It would strengthen this argument if we knew how many there are along the length of Ilford Lane.
Maybe it strengthens the argument even more if we don't know how many yellow boxes there are.
@H-M3 here's a draft I've come up with:
Dear London Borough of Redbridge,
I challenge liability on the ground that the penalty charge notice does not adequately particularise the alleged wrongdoing. The location of the alleged contravention is given as "Ilford Lane", the name of the road junction is not given. I have looked online and I can see that Ilford Lane is over a mile long and has some 35 junctions, but I cannot find any box junction markings so it seems the box markings have been painted since the Google Street View car last drove down this road.
As the notice does not allow me to understand where it is that the contravention is alleged to have taken place, the notice does not adequately specify the grounds on which you believe the penalty is payable, I refer you to the decision of adjudicator Carl Teper in Saijal Patel v London Borough of Brent (2160240742, 8 August 2016) and adjudicator Andrew Harman in Sandra Grauzyte v London Borough of Redbridge (2230201115, 31 May 2023).
It follows that the notice must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Send the representation online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
