OK, here you go. Discount expires at the end of tomorrow so give it 24 hours for others to comment if you can before submitting online (and taking a screenshot as you do so).
Dear Waltham Forest,
Re PCN: FR65232814
I would like to submit representations against this PCN on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
You will be aware that a box junction contravention only occurs if a vehicle HAS TO [my emphasis] stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. Put another way, if there is sufficient room to exit the box junction then no contravention is committed even if a vehicle stops with a part of the vehicle within the box junction. In this instance, having reviewed the footage I can see my vehicle was only inside the box junction by a trivial amount, and had it moved forward just one wheel diameter (around 40 centimetres) it would have cleared the box junction markings.
Accordingly it would only be the case that my vehicle had to stop within the box junction if there was less than half a metre of space to the car in front (this is broadly the width within which a pedestrian could easily pass between the two vehicles). The angle of the camera footage provides very limited evidence of how much clear space I had in front of my vehicle, especially taking into account the foreshortening effect of a zoomed in video taken from that angle. However, it seems to me very unlikely that my vehicle could not have moved forward the required distance to remove the rear wheel from within the box junction markings had I known they had not been completely cleared.
Should you reject these representations please confirm that you have carefully considered (and understood!) my point above by explaining the basis for your belief that there was not space for my vehicle to move forwards sufficiently to clear the box. In particular I kindly request that a templated statement of the sort that "the CCTV evidence confirms the vehicle entered and stopped in the box junction without ensuring that the exit was clear" is backed up with some sort of explanation as to how precisely this has been "confirmed" by Waltham Forest given, as per my argument above, a cursory review of the video images alone does not confirm the length of clear space ahead in any way. I emphasise again that merely stopping within a box junction is not in itself a contravention, there has to be insufficient space to a stationary vehicle ahead to allow the vehicle to exit the box junction.
Notwithstanding my main point, above, the level of incursion within the box junction is also so trivial as to constitute de minimis in any event. Please see London Tribunal decision 2240537258 for guidelines of what is considered a de minimis offence (i.e. a vehicle stopping with only its back wheels on or within box junction markings). Further, I note the box junction markings within which the rear of my vehicle was overlapping is adjacent to diagonal white markings which mean that vehicles should not enter that part of the carriageway (unless completely necessary and safe to do so). As such, not only was my vehicle's incursion of a de minimis nature, but it was also not obstructing any part of the road junction over which other vehicles would be allowed to pass through as part of their normal use of the junction.
For these reasons I look forward to confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.
Kind regards,
