Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi All,

The driver was driving on Ilford Lane on 29/05/25. The driver approached the box junction with the clear intention to proceed through it only if the exit was clear. At the time the driver entered the box, they observed that the vehicle in front was moving and there appeared to be sufficient space to clear the junction. However, unexpectedly and without any prior indication, a van in front of the car stopped and began a reverse parking manoeuvre into a space on the left-hand side of the road.

This forced the car directly in front to stop abruptly within the junction, which in turn caused the driver to become temporarily stationary within the box junction. This situation arose after the driver had already committed to entering the junction, based on the assumption of continued movement by the vehicles ahead.

____________________________________________________________________________________

The following appeal was made after receiving this notice:

Subject: Formal Representation Against PCN for Box Junction – PCN Number [xxxxxx]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally contest the issuance of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) [Insert PCN Number], dated [Insert Date], which alleges that my vehicle stopped in a yellow box junction on Ilford Lane, Redbridge.

I respectfully request that this charge be reviewed and cancelled based on the following mitigating circumstances, which are clearly supported by the video and photographic evidence provided by Redbridge Council.

On the day in question, I approached the box junction on Ilford Lane with the clear intention to proceed through it only if my exit was clear, in accordance with Rule 174 of the Highway Code, which states:

“You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear.”

At the time I entered the box, I observed that the vehicle in front of me (a car) was moving and there appeared to be sufficient space for me to clear the junction. However, unexpectedly and without any prior indication, a van in front of the car stopped and began a reverse parking manoeuvre into a space on the left-hand side of the road.

This forced the car directly in front of me to stop abruptly within the junction, which in turn caused me to become temporarily stationary within the box junction. This situation arose after I had already committed to entering the junction, based on the assumption of continued movement by the vehicles ahead.

The obstruction caused by the van’s reverse parking manoeuvre was unforeseeable and occurred after I had entered the box. This is a crucial point as I did not enter the box recklessly or without regard for the rules, but rather due to circumstances outside of my control.

Compliance with Rule 174 of the Highway Code:

Rule 174 allows for reasonable judgment to be made at the time of entry into the junction. I entered the box believing the exit was clear, which satisfies the requirement of the rule. The fact that a vehicle in front stopped unexpectedly due to a third vehicle's manoeuvre should be considered a mitigating factor and not a deliberate or negligent act on my part.

The CCTV/video footage provided by Redbridge Council corroborates my explanation. It clearly shows the van’s manoeuvre and the chain of events that led to my vehicle becoming stationary in the box junction. I urge the reviewing officer to consider this visual evidence alongside my explanation.


According to the Department for Transport’s Operational Guidance to local authorities on enforcing moving traffic contraventions, enforcement should be “fair and proportionate” and not used to penalise motorists who are caught in situations they could not reasonably predict or avoid. This applies directly to my case.

Given the exceptional circumstances and the fact that the contravention was not due to any deliberate or negligent action on my part, I believe this PCN has been issued unfairly and should be cancelled. I acted responsibly and in accordance with the Highway Code, and the obstruction that caused the stop was entirely beyond my control.

I would appreciate your fair and reasonable consideration of this representation, and I respectfully request the cancellation of the PCN.

____________________________________________________________________________________

All supporting docs including initial PCN, Rejection and Image and video of incident:
https://1drv.ms/f/c/6b806e5341044f24/EiUOXQX04NtGiWbG-mWTyMoBqM3FfLhITqyY5vyf7gTAXw?e=hf2WNR - NOTE: Drivers car is car in dark blue (AUDI A5)

Please advise what should the driver do in this situation.

Your help is much appreciated.

Not sure about this - you should still have waited for the car ahead to give you a space especially as you were stationary at the edge of the box.

thanks for the response. At that time I didn't notice the van wanted to park to the left. That is essentially what caused the issue. Also as per the video the van was indicating to park but my focus was on the car coming out of the junction as I wanted to see he was coming out or not.

In any case if others feel I have no grounds for further appeal I will have to bite the bullet and take this one on the chin  

hmm no stationary vehicles when the OP entered the box.

This is one where we would have once hoped the authority would use discretion owing to the expectation of normal traffic flow, and indeed the old Hammersmith & Fulham guidance included this type of situation as worthy. But those days have gone.

This doesn't mean an adjudicator may not find for you - here are two that are relevant and involve pedestrians beyond the vehicle in front whereas in your case the reversing van is the cause.

The first also turns on the wording in the legislation of vehicles (plural) not vehicle (singular).

--------------


Case reference 2240416752
Appellant Anisha Patel
Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM DC23AVG

PCN Details
PCN FR62861981
Contravention date 25 Jun 2024
Contravention time 16:26:00
Contravention location Lea Bridge Road / Argall Way
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction

Referral date -

Decision Date 03 Dec 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons 1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle entered and stopped on a location subject to an operative restriction denoted by yellow cross-hatching, such demarcation indicating a prohibition against a vehicle entering and remaining stationary within the defined area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenges as comprehensively stated in her written representations, supported by annotated images and freeze frames.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to the operative restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ and the applicable carriageway markings notifying motorists of the prohibition.

It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such prohibitions.
4.The prohibition, as set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations & General Directions 2016 prohibits vehicles (or parts there-of) from entering and stopping within the cross-hatched area due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

There is no requirement that the vehicle be causing an obstruction.
There is no minimum period since a vehicle is in contravention immediately it is stationary.
There is no minimum portion of a vehicle since any stationary part thereof is subject to contravention.
5. The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined (repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations and supporting documents.
6. The Appellant described the sequence of events in relation to the traffic flow and vehicles ahead, and her calculation as to it continuing to move so as to accommodate the said vehicle on the right-hand side of the box.
In order to satisfy myself that a contravention occurred I must establish that the said vehicle entered and stopped on the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
With the benefit of rewind and freeze frame it is evident that the traffic flow was halted, as is borne out by the footage, by pedestrians crossing the road beyond the vehicle ahead of the said vehicle; the said vehicle was not thereby caused to stop on the cross hatching by virtue of stationary vehicles, plural.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.

---------

Case reference 2240519427
Appellant Robert Wilson
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM LY08OXM

PCN Details
PCN AF99198507
Contravention date 20 Sep 2024
Contravention time 22:31:00
Contravention location Ilford Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction

Referral date -

Decision Date 13 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 6. This provides as follows.
7. (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in paragraph 8, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044 shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall cause 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.
The CCTV footage shows the vehicle drive behind another that stops to let pedestrians walk across the road. The Appellant, who was in the car behind, could not have anticipated that the car in front would come to a halt, leaving a large gap in front for several seconds. The Appellant’s path was clear up until that moment.
Additionally, the Appellant’s vehicle came to a stop in the box for three seconds at the most; that is insufficiently long to establish that a contravention has occurred.

Thanks for this.

Is it worth me appealing again or should I just pay the fine. Apparently if I do go ahead and appeal and if I loose then I am liable for the full penalty and not the discounted rate of £80

Thanks all for the replies so far.

This graphic might help. In this case boxes 4 and 6 are NOT ticked, so there’s a good chance of success at appeal stage, IMO.

Back to the wording of the Regs:

11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause 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.


No mention of making judgements and what might have caused an impeding vehicle to become stationary etc. OP, at tribunal your prospects very much depend on the adjudicator on the day. To illustrate this, just look at the reasoning behind the decisions posted above:


There is no minimum period since a vehicle is in contravention immediately it is stationary.
There is no minimum portion of a vehicle since any stationary part thereof is subject to contravention.

and...

Additionally, the Appellant’s vehicle came to a stop in the box for three seconds at the most; that is insufficiently long to establish that a contravention has occurred.

Given the inconsistencies in adjudicators' reasoning, I don't see how you could get the reassurance you want...even if you asked an adjudicator!

For me, you entered the box when you could see a vehicle which, unless it moved, would have caused you to stop or go into the opposite traffic lane, but you still entered. As it turned out, this vehicle did move but you were in the lap of the Gods as to whether its presence would prevent you having to stop.

thanks for your responses everyone. I feel that on balance of what has been said so far I will just pay the £80 fine, since If I appeal again and loose I will not be offered the 'reduced' amount and will have to pay £160 which I don't want to risk