Free Traffic Legal Advice

Good evening guys hope everyone is doing good.
I know it's my fault staying in yellow box but any possibility I can contest or make representation as I was only 7 or 8 seconds in junction as soon as I notice there are cars i moved out.
Also traffic was moving so I moved forward, stopped for around 8 seconds to see if I have a space in front when I realised it is space and other cars approaching to turn right through yellow box I moved forward.
Please find the link at the end of this post.
Do I stand any chance in appeal.
If yes then what it will be please.
Any suggesstion or help will be much appreciated.

https://1drv.ms/v/c/4fdadd7ae67b3626/ERPS0ivYXQ9Fn2CE-DCQai4BZ61hUrgSr-FuD0-5Rd4Z9Q

https://1drv.ms/i/c/4fdadd7ae67b3626/Ecxe36GPxVxAme_hSnApZu0B4-IwMlnwbQYJ0pCtbpy7Zw

https://1drv.ms/i/c/4fdadd7ae67b3626/EZUxvzbMrUdLi2B85oPwdgwBFYLeeJjPMEXF-jpcDuNtpg

+1

First step will be to submit representations to the council based on that point (and any other defence we can come up with).

99% probability Redbridge will reject these and you will then need to go to the final stage of appealing to tribunal where you would get an unbiased judgement where I think you would win.

+1
Thanks for your replay Mr stamfordman.
So If I'm not wrong and if I guessed it right that you are saying this is not a contravention. So I have c good chance to appeal and get it cancelled. Please guide me through if possible. Thank you.

I found this on tfl site

https://1drv.ms/i/c/4fdadd7ae67b3626/ET2ITJc2xHdOiShnmgGWpCUBBlYK813lrTYL93TcFQPOWg

which states we can enter to yellow box junction if exit is clear which I have done but I noticed suddenly the car approaching and signals to turn right the i stopped to give the way but then I moved forward to stop causing traffic. Looks like I have chance to appeal with the help of experts and get it cancelled.
Thanks in advance

Hi yes the video does complete on council site same time as my recorder.
Apologise for not uploading full pic.
Here is the link now
https://linksharing.samsungcloud.com/t7we73S8We7z

Proposed draft representations for Redbridge.  You've still got another week before the discount expires so no need to rush.  Give others a chance to chip in.  Credit to cp8759 for the wording on vague location, nicked from another Ilford Lane case.

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

I challenge liability on the ground that the penalty charge notice ('PCN') does not adequately particularise the alleged wrongdoing. The location of the alleged contravention is given as "Ilford Lane", the name of the road junction is not given. I have looked online and I can see that Ilford Lane is over a mile long and has some 35 junctions, but I cannot find any box junction markings so it seems the box markings have been painted since the Google Street View car last drove down this road.

As the notice does not allow me to understand where it is that the contravention is alleged to have taken place, the notice does not adequately specify the grounds on which you believe the penalty is payable, I refer you to the decision of adjudicator Carl Teper in Saijal Patel v London Borough of Brent (2160240742, 8 August 2016) and adjudicator Andrew Harman in Sandra Grauzyte v London Borough of Redbridge (2230201115, 31 May 2023).

Notwithstanding the issue with the vagueness of the location in the PCN, the video footage shows that no contravention has taken place in any case. Under the relevant regulations a contravention only takes place if a person causes 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 footage shows a large space beyond the box junction which would be sufficient to accommodate my vehicle. As such my vehicle was not forced to stop where it did by stationary vehicles and it follows that no contravention took place.

It follows that the notice must be cancelled.

I'd further point out that if the PCN did include sufficient information to identify the actual junction involved I would be able to undertake a precise distance analysis of the space involved as compared with the length of my car to further back up the fact no contravention took place.  Alas this is not feasible given the dozens of potential junctions in scope along Ilford Lane.

OK - here's a redraft on that basis.  I disagree that it's 'clear' there was sufficient space, by my reckoning there's only about 30cm in it, but agree it's clear that the footage doesn't adequately prove the council's case (i.e. show a forced stop on balance of probabilities).

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

Re PCN XXXXXXXX

I challenge liability for this PCN on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.

Having had the opportunity to view the video footage I can see it shows that no contravention has taken place. Under the relevant regulations a contravention only takes place if a person causes a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has [my emphasis] to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The footage shows a large space beyond the box junction which would be sufficient to accommodate my vehicle. As such my vehicle was not forced to stop where it did due to stationary vehicles and it follows that no contravention took place.

I would further add that that the penalty charge notice ('PCN') does not adequately particularise the alleged wrongdoing. The location of the alleged contravention is given as "Ilford Lane", but the name of the road junction is not given. I have looked online and I can see that Ilford Lane is over a mile long and has some 35 junctions, but I cannot find any box junction markings so it seems the box markings have been painted since the Google Street View car last drove down this road.  Living many hundreds of miles away, near Blackburn, I have no reasonable opportunity to return to the location to seek out the junction.

As the notice does not allow me to understand where it is that the contravention is alleged to have taken place, the notice does not adequately specify the grounds on which you believe the penalty is payable, I refer you to the decision of adjudicator Carl Teper in Saijal Patel v London Borough of Brent (2160240742, 8 August 2016) and adjudicator Andrew Harman in Sandra Grauzyte v London Borough of Redbridge (2230201115, 31 May 2023).

For these reasons, it follows that the notice must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Re PCN XXXXXXXX

I  For these reasons, it follows that the notice must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Thanks to Mr Chips and Mr Stamford man for your valuable advice. I has submitted the representation as have been suggested by @MrChips. So will wait and update here once redbridge council replay.
Thank you.