Free Traffic Legal Advice

Receieved this PCN for an alleged contravention 31: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited

See the video attached - I feel I followed the spirit of the law - I initially made the decision to proceed but thought for a brief moment that the car infront might stop short (hence me stopping for a couple of seconds), but had I kept moving there wouldnt have been a problem?

Not sure if this is one I need to just pay or if theres anything I could go back with?

PCN no. FR66186610
VRN. BT15 FBX

www.walthamforest.gov.uk/ocm

You not only followed the spirit of the law, you followed the law exactly as written.

100% no offence here.  It's only a contravention to stop in the box due to stationary vehicles.  No stationary vehicles causing you to stop in the video...

Thanks for confirming! This is my draft response, do you think this explains clearly enough?

Dear London Borough of Waltham Forest,

I'm emailing to appeal the penalty charge notice with number FR66186610 issued on 01/08/2025 for the alleged contravention of stopping in a yellow box junction at Chingford Road E17 / Brettenham Road E17.

As can be seen on the CCTV footage, the traffic ahead of the yellow box was moving and there was space for my car and the car ahead of me to proceed past the yellow box.

Paragraph 11, part 7 of The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 states 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.”

The brief stopping was not due to any stationary vehicles, and infact was an abundance of caution as the driver ahead appeared as though they may slow down.

I respectfully request that you reconsider this PCN in light of these facts, the context provided by the CCTV, and established precedents where adjudicators have cancelled similar penalties for the stop not being caused by stationary vehicles.

All the best,

That's actually a fairly decent draft - no changes to offer.

It goes to show that WF are either staffed by idiots who don't know the law they are enforcing, or lazy and don't review what the computer spits out. Most likely both.