East Hill / St Anne’s Hill

This junction is one of TfL’s cash cows. Since mid 2005 it has contributed almost £1M towards Ken’s coffers. According to recent press coverage that is £1M of our money to be wasted by Ken’s cronies on pointless projects or trips abroad.

Following a couple of recent cases at PATAS, this junction has been ruled as unenforceable, so that should put a serious dent in their finances.


To cut a long story short, the road markings do not conform to Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. That being the case, they have the legal status of graffiti. This yellow box serves absolutely no purpose other than to raise revenue.

The two cases that have been decided so far are Nelson –v- Transport for London (2070524104) and Donley –v- Transport for London (207055326A). There are more in the pipeline. The good thing about these cases is that I was only involved in the latter. If two people put forward the same argument to two different Adjudicators, and they reach the same verdict, then it presents a very strong persuasive argument the next time around.

As with all non-compliant boxes you make representation against the PCN by ticking the box that says something like “The contravention did not occur.”

You then write the reasons as “This box junction is not as prescribed by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002. Unless it has been authorised by the Secretary of State for Transport it is unenforceable. ”

If/when the representations are rejected come back and leave a message. I will supply the necessary arguments for an appeal to PATAS.


26 Responses to East Hill / St Anne’s Hill

  1. Comstock says:

    A more pointless box I cannot imagine. Like you say, serving no possible purpose besides revenue raising.

  2. Comstock says:

    Indeed looking at it again, it would actually make things worse, because cars would block the pedestrian crossing if they stopped short of the box


  3. SG says:


    I recieved a penalty notice about the St.anne’s/east hill box in december. It’s ridiculous, as you say you’re left with very little choice but to enter the box.

    Anyway, I appealed with a number of points, which they rejected. TfL’s reply was most notable for not responding to my claims that the junction is not enforcable due it covering both lanes and not being painted to the kerb. So I’ve now appealed to PATAS with this, and the some of your info above, and we’ll wait to see.

  4. Ann Berry says:

    It was because I considered it unacceptable to block the pedestrian crossing that on 20th Jan. 2008 I moved forward into this illegal box and received a PCN in consequence. I have appealed on the grounds that the box is non-compliant,, quoting the text in inverted commas above, and that therefore the PCN is unenforceable.

    Considering the above excellent photoof the box , it becomes immediately evident that it serves absolutely no useful purpose at all; it is solely a moneymaking scan for TfL.

    I will keep you informed on the outcome of the appeal.

  5. david freeman says:

    11 March 2008

    Penalty Notice GT******** Reg No ************

    Date of alleged ‘offence’ 01/03/2008.
    Notice received 10/03/08

    Dear Sir,

    I have received the PCN for offence of stopping on strange yellow box markings, recently having appeared in East Hill/St Anne’s Hill in Wandsworth. Apart from anything else, the markings are immediately beyond a pedestrian crossing, which effectively lengthens the ‘box’ and makes it more difficult to judge whether the free flowing traffic will suddenly stop. As happened in my case.

    In a conversation today with your helpful customer service representative, Pat Patel, it was suggested that I write to give notice of my appeal against this penalty on the grounds that I do not believe that this yellow box conforms with the Traffic Signs regulations and General Directions 2002. Furthermore, I would argue that unless this has been authorised by the Secretary of State for Transport, it is unenforceable.

    I therefore suggest that the contravention did not occur.

    Mr Patel confirmed that this letter, delivered by email, would be sufficient to pause the ‘penalty’ in the discounted £60 bracket should TFL eventually suggest that there are no grounds of appeal.

    I quote the case of Nelson V TfL (2070524104) and also Donley V TfL (207055326A) in my defence.

    Naturally, should you disallow this appeal, I shall consider taking my case to PATAS.

    However, I hope that common sense will prevail, and that this may be settled amicably.

    I would be appreciative of, by return, a receipt of understanding that this letter is accepted as an appeal, and, if there is any need to post-in the completed document/demand I have received.

    Yours sincerely,
    David Freeman

  6. Ann Berry says:

    Hi David (and any others to whom it may be of interest),

    Following receipt of a PCN for this junction, and investigation of its legality through means of this wonderful website, I wrote to TfL on 1st March, and posted my letter recorded delivery. (Being of a cynical and sceptical nature, I did not trust the ephemeral nature of e-mails in this instance – too easy some weeks down the line to deny receipt!)

    My letter to TfL was appreciably shorter than yours – simply to the effect that the Junction was non-compliant under Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002, unless permitted otherwise by the M o T (or whomever – can’t remember at this moment), and the PCN therefore unenforceable and I trusted I would therefore hear no more on the matter.

    To date, 6 weeks later, I have heard nothing. Am keeping all fingers crossed, but I suspect they know they are in a “no win” situation here, in cases where the victim puts up a fight. Doesn’t seem to stop them extorting cash from 96% of motorists though, does it?

    I understand TfL are legally obliged to inform the victim when a case is dropped. They haven’t so informed me, but I do not intend to stir up a potential hornet’s nest by asking!


    Ann Berry

  7. Ann Berry says:

    Amost eight weeks after I wrote to TfL re. the PCN they issued to me on Jan 25th in respect of the non-compliant and therefore illegal St.Anne’s Hill/East Hill junction at Wandsworth, I received yesterday a further notice – computer generated presumably – threatening me with the increase of the penalty to £180, and then further upward progression, leading to an eventual Court Order and visit from Bailiffs, if I do not pay up £120 within 14 days. No acknowledgement or mention is made of the letter I sent to TfL on 31st January, recorded delivery, and which was signed for, at TfL, a few days later.

    Needless to say I do not intend to pay. Within the next few days I shall write to TfL again, and I shall again send it Recorded Delivery. This time I shall be more expansive in what I say, I shall of course enclose a copy, printed off the Royal Mail website, of the signature obtained from TfL when my letter was delivered. I shall demand acknowledgement of my letter. I shall send a copy to my MP and also to the BBC (who did a Breakfast TV item on London box junctions a few weeks ago) and to anyone else whom I can think of. In short, I am aiming for high profile, very adverse, publicity for the bullying and threatening tactics employed by TfL in their attempts to extort money, illegally, from the driving public. It is deplorable. Amongst other things, I shall say that of course, should they seek a Court Order against me, legal costs would be incurred on my part for which they would ultimately be responsible.

    This needs to be stopped. For every one of us who are sufficiently knowledgeable and articulate to stand up to TfL’s bullying, there are hundreds who are intimidated in paying up and shutting up.

    Ann Berry

  8. David Freeman says:

    Further to my letter above, I have received a letter, with pictures, confirming that they believe I am at fault. No mention of the arguments I put forward, nor of the two court cases I quoted. Unfortunately, being extremely busy, too busy for this crap, I suppose I will bow down to these greedy clowns an pay up. Risking £120 or more I do not want to do. What options do I have? It feels like Stalinist Russia and I don’t like it.
    I will NOT be voting for the dictator Red Ken
    …will anyone??
    David Freeman

  9. Amy White says:

    Do not bow down to TfL, appeal this PCN and go to PATAS. There have been many many appeals against TfL over this box and nearly all of them have been allowed. It might be wise to check with the Department of Transport first to make sure it hasn’t received special authorisation (contact: John Munns).

    Good luck!

  10. Amy White says:

    This website states all the YBJs that have received special authorisation up to Sept 07 and St Ann’s Hill is not on there…


  11. Ann Berry says:

    Hi David

    Do not, PLEASE, do NOT bow down to these foul bullies. I have written to Rebecca Christgau, who overseas TfL, complaining about TfL’s absence of acknowledgement of any of my communications and have received a letter telling me that she is “looking into it.” This was about 10 days ago and I am still waiting.

    In the meantime, this a.m., despite having written twice to TfL, sending the letters recorded delivery each time, and having been totally ignored, they now write to tell me that they have obtained an order for recovery of the costs – now alleged to be £185, including a £5 Court Fee, and that if I don’t pay within 21 days they will send the bailffs in. The alternative is for me to go and swear before a Commissioner for Oaths that I have appealed. Why should I do this? I have committed no offence, as Amy’s recent contribution confirms (Thank you Amy). Since when, in England, could an order be granted in a Court of Law against an individual, without that individual either being informed or given a chance to make representations? We are, indeed, heading for a totalitarian Police State.

    I am now about to e-mail BBCRadio4 “You & Yours” (the excellent prog. that goes out each weekday at noon), asking them to take this up. They do great things for the persecuted underdog – which we are.

    We absolutely must not give in to this. I have been absent from home for a week, without Internet access, or would have made this contribution sooner.

  12. Ann Berry says:

    Amendment to my post of yesterday:

    The communication I received yesterday does NOT tell me that TfL have already obtained a Court Order against me for recovery. It tells me that, failing receipt within 21 days of what they now say I owe, they will then apply for a Court Order. I needed to read it all very carefully, then read it again, to establish this, because the form is evidently worded to imply that the Order has already been obtained. Nasty! The communication seems to come from an office within Northampton Court – the “Bulk Centre”, so of course that is what one sees first. The wording is very craftily done, very evidently to panic victims into paying up. That makes more sense – it did seem to me outrageous that in the UK anyone could obtain a Court Order without the person against whom it was to be made being informed and given a chance to speak up for themselves. It is evidence of how outrageous is the way TfL go about their business that I, a mature, competent woman, who was successfully self-employed for 16 years and is experienced in dealing with bureaucracy, can become seriously alarmed at receipt of such a communication.

    I am as certain as I reasonably can be that those of us who stick it out to the end will either find that TfL backs down eventually, or that we are actually issued with a Court Summons, in which case we shall have the opportunity to speak up for ourselves and make TfL look the incompetent idiots they are! I certainly intend to take it right to the wire. If I have to go to the County Court in Northampton, then that is what I shall do, and shall ask for costs against TfL!

    So – the battle will continue. It is evident that TfL make it a practice totally to ignore any communications they receive from victims, be they e-mails, phone calls, or – as in my case – recorded delivery letters. The bureaucratic monster lumbers on regardless, churning out more and more computer-generation sheets of paper designed to frighten unfortunate drivers into parting with their cash. The sad thing is that around 96% pay up and shut up, preferring a quiet life to taking a stand. However, I am not one of them, and I am taking a stand!

  13. Louise says:

    I have just received a PCN from TFL for the stupid yellow box. I have emailed them asking that they send me the video footage that they claim they have. Should I send in the representations anyway? This is the most rediculous yellow box. I was still moving as is so obvious on the photo as there was another car right behind me. Any ideas?

  14. Sian says:

    Hi, I am hoping someone can help me with this particular yellow box – another of Wandsworth’s rubber stamped cash cows! This one is on the junction of Battersea Rise and Bolingbroke Grove. I have checked and it has been given approval by the Secertary of State and so, I imagine, it complies with the TSRGD. My question is this: The lorry in front of me stopped even though the traffic in front of him was moving and I went forward as I imagined he would too; he carried on a few seconds later as did I and cleared the junction whilst the light was still green. Also, the way the box is drawn despite the fact that my front wheels are on the yellow grid, I am about 3 or 4 feet from the junction itself. Do you think these facts will show up on the video and are they suitable grounds for appeal

  15. Ann Berry says:

    Following almost four months of aggro., the PCN issued to me in respect of the Wandsworth East Hill/St. Anne’s Hill junction has now been cancelled. As my previous comments state, I wrote twice to TfL stating my belief that this junction, being non-compliant and having no exemption under the relevant regulations, was unenforceable, but nevertheless TfL obtained an Enforcement Order against me at the Bulk Centre at Northampton County Court, threatening to send in the Bailiffs if I didn’t pay up – by this time they alleged I owed £185. TfL did not acknowledge or respond in any way to either of the letters I sent to them. I of course was not informed in advance of the intention to obtain an Enforcement Order, so had no opportunity to put my side of the argument before a Court. So much for UK Justice – I believe if you receive a speeding or other driving summons issued by the Police, you have the opportunity to put in an appearance in Court and challenge the summons if you consider it incorrect or that there were mitigating circumstances. In the case of the PCN, to obviate the risk of Bailiffs calling, I had to file the Statutory Declaration (cost £5) with Northampton Court.

    Following a very strong letter of complaint to Rebecca Christgau, Enforcement Services Manager, of TfL the PCN has been cancelled. Interestingly, she admits that the junction does not have DfT approval but says TfL “are satisfied that it is compliant in all regards”, since it is “clearly visible”! Well – in my view, something is either compliant with relevant regulations, in which case it has legal status, or it isn’t! I thought that’s what Laws are for! However, other more knowledgeable readers of this may have other, better informed, views.

    So – I am out of pocket to the extent of the cost of the Stat. Dec. – £5 – plus 5 Recorded Delivery letters at around £1.20 each. A total of, say £10. That, however, is not the point. The point is that – in my view anyway – right has been done. My best wishes to all who choose to fight these deplorable PCNs when they have grounds genuinely to believe they have been unjustly issued.

    (I drove some distance through South London on Saturday, either side of mid-day, and observed at least a dozen unfortunate motorists being forced to stop in yellow junction boxes in circumstances they would have been hard put to foresee. I reflected on all the PCNs for £120 that will be landing on door mats during the coming week. I refused to enter any box until absolutely certain that my exit was clear and therefore received a number of aggressive hoots from frustrated fellow drivers. )

  16. Jill Carter says:

    I too have fallen foul of this junction. My husband picked me up from hospital and then drove my car down to our home near Portsmouth. The car was shown to have been stationary for 8 seconds with a third or less of the car in the box. I wrote saying the was not legal plus other comments as to why the box was unsatisfactory. They replied (date was a week earleir than delivered, apparently due to flow of work was 5 days late in being posted! Rejection of my reasons. My husband only gets £650 per month so it is a large sum for him to lose if we appeal and the judjement goes against us. It is tempting to pay up but I feel bitter that this was highway reobbery with intent. Any help gratefully received. Especially if someone can tell me wether this junction still has not been approved as of (May 14th 2008). Thank you.

  17. Sammy Kanan says:

    And another one! I got one turning left onto the junction on May 16th. I agree that I stopped but that isn’t the issue; I pulled too slowly into the junction box and kept left assuming that I could pull over to the right where there was space if the van in front really didn’t move within a few seconds. Stupid me! Another driver behind me spotted this space and turned the corner “overtaking” me and filled it. At least that is the way I remember it. What could I do but remain stationary in the box? I wrote this and it has been rejected on the basis that “I note your comments. Upon investigation I can confirm that your vehicle moved unnecessarily into the box junction. Our CCTV video evidence clearly shows your vehicle entering the box junction before the exit route was clear, where it remained stationary”. I’d love to see this evidence but to get a copy of the video I have to pay £10 and otherwise I have to go to their offices to see it which will cost me time off work etc. What can you do?

  18. Sammy Kanan says:

    I just wrote to the DfT to get the latest on this junction, the latest documentation (issued April 9th, 2008) doesn’t contain this junction specifically. This makes me wonder though; if the junction doesn’t conform to the standards set out by the DfT and it doesn’t have special authorisation then surely any PCN issued is actually against the law, or? The fundamental issue is if the ybj is legal or not if not then all the PCNs are faulty, regardless if anyone appealled or not. Can TfL really do this for so long without any repercussion?

  19. Sammy Kanan says:

    The latest from the Department for Transport:

    I can confirm that we received an authorisation request from Transport for London dated 10 June 2008 for a non prescribed yellow box marking at the junction of East Hill with St Ann’s Hill. After discussions with our technical advisers, we replied on the 16 June expressing some concerns and requested modifications before any authorisation would be issued. We have yet to receive a reply to this letter.

  20. Nigel Smith says:

    I have won an appeal of the grounds of a non compliant box, Peter Nigel Smith v Transport for London, Case No 2080180114, dated 15 July 2008. I discovered that TFL lost the same case in Nelson v TFL, 2070524104, in January 2008, 6 weeks before rejecteing my representation. I have now written to TFL demanding costs as their decision to attempt to strike down my appeal (with an 11 page submssion) was either reckless or an abuse of power or both and as such wholly unreasinable.

    Nigel Smith

  21. Katy Byrne says:

    I wonder if you could advice me on a pcn received by my husband for “entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited”.

    The CCTV pictures clearly record him entering and leaving the box junction at the same time. That is, he passed through the box junction within 1 second. So how can they say he stopped?

    Also the box junction does not go right up to the kerb but up to some double yellow lines. Is this legal?

    Lambeth Council has rejected his appeal. He now had to decide whether to take it to the Adjudicator or not. What do you think? When he entered the box junction (to make a left turn) the pictures do show another car at the other side but as I say he passed through in a second…..

    Any thoughts gratefully received.


  22. kelvin says:


    below is a link to the PCN i received for code 31.:


    i have make some explanation on it for you to advise wht to do. this PCN is not true, it is unfair and thats why i need help.

    i will need a template to use for appealling immediately. please help me.

  23. Incredible! This blog looks just like my old one!
    It’s on a totally different subject but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Great choice of colors!

  24. I’m not positive where you’re getting your information, however good topic.
    I must spend some time studying more or working out more.
    Thanks for great information I was on the lookout for this information for my mission.

  25. Yesterday, while I was at work, my cousin stole my iPad and tested to see if it can
    survive a 25 foot drop, just so she can be a youtube sensation.

    My apple ipad is now broken and she has 83 views.
    I know this is completely off topic but I had to share it with someone!

  26. Ila says:

    I do trust all the concepts you have presented for your
    post. They’re very convincing and can certainly work. Nonetheless, the posts are very quick for beginners. May you please extend them a bit from subsequent time? Thanks for the post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: