This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators allowing appeals due to inadequate video
Video doesn't show entry
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2140459984
Deidre M Vining
London Borough of Enfield
06 Aug 2014 14:13:00
Green Lanes N13 / Sidney Avenue
04 Dec 2014
Teresa Brennan
Appeal allowed
Mrs Vining appeals as the registered keeper of the car. Her husband Basil Vining was the driver on 6th August 2014. Mr Vining states that traffic was flowing as he approached the box junction and his exit was clear. The traffic unexpectedly stopped and so Mr Vining states that he stopped his car partly within the box.
The contravention occurs if a person causes 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. The Enforcement Authority does not have to prove that the vehicle caused any obstruction to other road users. The box junction is indicated by the yellow cross hatch road markings. There is no requirement for any signs.
The CCTV footage does not show the appellant's car as it drives into the box. The footage does not show the whole of the box. The car stops partly in the box junction. There is space in front of the appellant's car before the vehicle in front. I find that it is not clear from the footage whether there was insufficient room to enable Mr Vining to drive out of the box. I am not satisfied that the car was stopped in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
I allow this appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220879113
Vanessa Clare Mason
Transport for London
28 Sep 2022 17:18:00
HOLLOWAY RD / DRAYTON PARK
20 Jan 2023
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
This is an alleged box junction contravention. The driver says that his exit lane was not blocked when he entered the box. The authority's video footage of the incident, which I have viewed, shows the vehicle when within the box but it does not show the vehicle entering it. Having regard to the wording of this contravention I cannot be satisfied on that footage that the contravention occurred. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220938857
Shafiq Shahnaz
Transport for London
05 Oct 2022 15:23:00
GREAT WEST RD / WINDMILL RD
04 Dec 2014
26 Jan 2023
Appeal allowed
Mr Mohammad Shafiq has attended the hearing today as the authorised representative of Mrs Shahnaz.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited.
Paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that a person must not 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. It is an offence to enter the box without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to stationary vehicles in front.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case. The footage begins with Mrs Shahnaz's car already stationary within the box. There is a truck stationary beyond the box with insufficient space for another vehicle to exit. Mrs Shahnaz says that the box was clear when her car entered.
The footage does not show the position when the car entered the box or how the truck came to enter the left hand lane of travel before it stopped. It is not clear to me from the footage that the exit from the box was blocked at the point of entry and I am not satisfied that the alleged contravention occurred.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220844855
Aleksandr Anikejenko
Transport for London
16 Sep 2022 16:26:46
E India Dock Rd/St Leonards Rd (E)
15 Dec 2022
Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal allowed
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 Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device). There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
However, the cctv evidence produced by the Enforcement Authority does not show the Appellant’s vehicle before or even just as it enters the box junction. It is already in it.
Although the vehicle had to stop partially within the box junction, I cannot therefore determine the position when the vehicle actually entered the box.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering all the evidence that is before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220736218
East London Bus & Coach Co
London Borough of Waltham Forest
16 Aug 2022 11:38:00
Hoe Street / Selborne Rd
22 Nov 2022
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
This is an alleged box junction contravention this vehicle being a bus. The council relies upon its video footage of the incident to prove its case. That footage does not show the bus's exit lane on its entry to the box. There is subsequently a very brief glimpse of it but I am not satisfied on that footage that the council has proved that the bus stopped in contravention of the prohibition, and I allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2210892385
Rebecca King
London Borough of Lewisham
02 Nov 2021 07:47:00
Baring Rd / Chinbrook Rd
26 Jan 2022
Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal allowed
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 Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device). There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
However, for some reason in this case the cctv evidence produced by the Enforcement Authority does not show the Appellant’s vehicle before or even just as it enters the box junction. It is already in it at the start of the sequence.
Although the vehicle had to stop within the box junction, I cannot therefore determine the position when the vehicle actually entered the box.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220279932
Kayla Griffiths
London Borough of Lewisham
03 Mar 2022 16:12:00
Thurston Rd / Jerrard Street
19 May 2022
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
Miss Griffiths 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 in Thurston Road at 4.12pm on 3 March 2022.
Paragraph 11(1) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 states that a person must not 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. It is an offence to enter the box without a clear exit and to then stop in the box due to stationary vehicles in front.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case. Having played the footage a number of times, it does not show Miss Griffiths’ car entering the box. The footage begins with the car already travelling through the box. I am, therefore, unable to see whether or not there was a clear exit for the car at the point of entry into the box. I accept Miss Griffiths’ evidence that a car pulled out from the junction to the right to block her exit and that this was the cause of her car stopping in the box. There was clearly a space beyond the box before this other vehicle pulled out but I am unable to tell what the space was at the point when Miss Griffiths’ car entered the box. I am not satisfied from the evidence that the alleged contravention occurred.
Video doesn't show exit
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2190074256
Sarah Cerbone
Transport for London
27 Jul 2018 17:42:00
Great Cambridge Rd
21 Mar 2019
Carl Teper
Appeal allowed
The Appellant and Mr Cerbone have attended this appeal.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Great Cambridge Road on 27 July 2018 at 17.42.
The Appellant and her husband deny the contravention.
I have considered the evidence and I have watched the CCTV footage a number of times and I find as follows.
First, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's exit was clear when the vehicle entered this box junction.
Second, I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the vehicle to their left prevented them from exiting the box junction by moving into the path their vehicle was taking.
Third, I find that the CCTV footage is unsatisfactory in that it doe not provide a clear view of the exit of this box junction at the crucial time.
Fourth, in light of the deficiencies in the CCTV footage I find that this contravention is not proved.
Taking these matters together I find that this Penalty Charge Notice cannot be upheld.
The appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220904709
Gelu Miah
Transport for London
09 Oct 2022 14:29:00
CITY RD / PROVOST ST
27 Jan 2023
Edward Houghton
Appeal allowed
Although the CCTV shows clearly enough the vehicle stopping in
the junction there is no evidence to show that it did so as a result of the presence
of a stationary vehicle, which is what is required for a contravention to occur.
The state of the traffic ahead of the Appellant’s vehicle cannot be seen. I am therefore
not satisfied a contravention is sufficiently proved and the Appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220797948
James Mason
Transport for London
27 Aug 2022 13:13:43
KEW BRIDGE RD / KEW RD
14 Dec 2022
Teresa Brennan
Appeal allowed
Mr Mason states that on 27th August Brentford FC had a home match. He states that when he drove into the box his exit was clear but he was stopped by Marshalls.
The contravention occurs if a person causes 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. The Enforcement Authority does not have to prove that the vehicle caused any obstruction to other road users.
The CCTV footage shows the appellant’s car drive into the box junction a short distance behind another vehicle. The car stops in the box. I find that it is insufficiently clear from the footage why the vehicle had to stop. The footage does not show whether there was a stationary car ahead of the appellant’s car that caused the vehicle to be unable to exit the box.
I allow this appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
220002249A
Michael Crowdy
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
05 Dec 2019 10:08:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
13 Feb 2020
Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal allowed
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 Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device). There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
Mr Crowdy’s case is that he could see the automatic traffic signal ahead had changed to the green phase and traffic had started moving. Mr Crowdy continues that as he started to move his vehicle forward another vehicle cut in front of his, leaving insufficient space for his own vehicle to clear the box. Mr Crowdy has produced dashcam footage which he submits shows this.
The Enforcement Authority’s images clearly show Mr Crowdy’s vehicle entering this box junction marking but because of the angle of the camera and the heavy traffic at the location, it is not possible to determine whether at that moment there was sufficient room for the vehicle to exit. It is certainly the case that the red vehicle does then enter the box and move ahead and in front of Mr Crowdy’s vehicle.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly this appeal must be allowed.
Video unclear
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220849043
Jessica Ampah
Transport for London
03 Aug 2022 16:34:11
KEW BRIDGE RD / KEW RD
17 Jan 2023
Gerald Styles
Appeal allowed
This is a yellow box case where the principal TfL evidence is the CCTV clip submitted to me.
On file I have seen an email from the appellant to this tribunal dated 30 December regarding telephone calls in connection with the adjudication. I have understood a tribunal email was thereafter sent to the appellant apologising for any confusion caused. I do not consider it appropriate or necessary to deal further with confusion arising.
Now the actual adjudication itself has been reached I have examined the CCTV evidence and read handwritten grounds of appeal on what appears to be an undated appeal form. I have examined also marked up photographs from the appellant.
The appellant objection to the PCN on account of it specifying three named locations is legally ill-founded. There is no rule requiring specification of a single road as alleged location. The inclusion of the three stated roads actually is likely to assist the PCN recipient I believe in recalling and identifying where recorded.
TfL with its case summary correctly summarises the law and it is true that a motorist who enters a yellow box with out first identifying a clear and sufficient space the far side on the intended exit, runs the risk of a valid penalty charge if traffic does not move as expected.
On the particular facts of this case however I have decided to record the appeal as allowed. The reasons for the appellant stopping are somewhat ambiguous and difficult to interpret on the clip and I have not been sufficiently satisfied the stop arose from stationary vehicles blocking the appellant intended path and exit.
I have recorded this present appeal as allowed on the basis of insufficient evidence.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220942366
Pir Ahmed
Transport for London
04 Nov 2022 04:48:12
CITY RD / PROVOST ST
08 Feb 2023
Alastair Mcfarlane
Appeal allowed
The Enforcement Authority’s case is that the Appellant’s vehicle entered the box junction in City Road and then stopped in the junction owing to stationary traffic impeding its exit from the box.
I have carefully considered the CCTV evidence that the Authority has provided. The copy of the footage served on the Tribunal is of very poor quality and the vast majority of it is so dark that it is evidentially valueless.
The CCTV footage is crucial in proving this contravention and is the best evidence. I do not think it proportionate to adjourn this case to give the Authority a further opportunity of providing a better copy.
On the information before me, I cannot be satisfied that the Authority has proved the contravention and accordingly the appeal must be allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220847751
Odan Theobalds
Transport for London
01 Sep 2022 08:25:13
ELTHAM RD / SIDCUP RD
20 Dec 2022
Belinda Pearce
Appeal allowed
A Personal Appeal Hearing was scheduled for 10 a.m. today, 20th December 2022; the Appellant did not attend therefore it falls to me now to determine this matter on the evidence, presently before me, adduced by both parties.
The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle 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 his written representations.
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 the applicable carriageway markings notifying motorists of the prohibition.
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 contemporaneous photographic capture was examined (repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
At the point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice I cannot determine that the said vehicle has been caused to stop by the presence of stationary vehicles; I know not if any vehicles ahead of the said vehicle are stationary since the traffic is obscured by a lorry. The only visible impediment to the said vehicle's progress is a pedestrian running across the carriageway at the automatic traffic signal.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the alleged contravention is proved, accordingly the Appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
222076703A
Oliver O'Mahony
Transport for London
26 Jun 2022 15:12:00
Archway Rd / Jacksons Lane
21 Dec 2022
Alastair Mcfarlane
Appeal allowed
The Enforcement Authority’s case is that the Appellant’s vehicle entered the box junction in New Archway Road and then stopped in the junction owing to stationary traffic impeding its exit from the box at 15.12.
The Appellant states that "the moment my brake lights turn off my car begins to move, there is a clear exit to the box junction straight ahead of my car". In addition, he contends that it is only the "later actions" of the cars entering the junction from a different direction that block his exit. He also refers to the vehicles changing lanes and it was only the movement of vehicles entering the box junction from the other direction closed the clear lane to be blocked.
Th Authority relies upon its CCTV footage.
I have opened the CCTV foota submitted by the Authority, but it refers to 26 August 2022 and not 26 June and does not show the Appellant's vehicle. The Authority has submitted the wrong footage. The moving images are the best evidence and I have not seen them in relation to this alleged contravention in this case. I do not consider it proportionate to adjourn the matter to give the Authority a further opportunity of serving the correct evidence.
Accordingly, the appeal must be allowed.
Video doesn't show VRM
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220806084
Geoffrey Cox
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
21 Sep 2022 19:47:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
16 Dec 2022
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
The contravention alleged by the council is that this vehicle at 19:47 on the relevant date entered and stopped in this box junction when prohibited. On the council's video footage of the incident, which I have viewed, three vehicles are stationery on box junction markings at 19:47. No registration plates are visible. I note the image taken from the footage of the appellant's plate but I have been unable to cross reference that image with any of the vehicles shown on the footage. I am not accordingly satisfied that the council has proved this contravention and I allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220729904
John McCool
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
09 Aug 2022 20:52:00
Uxbridge Rd / Holland Park
18 Nov 2022
Anju Kaler
Appeal allowed
The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The Appellant says the photographs do not show the numberplate of his vehicle. The CCTV footage shows a grey vehicle start to drive from one side of the box and drive into the box junction and stop within its confines. The council relies on a snapshot close up of the footage timed at 20:52:13.835 with a numberplate GJ69TKZ. The video recording does not show any stationary vehicles in the box at this precise time.
The Authority has not proved that this contravention occurred.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220643387
Benjamin Thanggoumang Guite
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
22 Jun 2022 16:48:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
22 Oct 2022
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
This is an alleged box junction contravention. On the council's video footage of the incident at least five vehicles are shown to enter and stop in the box. No vehicle registration marks are visible. On the PCN images vehicle registration marks are not clearly visible. I am not satisfied on this evidence that the council has proved its case and I allow the appeal.