Free Traffic Legal Advice

Or to put it another way, what time did the driver  cause the vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle had to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

The PCN says 1538, the evidence shows 1537.

I don't know how an adjudicator would view it but I'd definitely include it in representations/appeal.  The contravention as stated on your PCN manifestly did not occur.

Here's a draft representation to kick things off.  Suggest waiting to see if cp8759 or others want to refine it.

Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest

I challenge liability for PCN FR60841371 on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

In respect of box junctions, a contravention is only committed if a person causes a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.  There is an exemption for vehicles which enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right and wait in the box junction to complete the turn due to oncoming traffic or another stationary vehicle waiting to turn right.

1) As I approached the box junction, there was ample space to accommodate my vehicle at my chosen exit.  However just at the point I was committed to entering the box, the oncoming vehicle (which was not indicating left) suddenly chose to turn left rather than go straight on and took the space on the road I had intended to use as my exit.  Notwithstanding this issue, from viewing the video footage, I can see my vehicle was inside the box only to a limited extent (broadly by just over one wheel diameter).  I contend that there was enough space in front of my vehicle for me to move forward by at least this amount, and as such I did not have to stop within the box (a necessary requirement for the contravention to be made out).  I refer to tribunal decision 2230392476 (also from this location) which sets out very similar circumstances.

2) As per the contravention definition (taken from the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016), where a contravention occurs, it occurs at the point the driver causes the vehicle to enter the box junction.  To paraphrase, the offence is one of showing poor judgement to enter the box junction in circumstances which ultimately result in the vehicle being blocked in the box junction due to stationary vehicles impeding its exit from the box junction.

The PCN I received alleges a contravention taking place at 1538.  However the video evidence supplied by the Authority shows my vehicle entering the box junction at 1537.  While the time difference is only of one minute, the PCN is required by law to set out the grounds on which the council believes that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle and as such the contravention alleged in the PCN manifestly did not occur.

3) I also point out that I entered the box junction for the purpose of turning right.  While I note that ultimately my vehicle stopped behind another vehicle which was not waiting to turn right, it is the case that had my vehicle waited in the centre of the box junction and taken longer over the right turn, then the right turn exemption would have remained in play and a contravention would not have been committed.  Consequently it would seem I am being punished in this case for seeking to cease causing an obstruction in the centre of the box and move to the extremities (which from the footage seem to be marked a little outside a strict interpretation of the boundaries of the junction between the two roads).

In light of these representations, I look forward to confirmation the PCN has been cancelled.

Kind regards,

Thank you very much Mr chips for this, very much appreciated.

Re the space in front I would hope that whoevet ultimately looks at this will see there is a wedge of space in the front of my car even when the car from the left turns in.

I was hoping to measure the distance from the edge of the box to say the furthest dashed line of the crossing in front of me to say "from Google earth it is clear there is a gap in the front of my car of x metres". I spose I don't want to be in a position whereby the adjudicator says how do you expect me to know from the evidence I have how big the gap was in front of you with out any form of specific measurements to go on.

If you guys think that's overkill and I am over thinking things then I am happy to be guided by you.

I also will take a steer on whether it is worth making a representation as to why I stopped where I did, I. E to not foul the crossing directly in front of me?

Also, final thought from me for today - if anyone here thinks I am onto a loser with this and I should just chalk it up and pay it please do say. I'm inclined to contest it but then I am a bit of an awkward git. But if anyone thinks I'm more likely to end up losing this than getting a more positive result please also let me know.

If it would be clear to a blind man on a flying horse that there is room in front to clear the box don't add a measurement if it is a close thing do so

OK I've whacked this in tonight. Will keep this thread updated. Fully expect to have to take it to a hearing!


Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest

I challenge liability for PCN FR60841371 on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur as alleged or at all. I make the following points and would ask you properly consider and address each submission that I make:

1) In respect of box junctions, it is trite law that a contravention is only committed if a person causes a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.  There is an exemption for vehicles which enter the box junction for the purpose of turning right and wait in the box junction to complete the turn due to oncoming traffic or another stationary vehicle waiting to turn right.

2) As I approached the box junction, there was ample space to accommodate my vehicle at my chosen exit as is clearly evidenced by the footage from the enforcement camera.  However just at the point I was committed to entering the box and did so, the oncoming vehicle (which was not indicating left) suddenly chose to turn left rather than go straight on and took the space on the road I had assessed was available when I entered the box and had intended to use as my exit.  Notwithstanding this issue, from viewing the video footage, I can see my vehicle was inside the box only to a very limited extent (broadly by just over one wheel diameter).  I contend that it is clear from the footage that there was enough space in front of my vehicle for me to move forward by at least this amount, if not significantly more, and as such I did not have to stop within the box due to a stationary vehicle (a necessary requirement for the contravention to be made out).  I refer to tribunal decision 2230392476 (also from this location) which sets out almost identical circumstances in which the PCN was quashed on appeal. I stopped just short of the crossing directly in front of my car which in all the circumstances was a reasonable course of action. It is clear from the cctv that there was more than ample space in front of my vehicle for me to have cleared the box by some considerable margin, and thus the contravention did not occur as alleged, or at all.

3) As per the contravention definition (taken from the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016), where a contravention occurs, it occurs at the point the driver causes the vehicle to enter the box junction (my emphasis added). To paraphrase, the offence is one of showing poor judgement to enter the box junction in circumstances which ultimately result in the vehicle being blocked in the box junction due to stationary vehicles directly in front impeding its exit from the box junction. None of these factors are at play here. When I took the decision to enter the box junction to turn right it is clear there was ample space to accommodate my vehicle - my judgment in this respect cannot be criticised, because my exit was clear and I therefore proceeded to enter the box. It remains the case that whilst the vehicle that turned left (without indicating) took up some of the space I had assessed as being available to me at the point I entered the box junction - there was still more than enough  space directly in front of my car for me to move forward without colliding with the vehicle in front. It stands to reason, and is as plain as a pikestaff from the footage, that my car did not stop In the box junction because of a stationary vehicle in front of mine, which is what the council is required to prove in order for this to be a properly issued PCN.

4) The PCN I received alleges a contravention taking place at 1538.  However the video evidence supplied by the Authority shows my vehicle entering the box junction, which is the alleged contravention, at 1537.  While the time difference is only of one minute, the PCN is required, by law, to set out full and accurate grounds on which the council believes that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle. As such the contravention alleged in the PCN at the time pleaded by the council, manifestly did not occur and the PCN is thus defective.

5) I also point out that I entered the box junction for the purpose of turning right.  While I note that ultimately my vehicle stopped behind another vehicle which was not waiting to turn right, it is the case that had my vehicle waited in the centre of the box junction and taken longer over the right turn, then the right turn exemption would have remained in play. Consequently it would seem that the council wishes to attempt to punish me in this case for seeking to cease causing an obstruction in the centre of the box and move to the extremities (which from the footage seem to be marked a outside a strict interpretation of the boundaries of the junction between the two roads).

In summary, my car did not commit the contravention as alleged at the time as alleged.

In light of these representations, in respect of which I ask for a response by post, I look forward to confirmation the PCN has been cancelled.

Yours sincerely

Thank you. Do you think I've got reasonable prospects of success at tribunal? If so I'll happily take the risk.