Free Traffic Legal Advice

I think you'll fail on this one - the box only extends to the road width (it includes footways) and you entered the box when the leading car was just past half-way through and you can see a motorbike slowing ahead. There is no evidence of the other car stopping short but you can try and convince an adjudicator.
Shame as there was loads of room to exit on the right.

Can't agree with this sweeping assumption, I'm afraid.

At the corners the footways are, for want of a better term, shared. As the purpose of a box junction relates to vehicles and not pedestrians then IMO it is more logical to consider the extent of the side road as terminating where the 'Give Way' road markings end, which is well before the end of the YBJ.

OP, if you have time to alter your appeal then IMO you must get them to commit themselves and state the lawful authority which supports their contention e.g. if the authority reject these representations then they are obliged to provide authority for their claim that a YBJ may be marked, and therefore effectively extended, beyond the junction when the Traffic Signs Manual and even their own 'Give Way' markings, which delimit the carriageway here, indicate that the junction does not extend to this point.

Thank you HCA. How do I do that?  What should I put in?

There is a decision re Kingston box junction which is similar...


Case reference   2230056005
Appellant   Jeff Baker
Authority   Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames

Contravention location   KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Entering and stopping in a box junction
   
Decision Date   28 Feb 2023
Adjudicator   Andrew Harman
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   Upon the appellant making submissions as to the extent of box junction markings supporting evidence being provided.


This box junction is not only marked at the junction between these two roads but also in advance and beyond that junction.

It is not therefore marked in compliance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 this penalty charge thus being unenforceable.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

The box does not extend excessively and is pretty much across the mouth of the road, and a lot of other boxes are like this. One reason is probably to give some extra sight lines. 

The Kingston case cited I believe is for a box that is/was clearly out of bounds in one direction.

It's worth a shot but I wouldn't be confident in taking it to the tribunal.

I would say something like 'Given the traffic flow ahead and the size of the side road  I was confident if the other drivers had taken up their space I would have cleared the junction and I only encroached on a part of the box that does not conform to the regulations of being marked only at the junction area of the two roads.'
etc.

It might be better to show examples of boxes that conform strictly - I've posted two videos here:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/2-in-one-day-help!/

This may be the Kingston box:
http://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2023/05/kingston-road-new-malden-yellow-box.html

The OP isn't at adjudication yet, they're putting their case in reps and attempting to discover the authority's reasoning for not adopting the TSM form.

Also, the 'Give Way' road marking delineates the extent of the carriageway in the side road. IMO, it is a leap too far to suggest that 'road' as in 'a junction between two or more roads' includes the furthest reaches of shared footway.

But this is just a view.

Can someone look at my last draft and see if it's good to go?  Or if there is anything I should add or subtract from it.

It has to be submitted by tomorrow.

Well surprise surprise, my friend got a rejection letter

https://imgur.com/a/owPU6FW

https://imgur.com/a/OYpfgnz

https://imgur.com/a/sHIWGbs

https://imgur.com/a/kRRZn7Q

Should she give up or fight it at a tribunal?

And the period for making an appeal itself is misstated as is the council's power to issue a Charge Certificate both of which must be 'no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service of the NOR'(they had two bites at this and both are wrong!).

OP, in principle nothing has changed i.e. the authority wouldn't accept that their YBJ had been placed improperly. But what their rejection does show is their lack of understanding of the law (it's the TMA 2004 but this is not relevant because the regs regarding YBJ are made under completely different legislation, the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) and IMO your friend stands a good chance at adjudication with 'contravention did not occur' to which they would add what is known as a collateral challenge based upon the lack of cogent reasons to rebut the argument regarding the extent of the YBJ and misinformation regarding the owner's rights of appeal.

Wait for others.