Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi Folks. I am looking for some advice regarding a 31J Yellow box alleged contravention.

I already appealed and I was unsuccessful, I received the Notice of rejection on 19th December 2025.

Based on research I have done, I argued –
1) That the contravention didn’t occur as there was a bus that blocked the view of my car so it was impossible to see whether the exit was clear upon entry.
2) Also, the camera shows that three cars let out the junction so I wasn’t actually blocking anything.
3) Procedural defects:
•   The PCN lists as a ground:
“The traffic order (except where it is an order made under Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) which is alleged to have been contravened is invalid.”
This is incorrect, as yellow box (31J) contraventions are enforced under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) and do not rely on any traffic order. Including this ground is misleading and constitutes procedural impropriety, as it could confuse motorists about the legislation under which they are being charged.
•   The “making representations” section repeats this traffic order ground alongside other irrelevant parking-related wording, which fails to clearly inform motorists of the actual statutory grounds applicable.
•   I also note that the council’s website / PCN policy document lists statutory grounds for representations, including:
o   Vehicle permitted to remain at rest by someone in control without owner’s consent (parking-type wording)
o   Traffic order invalid
o   Procedural impropriety
o   Other irrelevant or duplicative grounds
These online grounds are inaccurate and misleading for moving-traffic 31J offences. The council’s website lists statutory grounds for representations that include parking-related or other irrelevant grounds which do not apply to moving traffic contraventions such as a 31J yellow box offence. This creates confusion for motorists and fails to clearly convey the actual statutory grounds under which a representation can be made, constituting procedural impropriety. Including irrelevant grounds on the PCN, in the representation form, and on the council website creates confusion and uncertainty, further demonstrating procedural impropriety.
•   Additionally, the PCN fails to explicitly include procedural impropriety as a statutory ground in the PCN wording itself, as required under Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. This omission compounds the procedural defects.

Unfortunately they rejected my appeal. Do I have a case? Please see the link below showing my PCN Letter and Notice of rejection. Please see the following video link

https://parking.havering.gov.uk/pages/OnlineReferenceEntry.aspx?loadtype=NOTICEREVIEW

PCN Number: HG62554052
Reg: LX16 DDF

PCN Notices

Any help or guidance on my next appeal would be greatly appreciated.

Prod me. I will do a draft later having won a case recently v them.

Thank you both for your help. Really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Won.  Goodbye to the Key Case below as this adjudicator rationally listened and decided.

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/environment-traffic/key-cases/anisha-moosafeer-v-london-borough-havering

Good job I wasn't mentioned. Who cares at my age. What a fandango this system is.

Case Number ?

Outcome.