Free Traffic Legal Advice

There's another current case at the same junction - very similar circumstances where you are in the box only to a marginal extent so could run an argument that the incursion is so small, unless you were right against the bumper of the car in front you could have crept forward another foot to clear the box junction completely.

In you case, there's also the roadworks which I think you've completely passed the start of.  This means you are beyond the effective junction with Kingsley Road which you should also mention in your representtions.

Just been down to get a picture and the box lines are intact. Still not sure how much space was in front of me and the car in front

I think your photo is quite persuasive, in that a chunk of the box junction has already been blocked by their roadworks, so it would seem inconsistent for you to be punished from a smaller incursion.

Not sure if there is anything specific in law to back this up, other than for a box junction needing to be situated at a junction of two roads, so if the junction has been diminished you should be able to point to this.

Certainly, I've seen adjudications throw out PCNs where a side road is fully closed and the box junction has continued to be enforced - you might be able to lean on this.

Personally, I'd give it a go, but it's not my money at stake!

I wonder if something like this would be a good place to start with my appeal?

I am writing to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice. I deny that a contravention occurred and request that the Notice be cancelled, for the following reasons.

1. The contravention did not occur — there was sufficient space to receive my vehicle, and the vehicle ahead was still moving when I entered

A box junction contravention only arises where a vehicle enters and has to stop within the box because there is insufficient space beyond it to receive the vehicle, due to the presence of stationary traffic already occupying that space. It is not a contravention simply to be present within the box markings if the vehicle could otherwise have proceeded.

At the point I entered the junction, the vehicle ahead of me was still moving — it was not stationary, and I had no reason to believe my exit was blocked. The footage shows the vehicle ahead still moving forward at 0:11, before it came to a stop. As my entry was not made in the face of stationary traffic, and I was not caused to stop by a lack of receiving space, no contravention occurred on the proper definition of the marking, regardless of whether my vehicle was briefly within the box.

2. Roadworks had just been installed at this junction, altering its layout with no opportunity to become familiar with the change

Roadworks at the Kingsley Road approach to this junction were installed in the days immediately before my alleged contravention on 04/06/2026. Other CCTV-enforced PCNs issued at this same junction as recently as 28/05/2026 show no roadworks present, which indicates the works were installed within that narrow window — i.e. very shortly before my own contravention date. This is relevant for two reasons:


It materially altered the layout and visual extent of the junction from what a regular road user would have expected, at extremely short notice.
The roadworks barrier itself encroached on the box junction, reducing its effective width by approximately 1.4 metres (measured using Google Maps' distance tool against the barrier's position). This means the area I am alleged to have stopped in had already been partly obstructed by the council's own works, and the practical space available within the junction was materially less than the marked dimensions would suggest. I have photographic evidence of this which I am able to provide if helpful.


I would ask the Council to confirm the exact date the roadworks were installed and to consider whether it is reasonable to enforce against a layout that had only just changed, with no advance signage or warning of the altered junction.

3. There was sufficient receiving space for my vehicle to clear the box completely

To the extent any part of my vehicle remained within the box markings, I am confident there was sufficient space ahead of me to have moved forward and cleared the box entirely, had I judged it necessary.

There is a manhole cover on the carriageway in the path of travel beyond the box junction. The vehicle ahead of mine had passed this manhole cover before coming to a stop. Using Google Maps' distance measuring tool, the rear edge of this manhole cover is approximately 4.8 metres from the relevant edge of the box junction markings. My vehicle (a third-generation Toyota Prius) is approximately 4.46 metres long [confirm exact figure from your V5C]. Had I drawn level with the vehicle ahead — i.e. with the front of my vehicle at the rear of the manhole cover — the rear of my own vehicle would have been approximately 0.34 metres clear of the box junction markings. This demonstrates there was sufficient receiving space available to me, and that I was not prevented from clearing the box by the presence of the vehicle ahead.

4. Request for evidence to be reviewed against these points

I have reviewed the photographs/CCTV footage provided with the Notice. I would ask the case officer to specifically review [insert timestamp/frame reference] showing the position and movement of the vehicle ahead of me at the moment of my entry into the junction, which I submit supports the above.

For these reasons, I ask that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled. I look forward to your response within the statutory period.