English: By March 2008 the criss-cross yellow box junctions were fading outside all three entrances to Arriva's bus garage in Philip Lane, Tottenham N15.

(Including the curved-roof building on the left of the photo.)

═══════════════════════════════ Second in a series of five photos about two unlawful yellow box junctions outside the Arriva bus garage in Philip Lane N15.

◄ ◄ First ││ Next ► │ Last ► ►

═══════════════════════════════

Before May 2006, these road markings were enforced by Haringey Council using closed circuit cameras (CCTV) and by Penalty Charge Notices - PCNs. ("Tickets" or "fines".) A total of 3,746 PCNs were issued to drivers stopping in or partly in the box junctions. I listed the monthly figures below the previous photo here.

In 2008, former councillor Ray Dodds made Freedom of Information Act (F.o.I.) requests about these road markings and fines on motorists. The answers from Haringey Parking Service revealed that the validity of the yellow boxes had been raised internally by Haringey staff two years earlier - on 2 March 2006. On 14 March 2006 it was confirmed that the box junctions "did not comply with the regulations set by the Department for Transport (DfT)". In other words, they were unlawful.

Despite knowing this, Haringey officers continued to issue a few PCNs (fines). I was later told that in April and May 2006 "officers acted contrary to instructions".

"Whilst We Seek Authorisation"

On 3 March 2008 Haringey Parking Service wrote to Ray Dodds telling him: "We have however left the box marking on site as it acts as a deterrent for vehicles obstructing access to the bus garage whilst we seek authorisation from DfT to legally enforce markings".

Their email to Ray seems to suggest that, having confirmed in March 2006 that the two boxes did not comply with Statutory Regulations, they'd left them there for the time being while they tried to rectify the position. How? By getting the Department for Transport to authorise the boxes retrospectively.

So when did Haringey's Environment Department actually seek authorisation? Ray Dodds and I uncovered that: ● Haringey staff didn't contact the DfT immediately after 2 March 2006, even though they had a pretty good idea that the yellow box junctions were unlawful. ● Nor was it shortly after 14 March 2006 when they confirmed that the boxes were unlawful.

In fact, Haringey did not make this request to the Department for Transport until Tuesday 26 February 2008 - almost two years later. And this was apparently only after Ray Dodds had raised the issue with Haringey officers.

In letters we later obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, Ray Dodds and I uncovered that, unlike Haringey Parking Service, the Department for Transport did not drag its feet. The DfT replied to Haringey very speedily indeed. On 6 March 2008 John Munns, from the DfT Traffic Signs Policy replied that they could not authorise these yellow box junctions. Haringey received his reply on 7 March 2008.

What Mr John Munns wrote to Haringey:

"Thank you for your letter of 26 February 2008 concerning yellow box junctions on Philip Lane at entrances to Tottenham Bus garage."

"I regret that we cannot authorise these yellow boxes. Even if yellow boxes which wholly comply with diagrams 12043 or 1044 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 are placed in the road they are also subject to Schedule 19 part 2 on page 411 of TSRGD 2002. This defines a 'box junction' and included in the definition that it is 'at the junction of two or more roads'. We do not have powers to amend this definition without Parliamentary process. Whilst Philip Lane is certainly a road we doubt that the two entrances to Tottenham Bus Garage would qualify as roads."

"I am aware at certain sites in London where yellow boxes have been placed at entrances to fire stations, hospitals, bus stations, and similar places. Unless such boxes are placed at actual junctions of roads all such boxes may be vulnerable to challenge when enforcement action is taken. Authorisation of such road markings will not alter the legal position."

"I am sorry (especially on this occasion) that we cannot be more helpful. You may wish to resort to a road marking to diagram 1026 In the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.""

_____________

To recap, here's the sequence:

● 2 March 2006 - doubts about the the validity of the yellow boxes are raised internally by Haringey staff. In other words they doubted whether they were able "to legally enforce markings" - i.e. fine motorists by issuing PCNs. ● 14 March 2006 - Haringey confirm that the two yellow box junctions do not comply with the Statutory Regulations. ● Tuesday 26 February 2008 Haringey write to the Department for Transport (DfT) requesting them to authorise these two yellow box junctions ● Monday 3 March 2008 Haringey Parking Service write to Cllr Ray Dodds ● Thursday 6 March 2008 John Munns at the Department for Transport (DfT) writes to Haringey refusing to authorise the boxes. ● Friday 7 March 2008 Haringey receives the DfT. reply.

Why is this time sequence important? Because It shows that when Haringey Parking Service wrote to Ray Dodds on 3 March 2008 they omitted to mention that they'd only written to the DfT on this matter six days before. Then, only four days later when they got Mr Munn's negative reply, they failed to pass this key piece of information to Ray Dodds. This was despite the fact that he was the councillor who raised the issue. At the time, Ray also represented Bruce Grove ward where the bus garage (and yellow box junctions) are situated.

Later when refusing to refund any of the money paid by motorists on these unlawful box junctions, Haringey claimed that it had been "acting in good faith" when it sent out the fines. Would a reasonable observer have found much "acting in good faith" in the sequence of events we uncovered?

Ray Dodds and I found none whatsoever.

═════════════════════════

Click here ► to read the next section.