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.

*Edit...Just realised someone else responded to your post and they might have more knowledge on box junction cases. Even if an adjudicator applied a balance of probabilities test, you can still appeal on administrative grounds like a collateral challenge or procedural (as I mentioned earlier).

Thanks for your responses.

TfL's NoR reasoning was exceptionally poor considering they have accepted all 4 of my box junction appeals in the last month alone, and several others since a successful Tribunal decision against TfL in November on the same grounds. I feel like they have failed to consider my representations, as they have even misquoted me, stating "You also mentioned that your vehicle stopped to avoid
damaging vehicles on the road", when I had actually said "the stop was made to avoid damaging the vehicle on debris in the
road", 'the vehicle' (i thought) obviously refers to our vehicle.

Anyway, it is objective that TfL's evidence does not show the cause of the stop here. My concern, I guess, is whether the adjudicator can dedude on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle stopped due to stationary vehicles without the evidence actually showing that should they be swayed by TfL's claim that our vehicle followed the Porsche in the left lane, into the box junction.