This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators allowing appeals due to wrong or inadequate location on ticket
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2060381000
Gina Adamou
London Borough of Haringey
05 Jul 2006 16:17:00
High Rd N22
21 Oct 2006
Hugh Cooper
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 2002, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 7. This provides as follows.
"7 (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, [box junctions] 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.
(2) The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) 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."
In this case the Council served a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on Mrs Adamou alleging that the vehicle of which she was the registered keeper had contravened this regulation "in High Road N22".
Mrs Adamou says that she telephoned the Council on receipt of the PCN and asked them about this contravention. She was told that it had taken place at the junction of Ewart Grove and High Road N22. She pointed out to the person she spoke to that there was no box junction at that location. When the Council served photographs with their Notice of Rejection they made no mention of Ewart Grove.
The Council finally stated in their Case Summary that the box junction is actually at the junction of High Road and Bounds Green Road; the junction with Ewart Grove is simply where the camera is located. In a letter subsequent to her Notice of Appeal Mrs Adamou argues as to whether or not the events recorded on the video recording actually amount to a contravention.
However I do not have to decide that issue, because the confusion that has evidently arisen in Mrs Adamou's communications with the Council clearly demonstrates that the original PCN failed to comply with the requirements of Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This provides that the PCN "must…state…the grounds on which the council… believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".
The Council's own evidence shows that they have no fewer than 9 cameras in High Road N22, 6 of which are located at junctions. Whether or not all are devoted to monitoring compliance with box junctions, it makes clear that this is a long road with a considerable number of junctions. It is evident from Mrs Adamou's case that she did not know on receipt of the PCN where the contravention was alleged to have occurred.
Had the PCN specified "High Road N22 at its junction with Bounds Green Road", then Mrs Adamou would have known where to look. As it was, by simply stating "in High Road N22", I find that the PCN did not state the grounds on which the Council believed that the penalty charge was payable. Those grounds must be expressed in terms that allow the recipient of a PCN to know not just the nature of the alleged contravention, but where it was said to have occurred.
I find therefore that no valid PCN was served on Mrs Adamou, and so the Council cannot enforce this penalty charge.
[I would add that there is considerable doubt in my mind as to whether the layout of the box junction markings in this case actually comply with the requirements of Diagrams 1043 or 1044 in Schedule 6 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, neither of which appears to allow for box junction markings opposite the mouth of a T-junction, as opposed to across it. Furthermore it appears that there is a right turn filter lane on the main road, so that the box junction markings only cover one lane. However I do not make a formal determination on this issue. It maybe that in future cases the Council will feel the need, and be able, to clarify how this layout complies with either of the diagrams.]
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220546879
Abigail Brown
London Borough of Croydon
15 May 2022 12:22:00
Addiscombe Rd near Altyre Rd
14 Sep 2022
Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal allowed
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant, represented by Mr Murray-Smith, attended by telephone but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented, either by telephone or in person.
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.
The Penalty Charge Notice states the location as “Addiscombe Road near Altyre Road”.
As Mr Murray-Smith has pointed out, the location shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority is not that junction.
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 find as a fact that the contravention alleged on the face of the Penalty Charge Notice did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed and no other issue need be determined.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2200070958
Daniel Murphy
Transport for London
27 Dec 2019 15:26:00
Camberwell New Rd/Warner Rd/Camberwell Pg
12 Mar 2020
Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal allowed
At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant attended in person but the Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.
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).
The Enforcement Authority’s case is that the contravention occurred at the junction of "Camberwell New Road with Warner Road and Camberwell Passage".
The Appellant says that there is no box junction marking at the junction of Camberwell New Road with Warner Road and Google Street View confirms this.
The images clearly show that the vehicle did enter this box junction marking, wherever it is, and then had to stop within the box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.
However, I cannot find as a fact that the contravention specifically stated on the face of the Penalty Charge Notice.
Accordingly this appeal must be allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2160240742
Saijal Patel
London Borough of Brent
12 Mar 2016 15:32:00
East Lane
08 Aug 2016
Carl Teper
Appeal allowed
The Appellant has attended her appeal.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in East Lane on 12 March 2016 at 15.32.
The Appellant's case is that the Penalty Charge Notice is defective because it fails to provide a sufficient description of the location of the alleged contravention. She has raised other issues in relation to the Penalty Charge Notice concerning the date for payment etc. and other matters, which I have considered.
Section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires that a penalty charge notice must state, "the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, .....believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle".
This must include a sufficiently clear description of the location where the alleged contravention occurred, to enable a motorist receiving a Penalty Charge Notice several days after the event to be able to identify it.
This Penalty Charge Notice identifies the box junction as East Lane. A box junction is normally placed at a crossroad or T-junction. I have accepted the Appellant's evidence that East Lane is a long road in excess of 1 mile with several box junctions in it. I find that the Penalty Charge Notice is defective in not identifying its correct location by way of the usual reference to the road that crosses or meets it.
I find the other points advanced by the Appellant to lack any real merit and I have allowed this appeal on the single point above.
The appeal is allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
223033552A
Janice Flint
London Borough of Redbridge
19 Jun 2023 13:46:00
Goodmayes Road
17 Aug 2023
Edward Houghton
Appeal allowed
The Appellant was represented by Mr Dishman. The grounds of Appeal are set out in Mr Dishman’s skeleton argument which he developed before me. Having considered the matter carefully it seems to me that at least one of the grounds of appeal has some merit. The location is described as Goodmayes Road; however Mr Dishman tells me, and I accept, that there are three box junctions in Goodmayes Road. |The PCN is required to set out the grounds on which a penalty is demanded, and this inevitably includes a clear statement of the location of the alleged contravention. Although it might be possible for a motorist to trace the location from the photographs with some effort the Council’s prior duty is to set it out clearly. There seems to me no good reason why the location could not simply be stated as Goodmayes road junction with (naming the adjacent road) as would routinely be done in the case of a road traffic summons in the Magistrates Court. As the PCN was defective no penalty may be demanded on the basis of it and the Appeal ids allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2230349433
Robert Nye
London Borough of Bromley
25 Apr 2023 13:08:00
High Street Bromley South
22 Aug 2023
Belinda Pearce
Appeal allowed
The Appellant attended a Personal Appeal Hearing before me today, 22nd July 2023, to explain his contention personally.
1. 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.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenges as comprehensively stated in his detailed written representations, which he reiterated at, and supported with photographic capture which he bought to, the Hearing.
3. 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.
It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such prohibitions.
4.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.
There is no requirement that the vehicle be causing an obstruction.
There is no minimum period since a vehicle is in contravention immediately it is stationary.
There is no minimum portion of a vehicle since any stationary part thereof is subject to contravention.
5. The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined (repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations and images.
6. The Appellant raised 6 issues in his Notice of Appeal, some of which were addressed by the Enforcement Authority in its Case Summary, and all of which were discussed at the Hearing. Since this is a matter of 'strict liability' although I have considered each of the Appellant's contentions, for the most-part they cannot impact on my determination.
However I register concern on reading the minutes of the Enforcement Authority's meeting of the Environment and Community Services Policy Development and Scrutiny Committee of Wednesday 9th September 2020, bought to my attention by the Appellant, which suggests revenue impacts on the siting of camera enforcement locations.
7. Whilst the evidence substantiates a contravention, I cannot be satisfied that the contravention as alleged in the Penalty Charge Notice is made out. The Appellant's pertinent point contends that the said vehicle was not at the location stated on the Penalty Charge Notice as such location does not exist; to identify the location the Appellant obtained the address of Bromley Police Station and provided Google Earth aerial images of the location which description corresponds with the Police Station address; namely a junction between an un-named access road and High Street, Bromley, Kent.
8. I therefore consulted the Master London Street Atlas and could find no entry for 'High St Bromley Sth.'
On balance, evidentially I cannot be satisfied that this contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2240008359
Andrew Malpass
London Borough of Bromley
04 Nov 2023 11:57:00
High Street
07 Feb 2024
Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal allowed
Mr Malpass has attended the hearing today with his representative, Mr Phillip Morgan.
The PCN cites a contravention location of High Street Bromley South. It is clear from the evidence that there is no such location. The location is High Street Bromley and the word south is merely descriptive of the part of High Street Bromley in which the box junction is located. For the reasons explained by Adjudicator Belinda Pearce in appeal number 2230349433, I find that this renders the PCN defective.
The PCN also states that any representations received outside of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the Notice may be disregarded by the Council when the time frame prescribed by statute is 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN. Any provision which seeks to restrict the period in which a statutory right may be exercised is not, in my judgement, to be regarded as a minor defect. I do not, therefore, agree with the Council that the wording is substantially compliant and I affirm the decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton in appeal number 2230446994.
In my judgement, these defects render the PCN unenforceable and the appeal is allowed.