This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page
Examples of adjudicators ruling that length of vehicle in box was 'di minimis'
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2160332024
Ian Holden
London Borough of Merton
28 Jun 2016 17:57:00
MTC - Western Rd / Bond Rd
16 Sep 2016
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
The allegation in these proceedings is that this vehicle entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. Upon a point being raised by the appellant as to the degree to which this vehicle was stationery within the box on it turning left into it on the council's poor quality video footage of the incident an supporting images taken therefrom although the vehicle stops with its back wheels positioned at the very edge of the box this infringement of box junction rules in that regard amounts to my mind no more than a de minimus breach of the prohibition and I am not accordingly satisfied that the contravention occurred.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2140226090
Keith Lindo
London Borough of Waltham Forest
24 Feb 2014 15:33:00
St James Street E17/Leucha Rd E17
20 Jun 2014
Edward Houghton
Appeal allowed
In the light of the very small amount by which the vehicle is seen to be in the entrance to the junction and the brief time it is in this position I treat this on its facts as a case where the principle of de minimis ( i.e legal insignificance) should be applied, and on that basis no contravention occurred. The Appeal is therefore allowed.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
220049113A
Victoria Franks
London Borough of Waltham Forest
21 Sep 2020 13:37:00
The Green / Woodland Rd
19 Dec 2020
Belinda Pearce
Appeal allowed
A Telephone Hearing was scheduled for 11.30 a.m. today, 19th December 2020; I spoke with the Appellant on the number provided.
The Enforcement Authority assert that vehicle EA14 BYY 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.
The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenges as stated in her written representations, which she reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.
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.
It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such prohibitions.
No signage (advance warning or otherwise) is requisite since the cross-hatching itself communicates the prohibition.
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.
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.
The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined (repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
It is apparent that the driver, the Appellant, is intending to comply with the traffic law, in that the said vehicle is paused at the edge of the cross-hatched area awaiting an opportunity to traverse the junction once permissible; in so doing the said vehicle's bumper (possibly part of a front wheel) is overhanging the edge of the cross-hatching.
It is accepted that split-second judgement calls are necessitated by driving conditions, and the need for a vehicle to await room for clearance before commencing a manoeuvre across such a junction is the only option available to a motorist to avoid contravening the prohibition; I find the Appellant to be so engaged and I import the principle of de minimis to that portion of the vehicle misjudged to be behind the cross hatched boundary.
Evidentially therefore I cannot be satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220698254
Gary Nicholson
London Borough of Waltham Forest
23 Mar 2022 15:39:00
Lea Bridge Rd / Stanley Rd
02 Dec 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 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 CCTV footage shows the vehicle drive off a forecourt and there is a yellow box . however the wheels of the vehicle are not on the box and it is unclear whether the vehicle actually encroached onto the markings. The vehicle is stationary for 3-4 seconds.
I am not satisfied any contravention has occurred.
Case ref
Appellant
Authority
Date & time
Location
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Decision
2220862788
London United Busways
London Borough of Wandsworth
13 Sep 2022 07:28:00
Putney Hill junction Chartfield Avenue
10 Jan 2023
Andrew Harman
Appeal allowed
This is an alleged box junction contravention the vehicle being a bus. The appellants seek to dispute liability for the charge
on the ground that only a very small part of the bus was within the box junction when it came to a halt it only doing so briefly. I have viewed the council's video footage of the incident. It supports what the appellants say. I accept on that footage that the back of this bus was overhanging box junction markings when it stopped but the infringement of the prohibition in the circumstances of this case is to my mind so trivial as to amount to no more than a de minimus breach of it. If this was not a suitable box junction case for the exercise of the council's discretion I don't know what is. I find for the reason given that the contravention did not occur and I allow the appeal.