This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators ruling that drivers had not stopped
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2190015643
Parham Donyai
Transport for London
28 Nov 2018 08:59:00
Hanger Lane
11 Feb 2019
Gerald Styles
Appeal allowed
The appellant has denied the 15 seconds stop in the yellow box which TfL claims occurred.
I have repeatedly examined the CCTV footage. The appellant appears to have been taking considerable effort to keep his car in motion to avoid attracting a penalty.
The road and light conditions have made the CCTV footage difficult to interpret confidently.
When viewing the CCTV clip I was minded to accept there was perceptible movement throughout.
The evidence has been and insufficient to uphold the penalty charge. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2150421729
Philip White
LB of Barking and Dagenham
09 Oct 2015 17:56:00
Heathway
12 Dec 2015
Edward Houghton
Appeal allowed
On looking at the CCTV evidence with reasonable care it is quite apparent that the vehicle never actually comes to a halt. I note that the case summary does not assert that it does. Unless a vehicle stops in the junction no contravention occurs. I am astonished that the Council should not have immediately appreciated this point on reviewing its evidence, particularly as it was pointed out to them very clearly by the Appellant. The Appeal is inevitably allowed and the Council may consider itself fortunate that the Appellant has been generous enough not to make an application for costs.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2230029523
Philip Macauley
Transport for London
23 Nov 2022 08:33:43
GREAT WEST RD / WINDMILL RD
09 Feb 2023
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
Mr Macauley 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.
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 am allowing this appeal. I have reviewed the close up CCTV footage from TfL several times, once with Mr Macauley. In the 9 seconds when the car was prevented from exiting the box, I am not satisfied that it was, technically, stopped. I can detect continuing wheel movement and Mr Macauley has confirmed that he was rocking the car so that some movement was being maintained, albeit minimal. I am not satisfied from the evidence that the alleged contravention occurred.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220941057
Demi Jools Gavriel
London Borough of Barnet
01 Nov 2022 17:40:00
High Street / St Albans Rd
23 Jan 2023
Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal allowed
The Appellant did not attend this scheduled personal hearing, neither did any representative of the Enforcement Authority.
As previously explained, in such circumstances the Adjudicator will determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence previously produced by the parties.
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 is that the vehicle was not actually stopped in the box. The Appellant has produced a number of Street View images showing the location from different angles.
The cctv images are extremely unclear due to rain and glare.
It is by no means clear that the vehicle did enter this box junction marking and then had to stop within the box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.
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 carefully all the evidence 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
2220842113
Matias Lopez-Portillo
London Borough of Waltham Forest
11 Oct 2022 14:21:00
Lea Bridge Rd / Rigg Approach
11 Jan 2023
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 Enforcement Authority relies upon CCTV footage of the incident, together with a copy of the PCN.
The Appellant contends that the vehicle did not stop on the junction.
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 contravention occurs when a vehicle stops in a box junction due to the presence of stationary traffic ahead. It appears that the Appellant's vehicle did enter the junction prior to sufficient space on the other side of the junction becoming available. The EA contends that the vehicle then stopped on the junction, at which point the contravention occurred.
The Appellant contends that his vehicle did not in fact stop, but continued to be driven, extremely slowly, across the junction. I have reviewed the CCTV evidence and having done so, I accept the Appellant's contention. The vehicle appears to slow almost to a standstill, but is still moving at 14.22.02. Due to the quality and slight "tremor" of the footage, it is difficult to discern whether the vehicle is still moving between14.23.04. and 14.23.07. I conclude that it is indeed moving, albeit extremely slowly.
I am therefore not satisfied to the requisite standard that a contravention has taken place and accordingly I allow this appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220942479
Fatima Haidary
London Borough of Waltham Forest
08 Nov 2022 18:03:00
Lea Bridge Rd / Stanley Rd
10 Feb 2023
Carl Teper
Appeal allowed
I have watched the CCTV footage in this appeal, and whilst the Appellant's explanation is clearly wrong, I find, as a fact, that the vehicle was not actually stopped in this particular box junction.
The appeal is allowed
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220710881
Robert Olayinka
LB of Barking and Dagenham
28 Apr 2022 17:54:00
New Rd
03 Nov 2022
Anju Kaler
Appeal allowed
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 19 Part 2 paragraph 6. This provides as follows.
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.
The footage shows the vehicle enter the box and it is seen to move forwards very slowly at all times. The footage is a bit grainy but the vehicle is not stationary at any point beyond two seconds. The contravention requires that the vehicle stops. The footage ends abruptly while the rear wheels of the vehicle are still in the box, so I cannot gauge whether it was stationary after that point.
I am not persuaded that the alleged contravention occurred and so I allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220942479
Fatima Haidary
LB of Barking and Dagenham
08 Nov 2022 18:03:00
Lea Bridge Road / Stanley Road
10 Feb 2023
Carl Teper
Appeal allowed
I have watched the CCTV footage in this appeal, and whilst the Appellant's explanation is clearly wrong, I find, as a fact, that the vehicle was not actually stopped in this particular box junction.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2240328815
Fatima Haidary
London Borough of Bromley
13 May 2024 10:31:00
Cray Avenue / Station Approach
20 Aug 2024
Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal allowed
The Appellant’s case is that the vehicle never actually stopped in the box but rather was moving very slowly.
The Enforcement Authority’s camerawork is very shaky but close examination of the wheels of the vehicle do not appear to show them
actually stationary in the box at any time.
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 carefully all the evidence before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur and the Penalty Charge Notice was properly issued. Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
223015163A
Fatima Shafiq
London Borough of Newham
27 Sep 2022 11:21:00
Barking Road/Wellington Road
15 Apr 2023
Gerald Styles
Appeal allowed
The appeal hearing was by telephone on 15 April. The appellant did not participate in the call. I informed Mr Murray-Smith appellant representative that having seen the clip I could not confidently identify the car wheels as ceasing to rotate whilst in the box and there was insufficient evidence of any unlawful stop. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.