjudicator’s opinion is not binding upon another but perhaps most people would agree that it is a sensible interpretation of Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, SCHEDULE 19, BUS STOP AND BUS STAND CLEARWAYS AND BOX JUNCTIONS, PART II, SIGNIFICANCE OF BOX JUNCTION MARKINGS:

...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.

A decision to proceed to adjudication is always that of the person affected, and it is understandable that sometimes people cannot do so for personal reasons.
hcandersen
It's as simple as Houghton expressed it, although it is unnecessary to talk about vehicles and then stationary vehicles.

Did you stop? Yes.

Is that a contravention? It depends.

On what does it depend? Whether you were stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Cause and effect, although the law expresses it as effect and cause.

Don't dance around the evidence or unnecessarily seek to place stress or to try and excuse stopping, it is not necessary.

I moved into the box junction having seen that my exit was clear, that is the carriageway in my direction of travel, namely to the right.

I subsequently decided to stop due to the approach (not presence which could connote being stationary, but approach which only means a moving) of a vehicle from my left.

At no time was that vehicle stationary and as can be seen in the video (I presume) it continued and passed safely in front of me.

As my stopping was not caused by a stationary vehicle the contravention did not occur.

IMO, the alpha and omega of the issue.

What we're debating is the way in which some authorities are 'moulding' the law to their own ends, the 2 worst examples being 'dropped footways' (which some authorities interpret as any lowered footway) and YBJ where they think that being stationary for any reason is a contravention.
Bagshot
+1

Simple. Cut and dried.
Grant Urismo
QUOTE (Mr Meldrew @ Sun, 29 May 2016 - 11:31) *
...what in fact briefly brought my car to a halt in the box before moving on again, was the moving vehicles to my left in my chosen lane...


I'd add in one word to make it even clearer that the law is on your side:

...what in fact briefly brought my car to a halt in the box before moving on again, was the oncoming moving vehicles to my left in my chosen lane...
Mortimer
Maybe just me, but I'm not convinced by the term "oncoming" in the context of this case, and arguably not necessary.
Grant Urismo
That's why I'd keep 'moving' in there too - if the adjudicator is convinced, then they can rule they were oncoming, if not they can rule they were moving.
jayant
Thanks All

Based on the suggestions I have made some changes to the appeal letter (below) which I will submit today. Hope the adjudicator will cancel this PCN.

To,
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators
London Tribunals
PO Box 130
Sale
M33 0FP

Subject: Appeal to cancel Penalty Charge Notice issued by London Borough of Redbridge - Reference
XXXXXX

On 26/03/16, my vehicle was seen stationary in the yellow box at the junction of Barley Lane and Chadwell Heath Lane in Ilford. Later I received a Penalty Charge Notice (Number – XXXXXX) dated 11/04/2016 from the London Borough of Redbridge alleging contravention “31J – Entering and Stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement)”. The council has since rejected my challenge of 12/04/2016, and I have received a Notice of Rejection dated 19/05/2016. Below are the details of the Notice of Rejection:
Notice of Rejection of Representation: XXXXXX
Vehicle Registration Mark: XXXXXX
Verification Code: XXXXXX
I would like to challenge the council's notice and appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator on the ground, “The contravention alleged by the Authority on the Penalty Charge Notice did not occur”. This is because stationary vehicles played no part in stopping my car within the box for the reason that I had allowed vehicles to clear sufficient space in the lane occupied by the blue car to the left of mine in the council's evidence, which was my chosen exit lane. Throughout there was sufficient space to receive my vehicle and in the process of heading across the box towards my chosen lane, what in fact briefly brought my car to a halt in the box before moving on again, was the moving vehicles to my left in my chosen lane, especially the blue car.
There are some additional concerns about this box junction which I want to highlight in my appeal.
The junction is a very busy junction and the queues usually tail back on both lanes forming the T junction. There is large number of cars turning right at this junction which reduces the effectiveness of this box junction. Below is one of the factors mentioned in section 12.8 of Chapter 5 of Traffic Signs Manual which influence decisions about considering box junctions:
“(vii) there should preferably not be a high proportion of right-turning traffic, since experience has shown that the effectiveness of the marking is reduced under these conditions.”
Just a few yards further from the junction, Barley Lane (B177) joins the road A12. This junction is controlled by traffic signals. It is obvious and from experience, these traffic lights always cause a tail back on both the lanes (Barley Lane and Chadwell Heath Lane). The council must instead look into alternative methods to effectively manage traffic flow at this junction. Below are some factors mentioned in section 12.8 of Chapter 5 of Traffic Signs Manual that influence decisions about considering box junctions:
(i)the junction should preferably, though not necessarily, be controlled by signals (see also para 12.3),
(ii)blocking back from a junction ahead should occur under existing conditions, even if only for short periods,
(iii)there should preferably be heavy traffic flows on both opposing arms of the junction. At unsignalled
Junctions with minor roads where blocking of the mouth of the minor road is infrequent, a KEEPCLEAR
marking (see paras 22.11to22.14) may be more appropriate,

I hope the council has addressed these issues before considering the box junction by conducting appropriate survey and obtained approval from Department for Transport if it was required. This box should be deemed as non-compliant if any survey to study the traffic pattern is not conducted or necessary approval is not obtained.

I kindly request you to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice as the contravention alleged by London Borough of Redbridge did not occur as I was forced to stop in the Yellow Box Junction by moving vehicles.
Sincerely
XXXXX
Attachments:
1. Penalty Charge Notice (Number XXXXXX) issued by London Borough of Redbridge
2. Email to Redbridge Council dated 12/04/2016 challenging the Penalty Charge Notice
3. Notice of Rejection from London Borough of Redbridge
4. Images of the contravention provided by London Borough of Redbridge – enlarged versions downloaded from Redbridge council website
5. Images of the junction
Mr Meldrew
You might want to change “especially the blue car” to “especially the approach of the blue car”, but not to worry.

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Mon, 30 May 2016 - 13:43) *
I subsequently decided to stop due to the approach (not presence which could connote being stationary, but approach which only means a moving) of a vehicle from my left. At no time was that vehicle stationary and as can be seen in the video (I presume) it continued and passed safely in front of me.

The blue car to the OP's left might have become stationary and signalled the OP to proceed in front of it to clear the box according to post #10. Nevertheless, it does seem that what in fact briefly brought his car to a halt in the box was the approach of this car (“approaching very fast” was the description in the OP's challenge).
Bagshot
I'm with Mortimer. This is a right turn at a T junction. There were no. nor could there be any oncoming vehicles. This is not the oncoming vehicle right turn exemption, it is simply the case that stationary vehicles did not block the exit.
DancingDad
After this part....
QUOTE
I would like to challenge the council's notice and appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator on the ground, “The contravention alleged by the Authority on the Penalty Charge Notice did not occur”.
Inlcude as a separate paragraph...
The contravention must include three parts to be proven.
The vehicle must enter the box. This happened.
The Vehicle must stop. This happened.
The stop must be due to stationary vehicles. This did not happen.

Then the rest of your wording, again, new paragraph.
Makes it a solid, firm statement.
Followed by the explanation.
jayant
Hi All

Thanks for your help in preparing my appeal. I have now submitted the appeal. I uploaded the documents mentioned in the previous posts and selected no further evidence to upload as I do not have any more evidence. I think the council will submit the video evidence as I was told at the council evidence that when an appeal is lodged the council will send copies to the adjudicator and me.

Hoping for the best now. The hearing is early July. I will post the results then.

Thanks again.
DancingDad
The video is the only evidence of this sort of contravention.
And first thing that an adjudicator will look at.
If council does not submit, you win,

Fingers crossed, be patient till July
On the day, bright and early, no rushing around at last minute
Relax and enjoy the experience.
Have your written appeal and any notes neat in a file.
Big letters on front of file
"No Stationary Vehicles"

Come back when the evidence pack arrives and ask any questions you are unsure of.
We would like to know how council deal with stopped due to moving so we can counter for the hearing if needed.
jayant
Hi All

The hearing is on 1st July but I have not received any documentation from the council. Is this something to worry about?
The email notification I received from the London Tribunals said, I should receive a copy of the council's evidence at least 3 days before the hearing date. Just want to check if they are not obliged to send it to me? Do they only send to the adjudicator?
It is still possible I receive it in next two days but I think that will be too late to read and prepare response accordingly. No chance of receiving today as today's post are already delivered unless council use couriers.

For the hearing, I will take copies of all the evidence I attached to my appeal. Do I need to take additional documentation with me? Please let me know.

Thanks

PASTMYBEST
2130259672

This is a personal appeal attended by the Appellant. The Enforcement Authority did not appear and was not represented. The Appellant told me that she had not received the Enforcement Authority's evidence pack until 5 July 2013, the day prior to this hearing. I noted that this had not seen despatched by them until 4 July 2013. It is the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to serve evidence by first class post on the Appellant at their correspondence address, so that it would in the ordinary course of post arrive no later than 4 days before the hearing. Compliance with this requirement means that the Appellant will have advance notice of the Enforcement Authority's case, and be in a position to decide what evidence to call and submissions to make. I am satisfied that she had had insufficient time having only first seen the evidence when she returned home from work. I will allow the appeal. I make my decision having consulted the Chief Parking Adjudicator's Practice Direction of 16th April 2008.
I have not considered the appeal on its merits.



If no case file received from the authority then you should win by default
jayant
Thanks for the reply.

I did not receive the council evidence pack in today's post as well. Tomorrow is the hearing. So there is no chance of preparing the response if I receive it tomorrow. Can I press on this if asked to justify my position during the hearing. Of course I will provide details of my appeal statement.

Please let me know.

Thanks
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (jayant @ Thu, 30 Jun 2016 - 12:33) *
Thanks for the reply.

I did not receive the council evidence pack in today's post as well. Tomorrow is the hearing. So there is no chance of preparing the response if I receive it tomorrow. Can I press on this if asked to justify my position during the hearing. Of course I will provide details of my appeal statement.

Please let me know.

Thanks



Yep as in any judicial procceedings you have to be given adequate notice of the case against you, A criminal trial may well be adjourned, but for the amount involved here that is not really cost efficient nor practical. If the adjudicator is minded to adjourn, press this point
Mr Meldrew
+1 posts #39, #41
Relax and enjoy your day smile.gif
Neil B
216023784A

It doesn't hurt to let us know?

Well done though.
jayant
Sure, I just logged in to inform this fantastic community but you guys are ahead of me. The case reference is correct. Below is the reason from the adjudicator to allow the appeal.

"The allegation in this case is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. However, this alleged contravention is very difficult if not impossible to prove without moving footage and the Enforcement Authority have not provided me with a copy of enforcement camera footage. I have not been able to access the footage on the Enforcement Authority website. I note that the Tribunal only received an evidence bundle yesterday and that the Appellant is yet to receive his copy. The Appellant attended the hearing in this case and in all the circumstances it would not be appropriate to allow the Enforcement Authority a further opportunity to establish their case. Accordingly I allow the appeal."

Once again I would like to thanks to all the members for their fantastic suggestions.
Mad Mick V
Well done.

The Council has escaped a peer review by the adjudicator by faffing around with its evidence pack.

My view on this YBJ is that it remains a "honey trap" and that most people turning right, like the OP, do so legally. The fact that this is camera enforced reinforces this opinion.

Mick
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 © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.