Free Traffic Legal Advice

Three weeks ago I appealed three TfL box junction PCNs all at different locations, as none of the three showed the reason for the stop. Two of them the evidence strongly implied the vehicle stopped due to pedestrian crossings and traffic lights, where the vehicle did not fit between the lights and the end of the box junction. These were both accepted the day after.

However, this third one they rejected, and in their reasoning they contradict themselves. They state:

"Under the relevant legislation, a contravention occurs when a vehicle enters and stops within a box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles, regardless of whether the footage shows the traffic conditions ahead. The footage in this case demonstrates that your vehicle was stopped within the box, which constitutes a contravention as defined by the Act. Therefore, the Penalty Charge Notice has been correctly issued on this basis." But then further down quote what the regulation actually says.

I submitted that the vehicle stopped due to debris in the right hand lane, and the HGV straddled the left lane to get around it. Due to the width of a HGV and the swept path of the trailer it was necessary to straddle the left lane to avoid it, it can't just go around it in a short distance like a car could or the trailer wheels would go over it and potentially puncture the tyres or cause other damage.

TfL believe our vehicle followed the vehicle ahead in the left lane into the box junction, which caused the stop. Our vehicle was in the right lane and continued in the right lane after the box junction, so it wasn't a case of attempting to change lanes to the left lane. None of the evidence suggests that, whilst the right lane was evidently clear of traffic, there must have been something else there that caused the stop and prevented the vehicle continuing in the right lane.

TfL also stated: "You also mentioned that your vehicle stopped to avoid damaging vehicles on the road". This is a misrepresentation of what I actually stated, which was: "the stop was made to avoid damaging the [our] vehicle on debris in the road".

Whilst I believe there was debris in the road which caused the stop and therefore no contravention occured, as logically there was no other apparent reason for the stop, I need a fresh perspective on what the evidence looks like.

As there is no conclusive evidence either way, I assume the adjudicator would decide this on the balance of probabilities? Or could they decide it on the fact of the terrible camera placement not showing the cause of the stop and the contravention therefore not being proven?

A dashcam still image shows the right lane clear, and our vehicle at some weird angle as if turning back into the middle of the right lane. The car that was ahead, is not seen and presumably on our vehicles left. Perhaps the driver was arguing with Porsche driver or complimenting his whip, who knows. I spoke to the driver at the time, a non British national, he mentioned debris pieces in a road going under an overpass and having to use both lanes to get past, but doesn't remember stopping in a box junction.

Please see the original PCN, my appeal, the Notice of Rejection and the CCTV footage provided by TfL:



Google Street View location:

Good news, there are many points that you can challenge and I would be surprised if they contest. From what I understand, they did not contextualise the contravention in the footage to satisfy the statutory criteria for a box junction contravention (as mentioned in your representation). In my view, the contravention is not made out if they have not materially or objectively satisfied that element.

TfL responded to you: ”Under the relevant legislation, a contravention occurs when a vehicle enters and stops within a box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles, regardless of whether the footage shows the traffic conditions ahead.”

However, the burden of proof remains on the enforcing authority and they have not met that requirement.

TfL state:“Upon further investigation into the CCTV footage, we can confirm your vehicle followed the vehicle in front into the box junction when it would not be able to clear it.”

Again TfL are speculating, without providing any contemporaneous evidence of that allegation, though I question whether an adjudicator would apply a balance of probabilities test in this circumstance.

TfL state: “note your comments regarding the camera footage not showing the traffic conditions ahead due to the presence of concrete pillars.”

Yet in their response TfL fail to answer for the camera misplacement that puts drivers at a consistent material disadvantage because it creates an omission of critical evidence due to its side-framing.

TfL state: “In this instance we have decided not to exercise that discretion as we do not consider the mitigating factors present give reason to cancel the PCN(s).”

Nowhere do you request discretion in your representation, and the insinuation of such is misleading and suggests they did not fully read your submission (failure to consider debatable).

TfL state: “You should be aware that in prescribed circumstances, the Adjudicator may award costs against you if the appeal is considered frivolous or vexatious or that the making…”

Recently, I challenged that wording in the appeal. We requested SAR by email for telephone recordings where they misled the appellant (TfL failed to provide the vital recordings, but did not contest). Definitely file an SAR if the TfL agent was obstructive in your request for the footage.

Your PCN seems to have the same wording arrangement that I recently challenged and TfL did not contest: I had written in my appeal there was no dispute the vehicle committed the manoeuvre because it was clear in evidence, but my appeal was by virtue of a collateral challenge in respect to administrative flaws and procedural errors. They did not contest my other two appeals either.

Please note, I don't know much about traffic/parking PCNs, but more than happy to outline the technical wording that we challenged in the TfL PCN and such like.

I did recently win an appeal against Southwark at hearing in 2025, LTGreenslade where LA attended. Also won every single PCN that I challenged/appealed for relatives (2018-2026 ten wins): Barnet, Southwark, Lambeth, TfL, Heathrow Airport private tickets and two local authority pothole damage settlements. Had drafted reps on previous forum, two confirmed wins, possibly two losses LTBurke postal decision 2021 (while ago). Offered place to study Law at Tier 1 RG university in 2025, unable to accept due to poor state of health (MS) and no funding.