Free Traffic Legal Advice

This is a petty PCN. You are barely in contravention. They could have let this go.

You might have a shot with this by arguing that there was sufficient space for your vehicle.  The video is shot from an angle which makes it difficult/impossible to judge how much space there was between you and the car in front.  It appears like there wasn't much but that could be due to 'foreshortening'.

I think that's a Renault Clio which would be around 4 metres in length.  Using distance measuring on googlemaps and satellite view, 4 metres clearance of the box junction broadly takes you just beyond the start of the next lane divider between your side of the road and that for oncoming traffic.

It's difficult to judge but I reckon on balance of probabilities the car in front was beyond that point.

If you can demonstrate that on balance of probabilities you had enough space to clear the box completely, then there's no contravention, even if you did stop inside.  Certainly, it will be hard for the council to demonstrate convincingly that you couldn't have moved forward the necessary additional half metre or so.

That, combined with the fact the video starts with you clearly obeying the box junction and waiting patiently on the other side may convince an adjudicator to give you the benefit of the doubt and/or side with a de minimis argument.

I've spent a bit longer on this this evening.

The rear left wheel of the car in front is on a manhole which provides a good reference point.  That point seems to be about 4.6 metres in front of the yellow box.  Assuming your car is indeed 4 metres long, it can be demonstrated you had sufficient clearance.

It's only a contravention if you had to stop in the box.  You didn't have to, you only stopped as you thought you'd already cleared it.  You could have shuffled forward another metre and cleared it completely.

Firstly, thank you so much for all of the input/advice! 

Unsure how much detail to include, but i wrote the below draft. Feel free to tell me it's bad/good.   
Quick Qs:
* I'm new to all this, but does it really go to tribunal when you clearly cite another case - such as case 2240537258 @Hippocrates raised? Incredibly stupid, isn't it!
* If it goes to tribunal, and it's upheld, does this mean the fine is £130 or do you have the 50% option?|
* The notice is in my partner's name, assume I do not need to state anything or gain her authorisation?


DRAFT:
Dear Waltham Forest
I'm writing to appeal the PCN for the following reasons:
1. The contravention pertains to my vehicles' rear wheel being on the line at the very edge of the box junction.  The principle of de minimis recognises that minor, trivial infractions that have no material impact should not be penalised. In this instance, my vehicle’s rear wheel barely entered the box junction, and this slight encroachment did not hinder traffic flow or obstruct the junction in any way.  The CCTV shows the car moving 2-3x, and only actually stopping for less than 5 seconds.

This is trivial as to amount to no more than a de minimus breach, as also found in case reference 2240537258 and 216036762A  "There is no minimum time for a vehicle to become stationary for the contravention to occur, but it has to be more than a few seconds, otherwise it is nominal or de minimis and does not constitute coming to a stop. 7 or 8 seconds can just about be said to be nominal or de minimis."

2.  The enforcement camera footage appears to have been zoomed in on my license plate, thereby shortening the perspective of the junction. This perspective does not accurately show the full circumstances of the alleged contravention, including the clear path that was available for my vehicle to move forward.
The rear left wheel of the car in front is on a manhole which provides a good reference point using Google's Street View and Maps.  That point is circa 4.6 metres in front of the yellow box. The Renault Clio is 4.053m in length, thus I had around half a metre of clearance. It's only a contravention if I had to stop in the box.  I thought I had cleared the junction. As seen in the video, I clearly obeyed the box junction and waited patiently.

3. The zoomed in cctv of the supposed contravention doesn't show the situation ahead.
I ask that you review this case with a view to applying the de minimis principle and consider the limitations of the evidence provided. Given the trivial nature of the alleged contravention and the lack of impact on traffic, I request that this PCN be cancelled.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

All clear, and your help in the draft would be massively appreciated! Thank you!

Updated draft (assumes it will be coming from your partner) - give others a chance to critique...

Dear Waltham Forest

I recently received a PCN in respect of stopping in a yellow box junction.  I am submitting these representations on the basis that the contravention did not occur.

As you will be aware, a box junction contravention only occurs if a vehicle HAS TO [my emphasis] stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Put another way, if there is sufficient room to exit the box junction (often referred to as the exit being clear) then no contravention is committed even if a vehicle stops with a part of the vehicle within the box junction. In this instance, having reviewed the footage and undertaken a distance analysis via Googlemaps (using the manhole cover under the left rear wheel of the vehicle directly in front of my own as a reference point), there was 4.5 metres of space in front of the box junction to accommodate my vehicle.  My vehicle (a Renault Clio) is only 4.05 metres long and on this basis there was clearly sufficient room for my vehicle to completely pass through the box junction.  Accordingly I didn't have to stop within the box junction (the vehicle only did so as the driver was under a misapprehension they had already fully cleared the junction).

Should you reject these representations please confirm that you have carefully considered (and understood!) my point above by explaining the basis for your belief that there was not space for my vehicle (i.e. less than 4.05 metres of space beyond the box junction to the car in front).  You have a duty to act fairly, and a templated statement that "the CCTV evidence confirms the vehicle entered and stopped in the box junction without ensuring that the exit was clear" without backing this statement up with precisely how this has been "confirmed" will demonstrate that you have not considered my representations in any way "carefully". The angle of the video footage, and the resulting foreshortening effect, makes it impossible to judge the distance left between my vehicle and the car in front to the necessary degree of accuracy simply from a cursory review of the video images.

Notwithstanding my main point, above, the level of incursion and brevity of the stop within the box junction is so trivial as to constitute de minimis in any event.  Please see London Tribunal decisions 2240537258 and 216036762A for guidelines of what is considered a de minimis offence (i.e. a vehicle stopping with only its back wheels on or within box junction markings, and/or only for a few seconds).

I look forward to confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.

Kind regards,

Vehicle owner

Good luck!  Come back here when they respond.

I managed to find two recent rejection letters from WF in respect of box junctions so that sentence in quotes in the middle paragraph is taken directly from their template.  Will be fascinated to see if they try and redraft it just for you

It gets so annoying when they claim to have carefully considered representations when they've done no such thing so I thought we should try and call their bluff - in advance.

Btw, there's a slight inconsistency in one place where your partner refers to themselves as being the driver where that's not the case.  It's no big deal but if you haven't submitted it yet, please edit this bit as follows:

Accordingly there was no necessity to stop within the box junction (the vehicle only did so as the driver was under a misapprehension they had already fully cleared the junction).