This page is for subscribers only.We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators ruling that drivers couldn't see the box
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2210592927
David Nyman
London Borough of Barnet
05 Aug 2021 15:56:00
High Street / Wood Street
03 Nov 2021
Gerald Styles
Appeal allowed
During the hearing arranged for 3 November I heard from the appellant's representative Mr Dishman. Neither the appellant himself nor any Council representative participated in the telephone call.
It was a yellow box case.
At the hearing stage the critical issue boiled down to the wear of and consequent visibility of surface markings of the yellow box. Affecting visibility also was a quite distinctive fall in the road. I have take into account weather and light conditions at the time.
The appellant entered the box having driven up to it with St John the Baptist parish church on his left. He failed to clear the box satisfactorily and stopped just short of its far edge where there was a stationary car directly ahead of his. I judged that he could have nonetheless left the box rather than halted but I have put that point on one side.
Crucial as evidence in the case was the recorded footage taken by Mr Dishman from his handlebar camera. I understood this to have been taken a couple of months later. I regarded this footage as useful in interpreting the Council evidence including its CCTV clip. I decided the important far perimeter of the box and the hatchings directly before it would have been quite indistinct to the appellant when driving the car as he did.
I have thus regarded the particular evidence in this case as insufficient to uphold the penalty charge claimed. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2180484193
The Entirety Partnership LLP
Transport for London
19 Jul 2018 13:45:00
Purley Way
21 Jan 2019
Edward Houghton
Appeal allowed
The Appellant LLP was represented by the driver of the vehicle, Mrs Hooper. Her case is, in summary, that the box junction markings were insufficiently clear, as evidnced by the fact that they have subsequently been repainted.
In the light of the photographs I agree with her. The markings are visible in the CCTV images, taken from a high angle, but even there are seen to be much worn The very clear photograph of the junction taken at motorist’s-eye level gives a very different impression, only vestiges of the markings being visible. In my judgement, on the facts, the markings had deteriorated beyond the point at which they could be said to be even substantially compliant (applying the test of the Court of Appeal in Herron) with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. It follows that no contravention occurred and thetas it transpires the PCN was incorrectly issued.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2080740183
Michael James Parry
Transport for London
05 Sep 2008 07:43:00
Bowes Rd / Brownlow Rd
19 Mar 2009
Edward Houghton
Appeal allowed
The law on box junctions is correctly summarised in the Highway Code to the effect that a vehicle should not ( whether in a line e of moving traffic or not) enter the junction at all unless and until there is clear space already available on the opposite side into which the vehicle can then move. The fact that the Appellant entered the junction on a green light or in a line of traffic would in normal circumstances not avail him. However his case is in part that owing to a combination of poor weather conditions and worn road markings it was not possible from a driving position to see clearly where the junction ended and thus to make the judgement requires as to whether it was safe to move across.
Having viewed the video evidence with great care I am on balance just persuaded by the Appellant's argument. It is true that the road markings on the far side of the box are fairly worn; and although I have not seen any reason to allow any of the considerable number of appeals I regularly hear involving this junction on such a basis, it does seem to me that the weather conditions here could well make the difference between markings being worn but adequate and worn and inadequate. Although the decision is perhaps a marginal one on the particular facts of this case I am not satisfied the signage i.e. the road markings were sufficiently clear for their purpose and I therefore allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2080792427
Colin Bryan
Transport for London
21 Oct 2008 16:47:00
Peck High Street/Peck Bus Station
20 Mar 2009
Edward Houghton
Appeal allowed
Having heard the Appellant ion person in some detail I see no reason to doubt his evidence( which is consistent with what is seen in the video) that on entering the junction he marginally misjudged the length of the space which was at that moment clear for his vehicle on the other side. He describes how the sun was shining directly in his eyes; and taking his evidence in the context of what is shown in the video it seems to me it can be said he entered the junction with a belief that was perfectly reasonable in the circumstances that he would clear the junction.
The video moreover shows that the vehicle ended up in the junction to the most marginal extent and in my view the intrusion into the junction falls to be treated as de minimis.
For both reasons I am not satisfied the vehicle was, on the particular facts, in contravention and the appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
221084559A
Davey Armstrong
Transport for London
16 Oct 2021 17:16:03
Gt Cambridge Rd/Bullsmoor La
08 Jan 2022
Jack Walsh
Appeal allowed
Mr. Armstrong raised the point in his representations to the enforcement authority (EA) that the markings of the box junction were significantly abraded. It is quite clear upon viewing the CCTV footage that he is correct. The box junction is a relatively long one and it is essential that a motorist who is about to enter the box junction is able to see the parameters of the box junction and, in particular, the far side to which s/he is heading. In this case there is substantial abrasion to the markings at the far side of the box junction and also to the offside (right). Mr. Armstrong makes the further point, with which I also agree, that the angle of the CCTV camera in fact provides a more favourable view of the markings than would be apparent to a driver on the ground. I do not find that the markings of the box junction in question are substantially compliant with the requirements in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. In those circumstances the alleged contravention is not proved.
I further add that, although it is not relevant in this case, that the CCTV footage did not show the entry of the vehicle into the box junction. In another case, where the issues are different, the lack of direct evidence as to the circumstances in which the vehicle entered the box junction may prove determinative.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220071013
Ahmet Gazioglu
Transport for London
22 Nov 2021 18:11:49
Gt Cambridge Rd/Bullsmoor La
24 Feb 2022
Belinda Pearce
Appeal allowed
The Appellant, M attended a Personal Hearing before me on 2020 to explain his contention personally.
The Enforcement Authority assert that vehicle LR20GZN entered and stopped on a location subject to an operative restriction denoted by yellow cross-hatching, such demarcation indicating a prohibition against a vehicle remaining stationary within the defined area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenges as stated in his written representations, supported by photographic capture,which he reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.
The prohibition, as set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2016 prohibits vehicles (or parts there-of) from becoming stationary or stopping within the cross-hatched area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such prohibitions.
No signage (advance warning or otherwise) is requisite since the cross-hatching itself communicates the prohibition.
There is no requirement that the vehicle be causing an obstruction.
There is no minimum period since a vehicle is in contravention immediately it is stationary.
There is no minimum portion of a vehicle since any stationary part thereof is subject to contravention.
The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice together with photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ and an image showing applicable carriageway markings notifying motorists of the prohibition.
The Appellant contends the contrary; namely that the carriageway markings are not as apparent at the motorist's level as the camera angle suggests. Indeed the Appellant revisited the location upon receipt of the Penalty Charge Notice and provides images of the extent of the cross hatching discernible to the driver.
The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined (repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations and supporting photographic capture.
The Appellant described a sequence of events, and emphasised that his interpretation of the box was that it finished at a central point parallel with the traffic-flow islands.
I had the opportunity to assess and question the Appellant at the Hearing, I found the Appellant's evidence to be cogent and credible, and I accepted it in its entirety.
I acknowledge that portions of the internal cross-hatching are very worn; in light of the faded area I find the Appellant's interpretation to be reasonable.
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult signage, kerb lines and carriageway markings and comply with restrictions/prohibitions, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure that the signage, kerb lines and carriageway markings implementing the restrictions/prohibitions are adequate to communicate the nature and extent of the restriction or prohibition to motorists.
I do not find that to be the case in this instance.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2200098210
Scott Franklin
Transport for London
14 Jan 2020 16:05:00
Homerton High St / Wardle St
30 Mar 2020
Jack Walsh
Appeal allowed
Mr. Franklin appeals against a penalty charge notice issued in respect of an alleged ‘box junction’ contravention. Mr. Franklin’s argument related to the actions of another driver but, in the event, I did not need to hear Mr. Franklin’s evidence or argument on the point because I allowed his appeal on another ground. Mr. Franklin was not available for the hearing but, in the circumstances, that did not matter.
My concern on viewing the footage of the alleged contravention was that the markings on the carriageway were so faded and worn that they were no longer adequate to create an effective box junction.
In deciding this case on the evidence before me I have firmly in mind the principles in R v. Parking Adjudicator, ex parte Herron, Sunderland City Council Intervening [2001] EWCA Civ 905, by which I am bound. I have to consider whether there is substantial compliance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, and in particular with diagram 1043, namely item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 of Schedule 9 to those Regulations.
The CCTV camera shows two box junctions in succession on the road in question. The box junction nearer the camera is shown to be reasonably well marked. It is the further of the two box junctions, however, which is in issue in this case. The placement of the camera some distance away from that second box junction is a problem in itself, as the position of vehicles in and around the box junction (which is of crucial importance to whether a contravention occurred or not) is hard to discern.
The CCTV evidence does, however, show considerable degradation in the quality of the road markings, particularly in that part of the box junction relevant to this alleged contravention. The state of the markings appears considerably worse than that shown in the photograph of the box junction taken in August 2019. The effect of the wear on the markings is that, I find, a motorist about to enter the box junction would probably not be able to see the parameters of it. In particular, it is probably impossible to see the far boundary of the box junction so as to make a decision as to whether there is sufficient receiving space beyond that boundary to accommodate the entire vehicle. The motorist is therefore unable to ascertain if there is sufficient receiving space beyond the junction at the point s/he has to decide whether to enter the box junction. That seems to me to be fundamental. There is not substantial compliance with diagram 1043. An effective box junction has not been created and thus the contravention is not proved.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2210835789
Charmaine Edwards
Transport for London
02 Oct 2021 21:49:00
SOUTHERN ARM TARGET Rbt
06 Jan 2022
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
Miss Edwards has attended the hearing today in person.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The alleged contravention occurred on the Southern Arm Target Roundabout at 9.49pm on 2 October 2021.
I am allowing this appeal because I agree with Miss Edwards that the markings of the box junction have not been adequately maintained by TfL. Many of the lines are barely visible in the CCTV footage and it is impossible to clearly see the exit line from the box. It is essential that the perimeters of the box are clearly marked to enable the motorist to see when it is safe to enter the box. TfL says in the case summary that the fact that markings are not in a pristine condition does not mean that restrictions cease to apply. That is correct but the markings must be sufficiently clear to enable the restrictions to be clearly seen and I am satisfied that such was not the case on this occasion.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
213049855A
Simon Stockman
Transport for London
30 Aug 2013 17:53:00
Chelsea Em/Royal Hospital Rd
05 Dec 2013
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
Mr Stockman has appeared in person.
This PCN was issued for entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case. The footage shows that Mr Stockman's motor bike entered the box junction without having a clear exit and that it was then forced to stop within the box for some 13 seconds when the white van in front came to a halt. It is an offence for a vehicle to enter a box junction without a clear exit and to then stop within the box unless the vehicle is stopping to perform a right turn out of the box.
I am, however, allowing this appeal because, in my view, the markings of the box junction have not been adequately maintained by TfL. In particular, the exit line from the box in the lane in which Mr Stockman was travelling appears to have become very faded so that a motorist entering the box could have difficulty in properly gauging whether or not there was a clear exit. A motorist needs to be able to see clearly the line where the box ends in order to make an accurate assessment of when it is safe to enter the box. TfL cannot expect to enforce a PCN where box junction markings have not been adequately maintained.
I find for this reason that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
211055173A
James William Harris
Transport for London
04 Sep 2011 18:07:00
Archway Rd / Jacksons Ln
10 Nov 2011
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
I have reviewed the CCTV evidence in this case as well as the still images submitted by Mr Harris.
I am satisfied from the CCTV footage that Mr Harris' car did enter the box junction without a clear exit and that the car was forced to stop when the vehicle in front came to a halt.
I am, however, allowing this appeal because the markings of the box have not been properly maintained. In particular, from the point at which Mr Harris entered the box, the markings of the point of exit are so faint as to be barely visible. The motorist must be able to clearly see the box markings so as to be able to determine when it is safe to enter the box.
The Council cannot expect to enforce PCNs where the box markings are not properly maintained.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2180478543
Toyota GB PLC
London Borough of Redbridge
13 Oct 2018 17:34:00
High Rd
08 Jan 2019
Michel Aslangul
Appeal allowed
The main question to be considered is whether the authority has sufficiently complied with its duty to consider the representations and any supporting evidence from Mr Nelson, in particular whether Mr Nelson was at fault for the action that he took.
Mr Nelson has stated in the representations that: "Upon the green light filter, I could see a space into which I could move. It was only on proceeding into said space I realised the space may not have been entirely sufficient for my vehicle, but I was comfortable I was not affecting the passage of any other vehicle... ."
In its response the authority stated: ".... The purpose of box junctions is to keep busy junctions clear and free-flowing. If you are going straight across a box junction, you need to make sure you can cross it without stopping. If you are turning right and your exit road is clear, you may stop on a box junction while you wait for oncoming traffic to pass. We have looked again at the camera evidence, as well as considering your points in your letter, ... ."
I find as fact that: it was after Mr Nelson had already entered the box junction that he was able to acquire the knowledge that there was insufficient space on the left hand side for him to enter; Mr Nelson was not at fault for the action that he took.
The contravention is not one of strict or no fault liability
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has complied with its duty to consider Mr Nelson's representations because it has not taken into sufficient consideration the requirement that Mr Nelson needed to have prior knowledge of the unlawfulness of the fact that he stopped in the box junction.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220673355
Adam Schaffer
London Borough of Barnet
27 Jun 2022 17:22:00
Cricklewood Lane/superstore access Rd
29 Oct 2022
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
This is an alleged box junction contravention. My noting the appellant's submissions on the point I am not satisfied on the authority's contemporaneous video footage of the incident that box junction markings particularly at the far end of the box are sufficiently clear to render this box junction compliant or substantially so with the legal requirements and I accordingly find that this contravention has not been proved.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220092556
Paul Forbes
London Borough of Merton
26 Oct 2021 13:39:00
Cricket Green / Bramcote Avenue
04 Mar 2022
John Hamilton
Appeal allowed
I decided this appeal without having heard evidence from the authority or on behalf of the appellant.
I can only allow an appeal if the authority has acted unlawfully in some way.
The appellant says that the box junction markings were so badly faded the it was not possible for a reasonable drivers tell whether they were approaching the junction or whether they were on its own. The authority says that "the box junction markings, whilst possibly being a little faded, are adequate ...".
Having looked carefully at the CCTV footage, the authority's description of the markings would appear to be something of an understatement. Even on the CCTV footage they appear badly faded. Furthermore, as the appellant correctly pointed out, the CCTV may well not properly reflect what a driver on the ground can actually see.
In all the circumstances I have sufficient doubt in my mind as to whether the box junction road markings are adequately visible for me to be unable to find, on the balance of probabilities, that the authority has discharged its legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that motorists are made aware of traffic restrictions that it has imposed. Therefore I do not find the authority has shown that a contravention occurred.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220151950
Katerina Toghill
London Borough of Merton
18 Nov 2021 06:29:00
Kingston Rd / Dorset Rd
08 Apr 2022
Belinda Pearce
Appeal allowed
The Appellant attended a Personal Hearing before me on 8th April 2022 to explain her contention personally.
The Enforcement Authority assert that vehicle The Appellant, M attended a Personal Hearing before me on 2020 to explain his contention personally.
The Enforcement Authority assert that vehicle DA63VNS entered and stopped on a location subject to an operative restriction denoted by yellow cross-hatching, such demarcation indicating a prohibition against a vehicle remaining stationary within the defined area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge as comprehensively stated in her written representations, supported by photographic capture, which she reiterated and detailed at the Hearing.
The prohibition, as set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2016 prohibits vehicles (or parts there-of) from becoming stationary or stopping within the cross-hatched area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such prohibitions.
The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice together with photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ.
The contemporaneous footage was examined (repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations and images.
Although faint and patchy applicable carriageway markings are discernible from the camera angle, the Appellant contends and her images confirm, that such marks are not visible at the motorist's level.
The Appellant described a sequence of events, and emphasised the poor state of maintenance of the box junction at the material date but that it has been re0painted since; I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the same
Whilst it is incumbent upon a motorist to consult and comply with signage and/or carriageway/kerb indication, it is incumbent upon an enforcement authority to ensure that such signs/ carriageway/kerb lines are adequate to communicate the nature and extent of the restriction to motorists.
I do not find that to be the case in this instance.
Evidentially therefore I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
I register concern at the Enforcement Authority's statements in its Case Summary demonstrating that the author viewing the footage has referenced a different vehicle as the said vehicle; this demonstrates that the matter has not been properly considered which is tantamount to procedural impropriety.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220174220
Samirah Mamode
London Borough of Merton
20 Jan 2022 20:15:00
Streatham Rd / Graham Rd
15 Apr 2022
John Hamilton
Appeal allowed
I decided this appeal without hearing evidence.
I can only allow an appeal if the authority has acted unlawfully in some way.
The authority relies on CCTV evidence which it says shows the appellant's vehicle enter a box junction and stop within the junction because of the presence of stationary vehicles ahead of it.
The appellant initially made representations on the basis that the box junction markings were inadequately clear. However in her notice of appeal, she has made numerous lengthy submissions of varying legal merit. The authority has pointed out in its case summary that some of her submissions appear to relate to the wrong statutory provisions.
In my view the only real issue in this case was whether the box junction markings were clear enough to warn motorists of the restriction. The authority has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that motorists are aware of the restrictions in force on the roads that it is responsible for. In the case of box junctions this means that the road markings must be adequately clear.
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority is not of optimal quality. No file photographs or other evidence has been provided by the authority regarding how visible the road markings were. The CCTV footage is taken from an aerial view so I must take into account that it may not properly reflect what drivers on the ground are able to see. Equally, CCTV images may not reflect what the human eye can actually see. However, even the CCTV footage shows that the markings are badly faded and in in many places appear to be invisible. I am therefore not satisfied the authority has shown the road markings were clear enough to make motorist aware of the presence of the box junction. As already noted, the road markings are badly faded and difficult to see and I find it reasonable to infer that they would be even more difficult to see at night even with street lighting.
The burden of proof is on the local authority. On the evidence available, I am not satisfied it is shown that the road markings would have been adequately visible to the driver of the appellant's vehicle. I am therefore not satisfied it has discharged its legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure motorists were aware of the box junction restriction. I am therefore not satisfied it has shown that a contravention occurred and I must allow this appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220176011
Caroline Gomm
London Borough of Merton
04 Dec 2021 14:07:00
London Rd / Broadway Gardens
29 Apr 2022
John Hamilton
Appeal allowed
I decided this appeal without hearing evidence.
I can only allow an appeal if the authority has acted unlawfully in some way.
The authority has a legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure the box junction markings are sufficiently clear to make motorists aware of the restriction. The CCTV evidence shows that the box junction markings that would have been visible to the driver of the appellant's vehicle were very badly faded indeed. I am not satisfied a reasonable motorist could be expected to have seen them. The more visible markings on the left hand side of the junction are not likely to have been visible to the driver of the appellant's vehicle because they were obscured by the vehicles to the left of the of the appellant's vehicle.
I am therefore not satisfied the authority has shown that it discharged its legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure motorists have adequate warning of the box junction restriction and allow the appeal on that basis.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220366877
Geoffrey Whyne
London Borough of Merton
21 Feb 2022 08:01:00
Cricket Green / Bramcote Ave
02 Jul 2022
John Hamilton
Appeal allowed
I decided this appeal without having heard evidence from the authority or from the appellant. I can only allow an appeal over the authority has acted unlawfully by failing to comply with road traffic law or follow its own procedures.
The authority relies on CCTV evidence which shows the appellant's vehicle enter and stop within a box junction because of the presence of stationary vehicles out of it.
The appellant says that the box junction road markings were badly maintained and so faded that it was not reasonable to expect him to see them.
The CCTV evidence shows that the box junction road markings were very badly faded. I take into account that the level of visibility shown in CCTV footage and photographs will not necessarily reflect the reality for drivers on the ground.
The burden of proof is on the authority to show that It discharge its legal duty to ensure the box junction road markings were adequately visible so the motorists were aware of its presence.
On the basis of the evidence provided, I am not satisfy the authority has done this. I am therefore not satisfied it is shown that contravention occurred or that it was acting lawfully by issuing and enforcing this penalty charge notice.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220809854
Yilmaz Orman
London Borough of Barnet
23 Sep 2022 15:51:00
High Street / St Albans Rd
21 Dec 2022
Teresa Brennan
Appeal allowed
One issue that the appellant raises is the adequacy of the box junction markings.
I have seen the CCTV footage. It is not of very good quality. The local authority does not provide any site photographs. I find that the box junction markings are very faded. I also find that the boundaries of the box are not clearly delineated and the view of the boundary for a motorist turning right into the box.
I am not satisfied on the evidence I have seen that the box junction is clearly marked. I allow this appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220908663
Rory Cooney
London Borough of Barnet
10 Nov 2022 08:02:00
Cricklewood Lane/Superstore access Rd
28 Jan 2023
Jack Walsh
Appeal allowed
I viewed the CCTV evidence with Mr. Cooney's ground of appeal in mind. At the point that his vehicle entered the box junction it was clear that the vehicle to his right had already moved off and was turning right and would inevitably occupy the last 'receiving space' beyond the box junction. I would have found, therefore, that it would have been in Mr. Cooney's power to prevent what would have been a contravention of the requirements of a box junction by not entering the box junction until there was such a 'receiving space' beyond it
However, the CCTV footage also shows that the marking of the box junction was very significantly abraded. Although it appears that some water droplets on the CCTV camera might have partially obscured the view of parts of the box junction, that does not appear to be the case in respect of the far side and right side of the box junction. It is essential for the proper functioning of a box junction that a motorist who is contemplating entering the box junction must be able to identify the parameters of it and, in particular, the exit from the box junction. In this case, the markings intended to show the far and right boundary to the box junction are so abraded that they no longer serve that purpose effectively. I do not find, on the balance of probabilities that, on the occasion in question, the markings of the box junction were substantially compliant with the requirements of the relevant regulations.
In those circumstances I do not find the contravention proved.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220712151
Charles Addo
London Borough of Barnet
26 Jun 2022 12:58:00
Cricklewood Lane/Superstore access Rd
23 Nov 2022
Philippa Alderson
Appeal allowed
The Appellant is appealing a Penalty Charge Notice issued in respect of entering and stopping in a box junction at the above location.
The Appellant has attended today and given evidence.
The Enforcement Authority relies upon CCTV footage of the incident, together with a copy of the PCN.
The Appellant disputes the allegation.
I have carefully considered all the evidence in this matter.
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle entered the box junction and then stopped in the junction owing to stationary traffic impeding its exit from the box. Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction marking conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box marking due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.
The CCTV evidence that the Authority has provided shows the Appellant's vehicle entering the junction before sufficient "receiving" space ahead is available. By the time he is approximately half way across the box, his exit path appears to be sufficiently clear. However, a white van then pulls out ahead of him into the receiving space into his path.
It appears from the CCTV footage that this box junction is relatively lengthy. It is difficult to discern from the footage what a driver's eye view would look like, but I note that the exit line of the box is considerably faded as is the righthand top corner of the box. I find that this could compromise a driver's assessment of the space available to him on the far side of the box. When the Appellant drove onto the box, there was no vehicle ahead of him on the box - the vehicle ahead of him had already exited and there was a space on the far side of the box, albeit it appears from the footage that this was not long enough, at that point, for his vehicle to fit into. I find that on the day in question, the markings at the far side of the box were not sufficiently clear and on this basis, I allow this appeal.