This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators ruling that there was a gap the vehicle could have moved into
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2170439250
Zulfiqar Ali
London Borough of Newham
09 Apr 2017 13:49:00
Barking Rd - Bartholomew Rd
10 Oct 2017
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The alleged contravention occurred in Barking Road at 1.49pm on 9 April 2017.
Paragraph 7(1) of Part II of Schedule 19 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 states 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. 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.
Paragraph 7(2) states that this prohibition does not apply to any person causing a vehicle to enter a box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of making a right turn out of the box and stopping the vehicle for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary waiting to complete the right turn.
I have reviewed the CCTV footage in this case and I am allowing the appeal. The footage shows that, when Mr Ali's vehicle entered the box. the traffic beyond the box was stationary but that there was a space that appeared sufficient for another vehicle between the box exit line and the first stationary vehicle. Mr Ali's vehicle entered into that space and stopped so that just the rear wheels were over the box line. The footage does not enable me to see whether or not Mr Ali's vehicle had any further space in front but I suspect that this may well have been a case where the driver did have sufficient space and that Mr Ali did not even know that the rear wheels were across the box line. I am not satisfied that this was a case where the vehicle was stopped in the box because of the stationary vehicle in front and I find for this reason that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2180461449
Granville Mills
London Borough of Waltham Forest
04 Oct 2018 19:12:00
Forest Rd
05 Jan 2019
Teresa Brennan
Appeal allowed
Mr Mills did not attend for his appeal hearing listed today. I decide the appeal on the written evidence of both parties and the CCTV footage.
Mr Mills denies the contravention.
The contravention occurs if a person causes a vehicle to enter the box junction so that all or part of 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 and stop with the front part of the car in the box. The footage shows that there is a gap between the far edge of the box and the back of the car stopped a short distance beyond the box. I find that it is unclear from the footage that this gap is insufficient to accommodate the appellant’s vehicle. I am not satisfied that the appellant’s car had to stop in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
I allow this appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2190015304
Aley Ballucci
Transport for London
09 Nov 2018 18:43:00
Euston Rd
11 Feb 2019
Alastair Mc Farlane
Appeal allowed
The Enforcement Authority’s case is that the Appellant’s vehicle entered the box junction in Euston Road and then stopped in the junction owing to stationary traffic impeding its exit from the box.
The Appellant states that his vehicle was not obstructing box junction "but moved off".
I have watched the CCTV footage carefully in order to ascertain what happened. The Appellant's vehicle turned left into the Euston Road following a silver vehicle through the box junction before the Appellant can ascertain that there is a space beyond the box junction to receive his vehicle. The silver vehicle then stops with just his rear wheels stationary within the junction. This is a sufficient amount of the vehicle to constitute the contravention. However, I note that there is a bus to the Appellant's far left and the silver vehicle is in the lane to the right. The Appellant has a clear space in front of him. He has turned partially into that space but not taken the opportunity of moving fully forward. He could have done. I am therefore not persuaded that the essential element of his vehicle being stopped due to the presence of stationary traffic ahead is satisfied in this case because he could have moved forward.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2230005128
N Sandhu
Transport for London
29 Oct 2022 14:02:00
E India Dock Rd / St Leonards Rd (E)
09 Feb 2023
Edward Houghton
Appeal allowed
The CCTV evidence shows clearly enough that the vehicle came to a halt briefly in the junction. However that of itself is insufficient for a contravention to be made out. TfL is required to prove that the vehicle had to stop in the junction as a result of the presence of a stationary vehicle . Having heard the Appellant in person and on looking at the CCTV I am not satisfied this is sufficiently proved. There seems to me to be space ahead of the Appellant’s vehicle into which he could have moved; and I see no reason to doubt the Appellant’s evidence, having heard him in person, a that the reason he stopped was that he was concerned in view of the difficult traffic situation that the van next to him might subsequently move over in front of him. It seems to me that the reason the Appellant stopped was that he chose to do so out of (possibly an excess of) caution rather than being forced to (i.e having to stop). On the particular facts of this case the Appeal must be allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220688228
Jeffrey Taylor
London Borough of Waltham Forest
09 Jul 2022 16:23:00
Forest Rd / Russell Rd
03 Nov 2022
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
This is an alleged box junction contravention. On the council's video footage of the incident the appellant's vehicle stops short having cleared most of the box. I am satisfied that had he pulled forward he would have been able to clear the box and I am not therefore satisfied that this vehicle had to stop in this box junction due to the presence of stationery vehicles the contravention not for that reason having occurred.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220698629
Jill Millham
London Borough of Waltham Forest
15 Aug 2022 16:13:00
Lea Bridge Rd / Stanley Rd
30 Nov 2022
Teresa Brennan
Appeal allowed
Mr Dishman attended today to represent the appellant. Mrs Millham did not attend. Her husband, John Millman was the driver and I have seen a statement from Mr Millham.
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 is of very poor quality, and I find that it is difficult to see the parameters of the box. The footage shows the car drive into the box and stop with the front of the car in the box. The footage shows that as the appellant’s car approaches the box a pedestrian crosses the road. The footage also shows a space on the other side of the box in the offside lane.
I allow this appeal firstly because I find that the car stopped to allow a pedestrian to cross and secondly because I find that there was a space on the other side of the box. I am not satisfied that the car had to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220796242
Premier Transfers Midlands Ltd
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
08 Oct 2022 17:46:00
New Kings Rd / Bagleys Rd
01 Dec 2022
Anju Kaler
Appeal allowed
Mr Jevons, the director of the Appellant company and the driver on the day, attended the hearing. There was no representation by the Enforcement Authority.
The footage shows the Appellant’s vehicle in the inside lane of two behind a coach. The coach makes the left turn and stops in the inside lane after the turn. The Appellant’s vehicle follows and stops behind the coach with two rear wheels within the box.
Mr Jevons states that the inside lane was clear ahead and the coach did not move further into the lane. He could see before he made his turn that the lane ahead of the coach was unobstructed.
The coach was in motion when the Appellant set off behind him. The lane ahead of the coach was clear and there was no reason for the driver of the vehicle behind to expect the coach to stop where it did instead of proceeding further down the road. The coach came to a stop for no good reason thereby causing the Appellant to stop within the box. The poor driving and judgment of the coach driver was the cause of this contravention. The coach became stationary at a point that no reasonable driver would have anticipated it would stop.
I allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220688228
Premier Transfers Midlands Ltd
LB of Waltham Forest
09 Jul 2022 16:23:00
Forest Road / Russell Road
03 Nov 2022
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
This is an alleged box junction contravention. On the council's video footage of the incident the appellant's vehicle stops short having cleared most of the box. I am satisfied that had he pulled forward he would have been able to clear the box and I am not therefore satisfied that this vehicle had to stop in this box junction due to the presence of stationery vehicles the contravention not for that reason having occurred.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220688228
Asadullah Akhunzada
LB of Waltham Forest
01 Jun 2021 15:44:00
Forest Rd / Russell Rd
18 Sep 2021
John Hamilton
Appeal allowed
Unfortunately the appellant's handwriting is too difficult for me to read. Normally I would direct him to re-submit the text in a legible form. However I am able to allow this appeal without reading his notice of appeal. This is because the CCTV clearly shows that although the appellant's motorcycle was stopped with its back wheel still within the junction, there was plenty of space in front of the motorcycle to exit the junction had the driver wished to do so. I find, on the basis of the CCTV evidence, that it is more likely the appellant stopped the motorcycle because he mistakenly believed he had cleared the junction not because the motorcycle was prevented from exiting by stationary vehicles. In order for a contravention to occur a vehicle must be prevented from exiting the box junction by stationary vehicles. This is not what happened here.