Author Topic: Waltham Forest, code 31 entering/stopping box junction, yellow box, High Road/Bush Road E11  (Read 286 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

PaulCE11

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks for your assistance

I received a PCN for stopping for 10 secs exiting a ybj at Leytonstone High Road/Bush Road E11 with just the back wheels in the box.

The road has two lanes of traffic and had the car in front of me continued on I would not have been in the box at all.

The video and images are available to view on the Waltham Forest website: www.walthamforest.gov.uk/ocm using

PCN: FR65232814
VRN: EK15 OEZ

details of the PCN are here: https://imgur.com/a/WomFY8V

Google Map link: https://maps.app.goo.gl/y6RRRzACcGgwbLui8



Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4203
  • Karma: +89/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
What a money-grubbing PCN ! We see rather too many of these and it clearly shows just how venal and rapacious  councils in London are. There was no conceivable traffic management purpose in issuing that PCN, just greed for the penalty money.

However, as you may have guessed, so bedazzled by the riches gained, the council are unlikely to give way, so to fight this you would have to take them all the way to London Tribunals, your grounds of appeal would be "the offence did not occur, de minimis". This means you would have to risk the full PCN penalty, and an adjudicator with common sense, they don't all have this vital element in their heads, I'm afraid.

Apart from the above, there may also be a 'technical' appeal argument based on WF's mismanagement of the enforcement process, so wait a bit to see what comes up. Don't however miss the deadline for paying or submitting reps.

https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/1-382-3382?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true#:~:text=Related%20Content,or%20taken%20into%20consideration%3B%20immaterial.

stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2297
  • Karma: +49/-2
    • View Profile
This ia large box and given the exit space in two lanes you had reasonable expectation of clearing and only had rear wheels in box.

« Last Edit: April 19, 2025, 06:22:47 pm by stamfordman »

MrChips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to help, particularly with box junctions!
  • Location: Enfield
    • View Profile
The car is only in the box junction by less than half a metre. How can we be sure from the camera angle the car couldn't have simply moved forward at least this much. If it could, then no contravention committed.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3265
  • Karma: +40/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Sorry but that is not de minimis unfortunately.
How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

URGENT!

PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION TO EQUATE MOVING TRAFFIC LAW WITH BUS LANE LAW SO LONDON COUNCILS MUST ATTEND HEARINGS WHEN REQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT. 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701491

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/petition-to-align-the-llaa-2003-to-the-llaa-1996-(right-to-x-council-witnesses)/msg56899/#msg56899

MrChips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to help, particularly with box junctions!
  • Location: Enfield
    • View Profile
I wasn't suggesting de minimis. On balance of probabilities, I expect there was at least 40cm of space ahead that the OP could have moved forward.

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4203
  • Karma: +89/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Sorry but that is not de minimis unfortunately.
In that case, then, the road markings are wrong. There should not be the two triangular hatched areas that indicate no traffic to pass over them.

PaulCE11

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Thanks very much for all your replies so far, very useful.

A local FB page has said that previous appeals have been dismissed so wondering if I swallow it up.

Neil B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
  • Karma: +5/-3
    • View Profile
Thanks very much for all your replies so far, very useful.

A local FB page has said that previous appeals have been dismissed so wondering if I swallow it up.
All local FB pages will tell you that their respective councils are the worst.
They also use the term'appeal' generically and rarely explain what they mean.

Appeals can only be made to London Tribunals.

Representations to the council must first be rejected before you can do that and it's true that they likely will be.

Most often FB posters are talking about representations to councils.

To explain Mr Chips' point >
You only commit a contravention when ypu stop in the box and that stop is due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

So you need to weigh up whether you could have moved forward a bit and if an adjudicator would agree with you?

Neil B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
  • Karma: +5/-3
    • View Profile
This ia large box and given the exit space in two lanes you had reasonable expectation of clearing and only had rear wheels in box.
This refers to the ignorant points made on FB. There is NO law saying your exit has to be clear but if we accept it anyway you certainly had reasonable expectation od clearing the box.
How were you to know that divers of at least two vehicles in the inside lane would move to a bus ride from the kerb (as is a frequent London trait.)
« Last Edit: April 22, 2025, 12:41:06 pm by Neil B »

MrChips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to help, particularly with box junctions!
  • Location: Enfield
    • View Profile
Just to build on Neil's response, the key part of the contravention wording is that you "had to" stop due to stationary vehicles.  We frequently win cases where the council sends a PCN but the video shows sufficient space for a car, which is stationary in the box junction, to be able move forward and exit the box.  I.e. it stopped in the box junction but it didn't have to.

In your case, the video is opaque as to how much space you left in front.  I estimate you were only in the box by around one wheel diameter (which for a Renault Clio I believe will be around 40 cm).  It's for the council to prove you committed a contravention so I'd like to think that a fair minded adjudicator would agree there is insufficient evidence you "had to" stop where you did.  The test is on the balance of probabilities so you would only need to create sufficient doubt as to this fact rather than prove your case.

40 cm is not very long, and I would suspect, unless you had deliberately got as close as possible to the vehicle in front as you knew you were likely to encroach into the box junction, that you would routinely leave at least 1 metre to the car in front.  Most cars these days have distance sensors which would enable you slowly to creep forward very closely to the car in front without fear of an actual collision meaning you could have fairly easily moved closer and out of the box if you had realised you had left your back wheel inside.

The council will never accept this argument, so your choices will be either to settle at £65 while the discount is still available, or take it to the tribunal where it's £0 if you win and £130 if you lose.

Neil B

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 354
  • Karma: +5/-3
    • View Profile
It would be foolish to not at least make representations to the council on the matters raised.
They often mess up their response, potentially giving you further angles.

MrChips

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
  • Karma: +8/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to help, particularly with box junctions!
  • Location: Enfield
    • View Profile
If you are minded to submit representations I'm happy to draft something - please confirm.
Like Like x 1 View List

stamfordman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2297
  • Karma: +49/-2
    • View Profile
Back in a long lost time in a far away forum, a tale of one council was told, where they had due regard for:

The critical factor here is that the drivers have a reasonable line of sight to make their judgements. We should apply discretion. We have to weigh up the good momentum of traffic travelling freely over box junctions while not trying to make people treat it like a stop line or give way line unnecessarily.

And:

On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25% "grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction.

Such a fairy tale!

As for the case here, the car behind the OP had plenty of space to exit on the left, as did the OP if quicker off the mark. I do think this big box, exit area and traffic scenario do not fall into the strict criterion of having to stop on the other side and the above first point applies but these days councils have lost all reason.

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4203
  • Karma: +89/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Back in a long lost time in a far away forum, a tale of one council was told, where they had due regard for:

The critical factor here is that the drivers have a reasonable line of sight to make their judgements. We should apply discretion. We have to weigh up the good momentum of traffic travelling freely over box junctions while not trying to make people treat it like a stop line or give way line unnecessarily.

And:

On large type box junctions, cars and vans with less than 50% of their length over the box should have discretion applied if they are not an obstruction. On smaller box junctions 25% "grace” would apply as long as they are not an obstruction.

Such a fairy tale!

As for the case here, the car behind the OP had plenty of space to exit on the left, as did the OP if quicker off the mark. I do think this big box, exit area and traffic scenario do not fall into the strict criterion of having to stop on the other side and the above first point applies but these days councils have lost all reason.
But as we all know, greed prevailed !