Box Junction PCN - New Kings Road j/w Bagleys Lane

[uglyduck]

I am another victim of this money making box junction.

 

I have received the penalty charge but the still image even does not show the box nor the road at all but the car registration and car bonnet and planning to appeal.

 

I am not local so cannot remember whether I have stopped in the box junction but this is absolutely outrageous.

[Actheresa]

Ok, I'm victim number who knows? I readily admit to stopping in the junction whilst waiting to turn right however doesn't look good given the posts. Has anybody apart from Benn had their appeal upheld and on what grounds?

[trouttrout]

Hello there, similar issue! And Googled it as I always do for this kind of thing and low and behold!!!! Find all this! And that figure stating how much the area makes the council in fines is truly shocking!

 

Anyway, few images here to see if I have grounds for appeal! From what I make of it the bus was still moving at 14 seconds when I entered and then stops at 16 seconds resulting in me having to stop also. The right handle lane is empty but I'm saying the bus is too far over for me to enter that lane as my exit?

 

Any help much appreciated.

 

NB There's a 6th pic that won't upload at 37 seconds showing me outside of the box.

 

Cheers guys!

 

 

[sailor sam]

Hi and welcome to CAG Trouttrout.

 

You should really start your own thread as this one has been running for quite a while now. But from what I can tell from your images (I take it you are the silver Punto), you are on a hiding to nothing. The minute you stop within the box, you commit the offence. See the link below;

 

http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/yellow.htm

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[trouttrout]

Hmmmmm. The only thing I am thinking is like it says in that link we can't all wait until the vehicle in front has cleared the box, we'd be there all year! When I enter the box the vehicle in front is nearly clear of the box and is still moving, it then stops. So I have to. Worth a shot anyway.

 

I know I cannot enter if my exit is blocked, which I don't think it is as the traffic is moving, I'm not to know the bus is going to stop! Soon as it does then my exit is blocked but I am already inside the box, it's not like I have seen a stationary bus blocking my exit and I have driven in regardless! I wouldn't have any issue if I had done something stupid like that.

 

Cheers

 

Hi and welcome to CAG Trouttrout.

 

You should really start your own thread as this one has been running for quite a while now. But from what I can tell from your images (I take it you are the silver Punto), you are on a hiding to nothing. The minute you stop within the box, you commit the offence. See the link below;

 

http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/yellow.htm

 

Please Note

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

[Actheresa]

I'm still fighting mine. Similar thing for me. Though I was turning right, my lane was clear but truck at a slight angle so I could not get into it. £130. Kind of wish I'd just paid the £60 now, but we'll see. Keep you posted.

[trouttrout]

Good luck, be sure to.

 

I'm still fighting mine. Similar thing for me. Though I was turning right, my lane was clear but truck at a slight angle so I could not get into it. £130. Kind of wish I'd just paid the £60 now, but we'll see. Keep you posted.

[orrery]

I've been issued a PCN for the Bagley's Lane junction while turning right. I copy the appeal I just sent in using their electronic form, and will try and remember to come back to this forum with the outcome. I hope this helps others - feedback on my four points appreciated:

 

1. Should be thrown out as there is a total exemption for vehicles turning right:

- see Para 7 (a) of the quoted regulations below:

“The prohibition in sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to any person where the box junction is at a junction between two or more roads (but not at a gyratory system or roundabout) and the person—

(a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right”

The video evidence and flashing indicator clearly shows my intention to turn right.

This assertion is supported by your own council publication, which states:

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Directory/News/Do_not_get_caught_in_a_yellow_box.asp

“An exception is when you want to turn right. In this case, you may enter the yellow box junction while waiting for a gap in traffic coming from the opposite direction.”

2. Should be thrown out because there is no evidence the exit was not clear when I entered the box junction:

- see video evidence where there is at all times a clearly accessible exit on the right of the two exit lanes, therefore at no time did I cause my vehicle to enter without a reasonable expectation of being able to make a speedy and legal exit from the box junction, but was blocked by a vehicle in front of me not choosing to take that available exit.

There is no evidence that that the exit was not clear at the time I entered the box junction.

3. Should be thrown out because I was positioned (and indicating) an intention to move into the right hand exit lane, which was open, an exact replication of the Sheikh vs. London Borough of Newham, in which the appeal was allowed:

Sheikh v London Borough of Newham (PATAS Case no. MV0071NE02)

In this case Mr Sheikh was in the right hand lane which was blocked by stationary vehicles. However the left hand lane was free and he could've moved over, but chose not to therefore his appeal was successful.

4. Should be thrown out because, per paragraph 8 below, the reason for stopping was due to the presence of other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction, which were adhering to the red light, which I believe to be incorrectly phased and contributing to the nearly £1m per annum income H&F is making from this specific box junction.

---

Here are the regulations on which I base my appeal:

7. - (1) Subject to paragraph 9, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043, 1044 and 1044.1 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 where the box junction is at a junction between two or more roads (but not at a gyratory system or roundabout) and the person—

(a) causes a vehicle to enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right; and

(b) stops the vehicle within the box junction for so long as the vehicle is prevented from completing the right turn—

(i) by oncoming vehicles; or

(ii) by vehicles which are stationary whilst waiting to complete a right turn

8. Subject to paragraph 9, the road marking shown in diagram 1044.2 shall 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 oncoming vehicles or other stationary vehicles beyond the box junction.

----

[orrery]

Note you lose nothing by appealing, as the dicounted rate still applies if the appeal is disallowed:

 

Thank you for your submission. We are currently handling a large volume of correspondence but will reply to you as soon as possible.

 

If we received your enquiry within the initial 14-day discount period (following the issue of the PCN), and in the event that we do not agree to cancel it, we will allow 14 days (from the date of our full reply) for payment to be made at the discounted rate.

 

Your case will remain on hold until we respond to you, UNLESS it has already been passed to bailiffs for collection.

 

If you have any further comments to make regarding this (or any other) penalty, please email them to us at parking@lbhf.gov.uk. Please ensure that you quote both your PCN number(s) and vehicle registration number in any further correspondence.

 

It may be of interest to you that photos taken in support of PCNs can now be viewed online at PCN Images .

[green_and_mean]

1. Should be thrown out as there is a total exemption for vehicles turning right:

 

Thats not actually true is it? There is AN exemption but its not a TOTAL exemption, the exemption only applies in specific cases.

[Kiki1]

Note you lose nothing by appealing, as the dicounted rate still applies if the appeal is disallowed

 

Somewhat misleading, as the adjudicators are paid by their successes from the penalty charge systems in place around London.

 

If they do make the decision to uphold the PCN from the LA it is much more difficult to fight your corner. Why do you think the councils will always put an appeal leaflet in with their Notice of Rejection with the claim it is one of only two options, the other one being the funding of the cartel ?

[green_and_mean]

Somewhat misleading, as the adjudicators are paid by their successes from the penalty charge systems in place around London.

 

 

Really? What a load of rubbish! PATAS is funded by a levy on PCNs issued and a charge for each appeal heard regardless of the outcome. There is no correlation between those appeals which are allowed or refused and the funding of PATAS. Its staff are paid a salary regardless of what descision is made and there is no possible way refusing cases would benefit an adjudicator financially unless of course you have evidence to the contrary? If there was a direct relationship it would benefit them to allow more cases and in turn encourage more people to appeal which would give them more work and increase the income received for hearing appeals.

[Kiki1]

Really? What a load of rubbish! PATAS is funded by a levy on PCNs issued and a charge for each appeal heard regardless of the outcome.

 

Who mentioned anything about the outcome ?

[green_and_mean]

Who mentioned anything about the outcome ?

 

So your objection is what......that they get paid?

[Kiki1]

So your objection is what......that they get paid?

 

The objection is that orrery and others are duped into believing the PATAS service is the only alternative to paying the fine, and that 'there is nothing to lose' by filling out the forms, when the process is nothng more than an extension of the 'locking in' of the motorist to a procedure where the local authority retains the upper hand.

 

Adjudicators are always impartial of course, which makes one wonder why anyone bothered to include the following section within the legislation

 

part e) the interests of justice require (such) a review

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1202/regulation/11/made

[ClaphamBen]

I got a ticket at the same junction- appealed using many of the reasons stated above- a car in the right hand lane from Bagley's Lane actually cut across me, so I had no choice but to stop in the box (I'm sure the box was clear when I first entered it) but H&F just ignored all appeals- they didn't even acknowledge the grounds of my appeal in letters , they just flatly rejected me. By the time I gave up and appealed to PATAS, the deadline had already passed (I had assumed the wouldn't start the deadline clock ticking until we had stopped corresponding, stupid I know) so not only did I not get my initial appeal considered, I couldn't appeal to an independent adjudicator.

 

Then I was abroad and Bailiffs entered the car park where I live (it's private, with secure gates) used a "fireman's key" to open the gates, entered and took away my car. I called them from abroad, they lied about following a painter & decorator's van in, so I called back, telling them I was recording, and they lied again, then admitted to the lie!

 

What can I do now?

 

You should all read this too- the "money box" was covered in the Sunday TImes a week ago, it took over £3M in fines last year!

 

Here it is for those of you who don't subscribe;

 

IT HAS been described as the motorist’s version of Russian roulette: a box junction so cunningly designed to trap the unwary driver that it has raked in almost £3m in fines in one year.

 

The attrition rate at the junction of the fashionable New King’s Road and Bagley’s Lane in Fulham, west London, is so high that it has become the most lucrative box junction in Britain. No wonder it is referred to by bitter locals as “the Moneybox”.

 

Figures released under the Freedom of Information Act reveal 40,634 penalty notices were issued to motorists caught on camera stopping inside the yellow grid in 2011-12. The fines raised £2.7m for Hammersmith and Fulham council.

 

A daily average of 111 drivers are trapped inside the Moneybox and they pay out about £7,500 each day in fines, which means the box earns as much as a Premiership footballer.

 

Drivers who never pass through that part of London should not be too smug. Scores more money-spinning box junctions could be created nationwide if the Department for Transport bows to pressure from councils outside London to let them impose fines for a string of offences, including stopping in box junctions.

 

At present, they can fine drivers only for parking offences and encroaching on bus lanes. Motorists are not allowed to enter box junctions unless their exit is clear. Those who do so in London can be fined up to £130, or £65 if the fine is paid within two weeks.

 

The junction in Fulham is described as a “trap” by motorists because of its layout and the phasing of two sets of traffic lights, which means more vehicles enter the junction than can leave it. Drivers say that heavy congestion means they cannot avoid stopping in the box.

 

Motorists heading east along New King’s Road towards Chelsea are encouraged to drive into the yellow box when one set of traffic lights on New King’s Road changes. However, another set of lights about 110ft further up the road then stays red for another 25 to 40 seconds. There is room for only four cars behind the second set of lights, which means traffic quickly backs up into the box junction. Motorists turning right from Bagley’s Lane into New King’s Road are also getting fined.

 

Gianina Sanders, 32, who owns a wedding dress shop opposite the junction, said it was an “absolute nightmare” and was damaging her business, with vans dropping off new dresses unable to park outside the shop.

 

“Our clients hate it,” she said. “We definitely lose customers from it.

 

“They can’t get here without getting all caught up in it, and parking around here costs a fortune. We have to go to them sometimes; they prefer that to getting stuck in the mess that junction causes.”

 

When The Sunday Times monitored the junction last week, it found that at least one car was getting stuck in the box every time the first set of traffic lights on the junction changed.

 

The junction is well known to motoring organisations. “Even for those with the best of intentions it is often a case of Russian roulette as to whether they get through unpenalised or not,” said Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation.

 

Karalee Wylie, 62, from Guildford, Surrey, was fined after getting stuck in the box junction shortly before Christmas. “You think, ‘If I sit behind the line and wait for the box to be empty and a space ahead of it for me to move into, am I ever actually going to be able to move?’ ” she said.

 

A spokeswoman for Hammersmith and Fulham council said no fines would be issued “if the small minority of motorists who block these junctions, and cause additional congestion, just stuck to the rules”.

 

A spokesman for Transport for London, which is responsible for the phasing of the lights, said it was willing to consider whether the junction could be improved.

 

About 20 councils have held talks with the government about taking over the enforcement of 26 driving offences from the police. As well as stopping in a box junction, these include performing U-turns and driving in cycle lanes. Campaigners fear fines will be used as a stealth tax by local councils.

 

Peter Box, of the Local Government Association, said: “If people didn’t in effect break the law, we would gain no revenue.”

[Conniff]

I see nothing spectacular of abnormal about the box, it's just a square box at a 'T' junction.

 

ps ah I see, it's the phasing of the lights further on. That has obviously been planned that way, as Peter Box (unfortunate name) says, it's for revenue not to keep traffic moving.

Edited January 22, 2013 by Conniff

[Kiki1]

ps ah I see, it's the phasing of the lights further on. That has obviously been planned that way, as Peter Box (unfortunate name) says, it's for revenue not to keep traffic moving.

 

As is the section of road under the flyover (same authority), where the lights up ahead are phased in such a way that anyone progressing from Talgarth Road and off left to Putney, has to cross a box section where others travelling stright on are prevented from moving on at just the wrong time.

 

The roadworks on the flyover itself means more traffic is using the section of road, and the phasing means more money into the coffers, courtesy of the qualified primate pressing buttons in the CCTV room.

[green_and_mean]

I see nothing spectacular of abnormal about the box, it's just a square box at a 'T' junction.

 

ps ah I see, it's the phasing of the lights further on. That has obviously been planned that way, as Peter Box (unfortunate name) says, it's for revenue not to keep traffic moving.

 

Must be a huge conspiracy then since H&F council have no control over the phasing of the lights they are controlled by Tfl?

[green_and_mean]

The objection is that orrery and others are duped into believing the PATAS service is the only alternative to paying the fine, and that 'there is nothing to lose' by filling out the forms, when the process is nothng more than an extension of the 'locking in' of the motorist to a procedure where the local authority retains the upper hand.

 

Adjudicators are always impartial of course, which makes one wonder why anyone bothered to include the following section within the legislation

 

part e) the interests of justice require (such) a review

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1993/1202/regulation/11/made

 

If its because PATAS is biased as you claim then why is the review carried out by PATAS?

[Conniff]

Who said anything about the council. If it's not a conspiracy to drag in revenue, then it has to be that designers are thick and stupid.

What came first, the crossing or the box ?

[green_and_mean]

Who said anything about the council. If it's not a conspiracy to drag in revenue, then it has to be that designers are thick and stupid.

What came first, the crossing or the box ?

 

The thread is about PCNs issued by the Council, you blamed the phasing of the lights which is not under their control.

[Conniff]

The thread is about PCNs issued by the Council, you blamed the phasing of the lights which is not under their control.

 

And what is causing those PCNs, the phasing of the lights. I'm sure if the council asked or demanded that the sequence be changed it would be done, but of course that would massively reduce the income they get from just this one junction.

 

Both things are intertwined.

[green_and_mean]

And what is causing those PCNs, the phasing of the lights. I'm sure if the council asked or demanded that the sequence be changed it would be done,

 

 

you've obviously not had dealings with Tfl!

[Conniff]

That's not a reply. If TFL control the phasing, they would have to respond to a request for that phasing to be changed.