This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators ruling that drivers stopped due to 'stolen dpace'
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2140537840
Tracy Martin
London Borough of Haringey
02 Oct 2014 08:36:00
Green Lanes
23 Jan 2015
Alastair McFarlane
Appeal refused
The Enforcement Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle entered the box junction in Green Lanes, and then stopped in the junction owing to stationary traffic impeding its exit from the box.
The Appellant states that the driver to her right cut into her lane taking the space she was intending to drive for and leaving her no option but to stop in the box junction.
I have carefully considered the CCTV evidence that the Authority has provided. This shows the Appellant's vehicle entering the box junction and the vehicle to her right cutting her up and taking the space she was heading for beyond the junction. I accept therefore her account and my decision is that her vehicle was caused to stop in the box junction not by stationary traffic ahead but by the actions of the vehicle to her right which was a moving vehicle.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Appellant's vehicle was in contravention and the appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220844345
Bobbie-Joe Walker
Transport for London
30 Sep 2022 11:41:14
E India Dock Rd/St Leonards Rd (E)
14 Dec 2022
Anthony Chan
Appeal allowed
The Appellant attended in person. The Authority was not represented.
I will conclude that a contravention occurs if a vehicle enters a box junction before its exit lane is clear, and stops because of stationary traffic.
The Appellant's case is that her exit lane (lane 2) was clear when she entered the junction but a vehicle moved into lane 2 from lane 1 which prevented her from exiting the junction.
The CCTV recording tended to support the Appellant's account. It does not refute it in any way.
I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred. I allow the appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220849032
Max Dugdale
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
08 Oct 2022 13:37:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
15 Dec 2022
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
Upon the appellant appearing before me today he summarising his case in accordance with his written submissions I reserved my decision to allow for full consideration of the evidence. On the appellant's case he was travelling in the lane next to the nearside lane he intending to exit the box in that lane he being prevented from doing so by a vehicle on his offside (the blue vehicle as shown on the footage) straddling two lanes when it came to a halt. On viewing the footage again it does appear that at the appellant's point of entry to the box there was a space ready to receive his vehicle in the lane in which he was travelling. I accept on that footage that he was thwarted from exiting the box in that lane by the blue vehicle on stopping unexpectedly straddling the two lanes and that being so I am not satisfied that the contravention can be said to have occurred.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220784301
Jayantilal Mistry
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
14 Sep 2022 16:00:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
18 Jan 2023
Carl Teper
Appeal allowed
The Appellant has attended this appeal by telephone.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in the Talgarth Road/Butterwick on 14 September 2022 at 16.00.
The Appellant's case is that whilst he was driving through this box junction his exit was clear and that another vehicle (a white car) cut in front of his vehicle and took his exit space.
I have considered the evidence and I have watched the CCTV footage a number of times and I find that it confirms the Appellant's explanation.
I find that a vehicle from the Appellant's left side did cut in front of his and that it was closely followed by another vehicle, which also compromised the Appellant's exit.
Whilst it is always safest for the exit to be clear when a vehicle enters a box junction, the fact that it is not, does not prove this contravention; the question is whether the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. In this case I find that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction due to the driving of other vehicles that compromised its exit.
The appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2180262431
Deckall Ltd t/a Garden Builders Design
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
04 Jun 2018 07:28:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
28 Aug 2018
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
Mr Dunster, the vehicle's driver, ('the appellant'), appeared before me today. The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. On the appellant's case on his entry to the box there was or would have been sufficient space for him to be able to exit it vehicles in front being in motion. A maroon vehicle ahead travelling in the offside lane had however abruptly changed lanes it in so doing occupying his exit lane. On the council's online footage of the incident I was satisfied as to the appellant's account of it. I was satisfied that there was or would have been a clear space waiting to receive the appellant's vehicle when he entered the box and that had the maroon vehicle not cut him up by entering that space, forcing him to stop, the contravention would not have occurred. I found for that reason that the contravention had not been proved.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2200013105
Mark Harrison
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
08 Dec 2019 13:00:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
06 Feb 2020
Teresa Brennan
Appeal allowed
Mr Harrison attended today. He denies the contravention. The appellant states that at the time that he drove his car into the box junction his intended exit was free. Mr Harrison states that another car manoeuvred in front of his car thereby preventing him from driving out of the junction.
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.
In the case summary the local authority states that the appellant was driving towards the far left lane where they were already stationary vehicles. I find that the footage is consistent with the appellant’s account that he was intending to exit in the second lane from the left and that he would have been able to do so but for a dark car inside his car which was heading for the third lane until it moved in front of Mr Harrison’s car and stopped partly in the third and partly in the second lane. I allow this appeal. I find that the appellant’s car had to stop in the box junction due to an action by another vehicle after the appellant had driven into the box.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2200164188
ORIELA DE ROSSI
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
26 Feb 2020 15:58:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
06 Jul 2020
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 matter is listed for personal hearing and due to exceptional circumstances relating to public health, it was envisaged that it would be conducted by telephone. Having received no response from the Appellant, I now proceed to deal with the matter in her absence.
The Enforcement Authority relies upon CCTV footage of the incident.
The Appellant contends that another vehicle effectively entered the receiving space ahead of her.
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.
There is no dispute that the Appellant's vehicle stopped on the junction, due to traffic ahead. However, she contends that a vehicle to her right effectively "cut her up" and veered across her path slightly ahead of her. Due to the camera angle it is difficult to see exactly what took place and one cannot easily discern the lanes into which each vehicle is moving. However, there appears to be a vehicle to the Appellant's right, which pulls away more speedily than the Appellant as it begins to travel across the junction. Having made the righthandturn, it then appears then to be indicating left and seems to move into the Appellant's projected path. It is very hard to determine to what extent there was a clear receiving space on the other side of the junction into which the Appellant's vehicle intended to move, but I cannot be satisfied that there was not a space.
Therefore, I cannot be satisfied to the requisite standard that a contravention took place and accordingly this Appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2210471977
Jack Sterling Rawlinson
LB of Hammersmith and Fulham
02 Jul 2021 17:32:00
Talgarth Rd / Butterwick
04 Sep 2021
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. I have viewed the council's video footage of the incident. I agree with the appellant that on his vehicle entering the box his exit lane was clear. On the footage following the appellant's entry to the box his exit lane is occupied by a motorcycle or motorcycles suddenly changing lanes. That manoeuvre could not have been anticipated by the appellant. I am satisfied in these circumstances, on the decided cases, that the contravention has not occurred. The appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2230020427
Tyrrell Jean
LB of Barking and Dagenham
18 Dec 2022 09:27:00
North Street
20 Feb 2023
John Lane
Appeal allowed
The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle entered and stopped within the box junction there owing to the presence of another stationary vehicle. It is a contravention if a person causes their vehicle to enter a box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
To stop means to come to a stand as in the course of a journey, to halt or to cease moving.
The contravention does not apply to any person
a) who causes a vehicle to enter the box junction (other than a box junction at a roundabout) for the purpose of turning right: and
b) stops it within the box junction for so long as it is prevented from completing the right turn by oncoming vehicles or other vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn.
The appellant has stated the vehicle to his left came out of the side road and effectively cut up his vehicle.
I have considered fully the representations of both parties and I have examined carefully the video evidence provided by the local authority and have considered the local authority’s representations.
I agree with the appellant’s version of events, however. I find that the appellant’s vehicle would have cleared the box junction had it not been cut up by the vehicle to the left. The fact that the vehicle to the left did not clear the box junction does not affect my judgment.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220285480
Shannon Slater
London Borough of Lewisham
23 Mar 2022 07:27:00
Baring Rd / Chinbrook Rd
07 Jul 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.
The Appellant’s case is that the vehicle’s exit was clear when the driver entered the box
The images show that when the vehicle did enter this box junction marking in the offside lane there probably was just sufficient space to exit but a vehicle in the nearside lane crossed into the offside lane. The Appellant’s vehicle then had to stop within the box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me it is not completely clear but, on balance, 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
2230112729
Cassandra Senyah
London Borough of Waltham Forest
01 Oct 2022 18:47:00
High Road / Bush Road
13 Mar 2023
Edward Houghton
Appeal allowed
It seems to me that the CCTV does indeed show that the vehicle ahead moved over after the Appellant’s vehicle had entered the box and
took the space the Appellant had been intending to occupy. On the facts I am not satisfied a contravention is proved