Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,
I believe the box junction is unjustifiably large.
Encroaching into the box as alleged has no chance of impacting the crossing traffic.
Please advise on the best next steps.
Many thanks in advance


PCN - 2 pages




Council Evidence



Google streetview https://maps.app.goo.gl/MMqNQjqGSKYWM1kX6

Google areal view

Please obtain and post up the video, which is the evidence.

Please also post up the How to make represenatations page(s).

Not sure why you believe the box is too large??

I believe the area I have marked in red on the image below cannot be used by crossing vehicles. why does the yellow box include it?

Few thoughts on this:
1) De minimis - you clearly intend to respect the box junction markings, but just slightly misjudge and stop slightly inside. Road conditions probably didn't help, with the rain making the markings more difficult to see. In any case the part you stopped in isn't a true part of the carriageway junction as it's protected by a traffic island.
2) Arguably no offence actually committed as the car on the other side isn't stationary for long before it moves off down the outside, so if you'd actually travelled through the box at a modest speed (around 5mph) by the time you'd reached the other side there would have been space to accommodate your vehicle. Hence you didn't actually have to stop as a clear exit emerged.
3) The PCN says offence committed at 1150 even their own evidence shows 1149.

appeal submitted (1000 character limit on the council website):

1.   Excessive & Unlawful Demarcation: Yellow box extends into area physically segregated by traffic island, creating unenforceable zone (Highway Code Rule 174). Rain obscured painted lines, making island the sole visible boundary (evidence attached).
2.   Zero Obstruction Proven: Vehicle stopped exclusively within protected island zone to facilitate junction clearance. Video confirms no traffic impediment or safety compromise occurred.
3.   De Minimis Nature: Stopping caused no material obstruction – consistent with R (Davies) v Birmingham CC principle.
4.   Available Exit: Had I proceeded at 5mph (as permitted), the departing vehicle created sufficient clearance before my exit point. Stopping was unnecessary.
5.   Material Timing Inaccuracy: PCN alleges 11:50 violation, but your evidence shows entry at 11:49:44. 16-second discrepancy materially invalidates the alleged offense timing.
PCN void due to unlawful demarcation, de minimis impact, demonstrable exit clearance, evidence inconsistency

Sounds almost like AI wrote it! Did you already submit it?

yes submitted yesterday prior to the 14 day period expiry.
many thanks again for your input, @MrChips.

if I understand correctly, the councils are always rejecting the first representation and the same arguments will need to be presented to the adjudicator? If so, should I change anything in my text?

I have now recieved notice of rejection, included below.
Could you please advise if it makes sense to go for tribunal and if so any help drafting a representation is greatly appreciated.
Many thanks

I am very sorry I had not done a draft re the PCN. I was away and then subsequently lost my passport. I am happy to represent you as the PCN is beatable. I will PM you.

Me stressed? I did 4 hearings there, interspersed with beers at 2.50 euros per half litre. And shot  a silly video.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-pcn-bus-lane-whipps-cross-road/msg78286/#msg78286

Mail received.