Free Traffic Legal Advice

I can't agree with a view which says that it's unarguable that there was enough room beyond the box before hitting the car in front.

IMO, it's arguable that there was room for you to exit. But IMO it is not so obvious that this won't be disputed and that an adjudicator might find that because the nuisance the prohibition is targeting was clearly created by the OP, the balance is in the council's favour. 

OP, in your reps IMO you must put it to the council that there was room for you to exit, but you chose not to..and test their reasoning. You might say that you didn't want to enter the crossing zig-zag area or whatever!

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge Penalty Charge Noticeissued for an alleged 31j contravention (Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited) at Horns Road. Having reviewed the CCTV footage and consulted with others who have successfully contested PCNs at this exact junction, I am appealing on the grounds that the contravention did not legally occur, and due to compelling mitigating circumstances, for the following reasons:

1. The stop was due to an approaching Emergency Vehicle
Crucially, as I was navigating the junction, I observed an ambulance approaching from behind in my rear-view mirror. My momentary pause was a direct reaction to this emergency vehicle, as I was assessing the safest way to clear a path and ensure I did not obstruct its progress. Rule 219 of the Highway Code dictates that drivers must take appropriate action to let emergency vehicles pass. Therefore, I was not forced to stop purely due to stationary vehicles ahead, but rather I brought my vehicle to a halt as a necessary, safe, and legal reaction to an active emergency vehicle. It is entirely against the public interest to penalize a driver for reacting safely to an ambulance.

2. The alleged infringement is De Minimis
The footage demonstrates that my vehicle's presence in the box junction was entirely trivial. Only a fraction of the vehicle remained within the yellow markings, and it did not impede crossing traffic or negatively affect the flow of vehicles in any way. The fundamental purpose of a yellow box is to prevent a junction from being blocked. Because absolutely no obstruction occurred, this fleeting and minor positioning falls squarely under the legal principle of de minimis non curat lex. Adjudicators at the London Tribunals regularly cancel PCNs on this basis.

3. The stop was not necessitated by stationary vehicles
To legally establish this contravention under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD), the authority must prove that the vehicle was forced to stop specifically due to the presence of stationary vehicles ahead. I submit that there was sufficient room ahead of my vehicle to move forward and clear the box markings, but I stopped short due to my reaction to the ambulance behind me. If a driver stops while there is still available space ahead, the stop is not legally forced by the stationary vehicles in front. I put you to strict proof to demonstrate that stationary traffic completely prevented my vehicle from moving forward into clear space.

Notice of Intent to Seek Costs
Given the minor nature of the stop, the availability of space ahead, and the compelling presence of an emergency vehicle, I respectfully request that you cancel this PCN immediately.

Please be advised that should the Council choose to reject these representations and force this matter to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators (London Tribunals), I will apply for an award of costs against Redbridge Council. Pursuing enforcement under these circumstances—and effectively penalizing a driver for yielding to an ambulance—would be wholly unreasonable, vexatious, and a misuse of the Tribunal's time.