This page is for subscribers only.
We are redirecting you to the payment page

This appeal was listed for personal hearing today. Neither party to the proceedings attended. It now falls to me to decide the appeal on the papers. This vehicle on the authority's case entered and stopped in a box junction when prohibited. This contravention occurs when a vehicle having entered a box junction has to stop in it due to the presence of stationery vehicles. I am satisfied on the authority's video footage of the incident, from which the images referred to by the appellant are taken and which I am satisfied is the 'best evidence' thereof, that this is what this vehicle did. The authority is not required to suspend box junction controls because of roadworks it I find being open to the appellant to avoid entering this box junction notwithstanding the taking place of roadworks in the area. I find this contravention proved. The appeal is refused.

​

Review 03 Oct 2022:

Mr Bergamini attended today.

 

The appeal had previously been refused by Adjudicator Andrew Harman. The appeal was decided in the appellant’s absence because Mr Bergamini did not attend on 15th August 2022. The appellant states that he was unaware of the date of hearing. He did not receive the scheduling letter or the decision letter because due to an error and a problem reading the appellant’s handwriting the appellant’s email address had been wrongly input. I find that Mr Bergamini had a good reason for his nonattendance as he was unaware that the appeal had been listed. I allow the application for review.

 

The appellant argues that Transport for London has not provided evidence that a contravention occurred at the time alleged on the Penalty Charge Notice. The Penalty Charge Notice alleges a contravention at 15:43.

 

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 shows the appellant’s car turn left into the box junction a short distance behind another vehicle. The car stops with part of the car across the corner of the box. The footage shows a space behind the appellant’s car. Mr Bergamini states that he could have reversed out of the box but was unable to do so because some children crossed the road behind his car. The footage then shows the vehicle behind pull up behind the appellant’s car but this occurs at 15:44.

 

I find that at 15:43 the car was not stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles because the appellant could have reversed out of the box.

 

I allow this appeal.