Yellow box junction — markings non-compliant with TSRGD 2016

Yellow box markings must comply with TSRGD 2016 Schedule 9. Defects: faded paint, hatch lines too thin/wide, box too small, missing perimeter, incorrect placement. The 2022 expansion outside London produced many newly-painted boxes with technical errors.

Legal basis

TSRGD 2016 (SI 2016/362), Schedule 9 Part 3; Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 s.85; Herron v Sunderland City Council [2011] EWHC 2188 (Admin)

How to identify this in your case

Visit location. Photograph markings overhead and from driver's eye-line. Compare hatch line width, perimeter completeness, box dimensions to TSRGD diagrams.

Sample appeal wording

Dear Sir/Madam, Re: PCN [NUMBER] — Yellow Box — [LOCATION] — [DATE] I challenge this PCN. The markings do not comply with TSRGD 2016. TSRGD 2016 (SI 2016/362) Schedule 9 Part 3 prescribes dimensions and configuration for yellow hatch box junction markings. My photographs show: - [Defect: faded paint to less than [%] visibility] - [Defect: perimeter line incomplete on [side]] - [Defect: hatch lines [X]mm thick, prescribed minimum is [Y]] - [Defect: box dimensions do not match prescribed] Under s.85 RTRA 1984 and Herron v Sunderland City Council [2011] EWHC 2188 (Admin), restrictions communicated by non-compliant markings cannot found a PCN. Please cancel. Yours faithfully, [NAME]

Replace [PARKING DATE], [NtK DATE] etc. with your own dates before sending.

Beat It writes this argument automatically

Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and submits it to the council on your behalf. Only pay if you win.

Scan my ticket

Yellow box junction — markings non-compliant with TSRGD 2016

Legal basis

How to identify this in your case

Sample appeal wording

Beat It writes this argument automatically

Sources

Related appeal grounds

Next steps