This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators ruling that drivers did not stop due to stationary vehicles
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2160252038
alan branch
London Borough of Waltham Forest
24 Apr 2016 16:44:00
Hall Lane/Albert Crescent
11 Jul 2016
Gerald Styles
Appeal allowed
The appellant attended the hearing arranged for 11 July.
The Council did not send a representative.
The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
221088392A
Yahya Ali Omar
Transport for London
04 Jun 2021 23:02:00
Bishopsgate/ Liverpool Street
25 Feb 2022
Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal allowed
The Order of the County Court revoked the Order for Recovery and cancelled the Charge Certificate but it did not cancel the original Penalty Charge Notice, as clearly stated on the face of the Order.
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.
The Appellant’s case, as set out in his original representations to the Enforcement Authority, is that he recalled that as he attempted to turn left into Liverpool Street, drunk pedestrians walked across in front of my cab, forcing him to stop. The Appellant also said that Liverpool Street was blocked with cars that I could not see until I was performed to the manoeuvre.
The images do show that the vehicle did enter this box junction marking and then had to stop within the box but due to the presence of crossing pedestrians rather than a stationary vehicle.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I do not find 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
2190021486
Jaydee Brook Limited
Transport for London
17 Oct 2018 08:32:00
Edgware Rd
18 Feb 2019
Caroline Hamilton
Appeal allowed
Neither party attended the hearing of this appeal, that I have determined on the evidence submitted.
The CCTV evidence shows the vehicle stationary with rear wheels infringing the marked box junction.
The CCTV evidence suggests that traffic lights had changed to red and pedestrians had started to cross the road in front of the subject vehicle, causing it to come to a halt.
The motorist advises that vehicles ahead had collided, but there is no evidence demonstrating that the subject vehicle's exit was blocked by the presence of another vehicle(s), (rather than it having come to a halt to give way to pedestrians) as is required to prove the elements of this contravention.
From the evidence before me, I cannot be satisfied that the enforcement authority's evidence meets the two limbs of the prohibition as required.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2140345227
Katy Wong
Royal Borough of Kingston
16 May 2014 07:58:00
Richmond Rd
28 Aug 2014
Jane Anderson
Appeal allowed
I have heard the appellant in person who I find an honest and credible witness. The Authority did not appear and was not represented.
The Enforcement Authority has provided CCTV footage.
The appellant claims that she stopped briefly for a pedestrian to cross and then moved forwards out of the box.
The Regulations provide "…no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles."
I find as fact that the vehicle did not stop in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The vehicle stopped for a pedestrian to cross. The vehicle then moved out of the junction. I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2190533830
Kerrar Al-Khayat
London Borough of Brent
01 Oct 2019 15:22:00
East Lane
06 Feb 2020
Michael Burke
Appeal allowed
The Appellant attended the personal hearing in this case.
The allegation on the face of the PCN in this case is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is more properly stated in terms that:
‘no person shall cause a vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles’.
The Appellant questions whether he stopped in the box junction and asserts that, even if he did stop, this was not because he had to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles. He also argues that the PCN is non-compliant in that the description of location is insufficiently precise, stating only ‘East Lane’ which is a long road.
In addition to the description ‘East Lane’ the PCN has 2 photographs on its face, one of which clearly shows the box junction in a way which makes it readily identifiable. If this were not sufficient, the photograph is annotated ‘East Ln/Llanover Rd.’ I am satisfied that the location is sufficiently precise and the PCN substantially compliant.
The enforcement camera DVD shows a poor piece of driving. I am satisfied the Appellant entered the box junction when he had no good reason to believe he would be able to clear the box junction without stopping. He appears to have realised this and stopped but by then I am satisfied his vehicle was already in the box junction. The Appellant did therefore commit the mischief which the box junction attempts to prevent. However, it was the decision to stop which was a poor one rather than the decision to enter. I have considered the footage carefully and I do not feel able to say I am satisfied that the Appellant had to stop in the box junction ‘due to the presence of stationary vehicles’. Although only by good fortune for the Appellant, in these circumstances the regulation is not contravened and accordingly I allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2100587300
NBE Services
Transport for London
15 Oct 2010 11:32:00
Battersea Rise
01 Feb 2011
Jennifer Shepherd
Appeal allowed
The facts as related by the appellant, the driver, and what is disclosed by the CCTV recording appear to tally.
The CCTV recording shows the vehicle at the point of entering this box junction following traffic in front, which has almost reached the exit side of the junction. At 11.32.03 the driver stops the vehicle, whilst the traffic in front is still moving, obviously having perceived that his exit is not yet clear.
This appears to accord with what the appellant implies in his representations - that he had stopped because the exit was not clear. The evidence shows that the vehicle remains stationary even while the traffic in front and from the joining road, keeps moving, in obeisance of the by now red signal.
It is shown that the vehicle was stopped with 2 wheels over the edge of the box, but, as can clearly be seen in the recording and as Mr Brodie points out, he could not reverse to rectify this because he would have put pedestrians on the crossing behind him at risk.
The prohibition conveyed by marking 1043 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 is that 'no person shall cause a vehicles to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles'.
In this case I conclude that the reason for the vehicle stopping was not in this instance, stationary vehicles, but the driver's correct perception that the exit was not clear were he to proceed.
In those circumstances the appeal must be allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220864364
Helen Haynes
Transport for London
21 Sep 2022 13:28:29
GREAT WEST RD / WINDMILL RD
22 Dec 2022
Anju Kaler
Appeal allowed
This appeal was listed for a telephone hearing. I spoke to Mrs Haynes. The Enforcement Authority relied on the evidence submitted in advance.
The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 9 Part 7 paragraph 11. This provides as follows.
11(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 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 junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
The footage shows the vehicle make a left turn behind another vehicle and the rear two wheels then stop within the confines of the yellow box behind the vehicle in front.
The Appellant says he could not see the state of the traffic lights where the car in front had stopped before he made the turn. The lights have a grill on them.
I agree with the Appellant. The lights in Windmill Lane changed to green in her favour. The street layout and the grill on the traffic lights after the turn make it difficult if not impossible to see the colour before making the turn. There was no way of assessing that the car in front would stop. The Appellant’s vehicle had to stop because of the red traffic lights and these could not be seen prior to the turn.
I allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220255661
Shivaji Joy
Transport for London
22 Feb 2022 15:21:00
FIRE STATION LEWISHAM HIGH ST
21 May 2022
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
Mr Joy 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 Lewisham High Street at 3.21pm on 22 February 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. This shows that Mr Joy’s car followed another car into the box so that there was no clear exit for his vehicle at the point of entry. Mr Joy’s car then stopped with almost all of the vehicle in the box for 8 seconds. The car in front exited the box and stopped briefly in traffic, leaving insufficient space for an exit by another vehicle.
Mr Joy says that there was an emergency services vehicle which caused him to brake and stop partially in the box. The footage shows a police vehicle coming from the opposite direction.
I have found Mr Joy to be an honest witness. I accept his evidence that the cause of him braking and stopping was the police vehicle. Mr Joy has explained that he uses this route regularly and that, had it been a case of the exit from the box being blocked without the oncoming police vehicle, he would simply have continued through the box and taken the left turn.
Although Mr Joy’s car entered the box with no clear exit in the expectation of a continuing flow of traffic through a green light, I find that the actual cause of the vehicle stopping was not stationary traffic but the police vehicle. It may be that there was no necessity for the car to have stopped but that does not change the reason for which Mr Joy braked and stopped. I therefore find that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2210807670
Loseka Wangu
Transport for London
25 Sep 2021 13:31:02
FIRE STATION LEWISHAM HIGH ST
08 Jan 2022
Jack Walsh
Appeal allowed
I had the benefit of hearing Mr. Wangu's evidence and I asked him a number of questions to clarify his reasons for stopping, and his intentions.
For the enforcement authority (EA) to prove its case, it must prove that the reason Mr. Wangu's vehicle stopped in the box junction was due to the presence of stationary vehicles and not for any other reason. Mr. Wangu's case is that the reason he stopped in the box junction was because a fire engine was in the process of leaving the fire station to his nearside and he wanted to give way to it. Indeed, it is quite clear that the very purpose of the box junction at this location is to permit unhindered egress for fire engines.
There is no dispute that Mr. Wangu's vehicle did indeed stop in the box junction, as the CCTV footage shows. There were, in effect, two lanes of traffic on the side of the carriageway in question. Mr. Wangu's vehicle was in the offside (right) of those two lanes. The CCTV footage shows that, at the time Mr. Wangu's vehicle stopped, there was stationary traffic (including a vehicle stationary in the box junction) in that offside lane ahead. The CCTV footage shows that, once the traffic moved off again, Mr. Wangu stayed in that offside lane. Those facts would, together, tend to suggest that the reason Mr. Wangu brought his vehicle to a stop was because there was stationary traffic ahead in the lane in which he wanted to remain. Mr. Wangu told me, however, and I accept, that but for the emergence of the fire engine he would have moved temporarily into the nearside lane, which was unoccupied, beyond the box junction before driving straight on. Indeed, the CCTV footage shows that a vehicle behind Mr. Wangu's car undertook his vehicle and did just that. A few seconds thereafter, however, the CCTV footage shows that a fire engine did indeed emerge onto the road from the fire station. I accept Mr. Wangu's evidence, on the balance of probabilities, that the reason he stopped his vehicle was because he saw the fire engine begin to move to his nearside and wanted to give way to it, in a way which the driver of the vehicle that undertook him did not. Support for Mr. Wangu's case is to be found in the fact that he did not stop in the box junction immediately behind the vehicles ahead of him, in a way that would have hindered the egress of the fire engine, but stopped just into the box junction, in a way that did not cause such a hindrance.
I therefore accept Mr. Wangu's case and I do not find that the reason he stopped in the box junction was due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220833972
Monir M-u Ali
Transport for London
27 Sep 2022 16:44:08
E India Dock Rd/St Leonards Rd W
09 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.
Rule 174 of the current edition of the Official Highway Code refers to box junctions. It explains that these have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road and warns: ‘You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.’
When the Appellant’s vehicle entered the box, it is completely clear ahead. The Appellant then diverts to the left lane and has to stop.
Since the vehicle had a clear exit on entry 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
2220280716
Alison King
London Borough of Merton
24 Mar 2022 10:31:00
Kingston Rd / Dorset Rd
11 Jun 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 if the authority has acted unlawfully by failing to comply with road traffic law or failing to follow its own procedures.
The authority relies on CCTV evidence which it says shows the appellant's vehicle entering a box junction when there is no clear exit and stop within the junction because it is prevented from exiting by stationary vehicles ahead of it.
The appellant says that when her vehicle entered the box junction the exit was clear but a vehicle then emerged from a side road on her right and cut in front of her vehicle forcing it to stop in the junction..
I have looked carefully at the CCTV evidence and I am satisfied that the appellant's account of what happened is correct.
A convention will occur if a motorist causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that it stops because of the presence of stationary vehicles.
In this case I find that the appellant's vehicle was forced to stop by the unlawful actions of the driver of the vehicle emerging from the right of her vehicle. The driver of this vehicle appears to have committed criminal offences, failing to stop at give way lines and careless/inconsiderate driving. I am therefore satisfied that it was the unlawful actions of this driver that caused the appellant's vehicle to stop, rather than the presence of stationary vehicle ahead of it. Furthermore in these circumstances I do not find it could be said that the appellant "caused" her vehicle to enter the box junction so that it stopped. She caused her vehicle to enter the junction At a time when it was able to exit but was then prevented from doing so by the intervening unlawful action of another motorist.
I am therefore not satisfied the authority has shown that a contravention occurred and that the penalty charge notice was lawfully issued. I therefore allow this appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220865389
Antje Kunert
London Borough of Waltham Forest
24 Sep 2022 20:28:00
High Rd Leytonstone / Bush Rd
19 Jan 2023
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
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.
Ms Kunert says that she entered the box junction to exit in the left hand lane which was clear and that she was prevented from making an exit by a car which came up from behind and overtook.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case. At the point of entry into the box, the lane of travel of Ms Kunert's car was unclear. I accept Ms Kunert's evidence that she intended to exit in the left hand lane. Ms Kunert's car only came to a halt in the box when it was undertaken at speed by a vehicle coming from the left. The Council says that Ms Kunert changed her mind about the lane of travel only when her exit was blocked. The hesitancy of the exit from the box after the passage of the undertaking vehicle is, however, explained by the pedestrians crossing the road. I am satisfied on balance that the car entered the box to exit in the left hand lane and that the cause of it stopping in the box was not the stationary traffic in the right hand lane.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220861606
Platinum Emergency Services Ltd
London Borough of Waltham Forest
05 Oct 2022 20:39:00
St James Street / Leucha Rd
19 Jan 2023
Carl Teper
Appeal allowed
The Appellant Company's Office Manager, Mr James Watts, attended by telephone.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in St James Street/Leucha Road on 5 October 2022 at 20.39.
The Appellant denies the contravention and states that the vehicle stopped due to a vehicle ahead of it performing a three point turn.
I have considered the evidence and I find the Appellant's submission to be credible and I have accepted the explanation.
I find, on a balance of probabilities, that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in this box junction due to a vehicle ahead of it performing a manoeuvre, and that the Appellant's vehicle was not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
The appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220843171
Barrie Smith
London Borough of Hounslow
25 Jun 2022 12:09:00
Chiswick High Rd / Ennismore Ave
19 Jan 2023
George Dodd
Appeal allowed
The Appellant attended the hearing of the appeal in person. The Authority were not in attendance, nor were they represented.
It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction. They rely in evidence on images taken from the CCTV footage, accompanied by a statement from Sapna Christie certifying that the images were produced from a recording made by a CCTV camera. For some reason, the Authority have not produced the CCTV footage itself in evidence. The images show Appellant’s vehicle in the same position on the box junction. The first image is timed at 12:09:09 and the final one at 12:09:20, the implication being that the vehicle was stationary between those times. These images only show the first 50% or so of the box junction and do not show the exit and the road beyond.
Under the relevant regulation the prohibition is defined as follows: “...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.”
The Appellant explained that, on entering the box junction his gearbox light came on and the gearbox was disabled, such that he was unable to move for a short while. Accordingly, he accepts that he was stationary on the box junction, but this was due to a mechanical failure. As this was his focus at the time, he cannot recall whether his exit was also blocked by the presence of stationary vehicles.
I found the Appellant to be a reliable and credible witness and I accept his evidence. Accordingly, I accept that he stopped on the box junction due to a mechanical failure. In the absence of CCTV evidence showing the entire box junction, including exit and the road beyond, I cannot be satisfied that, there were stationary vehicles just beyond the junction which would, in any event, have forced him to stop on the junction. In those circumstances, the contravention is not made out and so I allow the appeal.
The Appellant made various points regarding the quality and layout of the junction itself, but I do not need to address these.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
220049962A
Steward Transport
London Borough of Waltham Forest
25 Sep 2020 13:12:00
Forest Road / Russell Road
18 Feb 2021
Gerald Styles
Appeal allowed
I have watch the CCTV clip. I not sure that I can share the criticisms of the appellant about this particular box feature. I have seen its long vehicle stopped over the box. I have not seen that as very necessary. However the alleged contravention did not occur. The vehicle when stopped over the yellow box was not stopped on account of stationary traffic ahead but solely in order to comply with the traffic signal which benefited the pedestrian crossing just ahead of its front bumper. A yellow box contravention occurs when the stop in the box is on account of stationary vehicles. The stop in question was not on that account.