Free Traffic Legal Advice

No one is going to click on all those links as they have no legend.

Post the council's summary - you can select BBcode links to display the pages here.

For convenience:

Just working on this. Also, a serious failure to consider the locus issue, save for their comments in their summary.

Dear Sirs

I make these further submissions in support of having M**** case allowed.

1. The appellant has made sensible and coherent submissions; but, the council has failed in  its NOR to consider some of them, even though they have mentioned these in its case summary. Clearly, the initial failure influenced the appellant's decision to file his appeal.

2. The NOR fails to include the form and manner since it does not mention the power of the adjudicator to extend time in which to appeal.

In light of the above, I ask that the appeal be allowed please.

Where is a copy of the OP's reps in the council's evidence?

All I can see is a summary of those reps.

Hi @Hippocrates is representing me at tribunal against Redbridge he is in process of that.
Thanks @John U.K.
For uploading pictures.
@stamfordman fingers crossed as we have date in tribunal in 10 days so hopefully will get it cancelled and Adjudicator allow the appeal.

Hi OP.

So, I've only ever been to the tribunal once (but it was for a box junction and I won although the adjudicator was in my opinion unnecessarily brusque and confrontational - hopefully you will get a less agitated one!) so others are perhaps better qualified to answer this.

For me, and bearing in mind we think you are starting from a winning position, the key things are not to:

- say anything which undermines your credibility, so don't exaggerate, try to mislead, or say anything which is clearly contradicted by the video footage
- say anything that inadvertently suggests you are admitting the offence which (to remind you) is to enter the box such that you have to stop within the box due to stationary vehicles.

Re the latter, the key points are:
- it is not (necessarily) an offence to stop in the box (whatever Redbridge may think)
- if you stop for any reason other than because stationary vehicles force you to then that's not punishable
- consequently, because there is a vehicle sized gap in front of you when you enter the box and also when you stop, you shouldn't be penalised.

You shouldn't focus on (or really bring up) the fact you stopped for 'only' 7 seconds as this isn't relevant (any stop even for less than a second is an offence the way the law is written) so this could distract the adjudicator into thinking that your argument is that you should be let off for only committing an offence for a short time, when your argument is that you didn't commit a contravention in the first place.

You may be asked why you entered the box junction in the first place and then stopped in it, so be prepared for that.  If there is a reason, then that might help (e.g. because you saw traffic ahead coming to a standstill so wanted to let in the vehicle approaching from the left but then realised you were blocking the exit for the car wanting to turn in from the right) but better just to say you can't remember than to make something up which could lead the adjudicator to think you are being economical with the truth.  Ultimately it doesn't really matter why you did if you didn't commit an offence in doing so.

Finally, if you think the adjudicator isn't being sympathetic to this line of defence, don't forget the other item you included in your original challenge around the location being far too vague.  This is especially true given you live so far away and so wouldn't be familiar with the locality from the video or photos.

Ultimately, Hippocrates is very experienced so you are in very good hands

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/SKMBT_C454e14031218240.pdf

This is a key case on the tribunal's own website concerning box junctions.  It includes the following extract which supports your case:

"In my view a Council has to prove:-
1) that the driver caused the vehicle to enter (i.e. that it was not pushed by another vehicle)
2) that it then stopped within the junction
3) that the reason it stopped was the presence of vehicles, and that those vehicles were stationary vehicles
If the vehicle continues to move, or it stops due to the presence of moving vehicles, or it stops for some other reason, such as, to allow the driver to make a phone call or admire the view, no contravention occurs."

This is the case I was thinking of.

----------

2160252038

The appellant brought with him a freehand sketch in plan to explain and support his argument that the driver could have cleared the box without stopping for the 12 or so seconds recorded. I have retained this and accepted the measurements as shown.
​
The appellant's daughter Rebecca is shown driving on the clip. I understood she had passed her test two years ago. I have accepted that she could have cleared the box without stopping within it. In the event the rear wheels straddled the far perimeter.
​
She may through inexperience have misjudged the length of her father's car but I do not incline to allow an appeal of this type on that account. An obvious feature of the evidence was that when she stopped, that she did so for the purpose of adjusting controls on her music. I was inclined to be very critical of her taking her eyes off the road as she did and when she chose to do that. I did however conclude there was insufficient evidence to support this particular penalty charge as I could not attribute the reason for stopping as being essentially the presence of stationary vehicles, as opposed to preoccupation with what was playing music. I have recorded the appeal as allowed.