Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: chris8 on March 18, 2025, 06:56:16 pm
-
I appealed my PCN having been sent this for stopping on yellow box on 30 April and the box being removed w/c 12th May. Redbridge Council rejected because I 'was observed entering and stopping the a box junction ...........'
From a post on social media, it was advised to write to Cllr Paul Canal. He did take this up with Redbridge Council and just now this reply to his email has been received by me and others who appealed their PCN's due to the box being removed recently.
Thank you for your email to Cllr Blackman regarding the former yellow box junction on Wanstead High Street and the associated Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).
As all members have been advised by the council’s legal officers, Members are specifically excluded by legislation from becoming involved in the consideration of individual PCNs, I am therefore responding to the points you have raised.
The yellow box junctions installed on Wanstead High Street were fully compliant with national traffic signage regulations. All PCNs issued at these locations were lawful and correctly enforced under the Traffic Management Act and the relevant regulations in force at the time.
The decision to remove the boxes was taken solely on public safety grounds. As I explained in response to your email of 29 April 2025 the location was already under review prior to that point following a request from Cllr Jo Blackman earlier this year for a road safety audit.
The yellow boxes were effective in improving traffic flow, particularly for vehicles exiting side roads onto Wanstead High Street. However, a small number of drivers had been observed engaging in erratic and unsafe behaviour near the pedestrian crossing — including abrupt braking and swerving — apparently in an attempt to avoid receiving a PCN. While this behaviour was not necessary (the Highway Code makes clear that stopping in a yellow box to allow a pedestrian to cross is not an offence), the risk it posed was significant enough to warrant precautionary action. The Council therefore made the responsible decision to remove the markings.
The decision to remove the markings does not affect the legality or validity of any PCNs issued while the boxes were in place. A change to traffic restrictions at a given time or location does not invalidate previous enforcement. There is therefore no legal basis for cancelling or refunding PCNs, whether paid or outstanding. Any concerns about specific tickets issued should follow the formal appeals process.
This Council is one of the worst imo.
-
Thanks for the help and input, really useful! Here's a draft response which I'd appreciate feedback on or if there are any big tweaks to consider:
I am writing to formally contest Penalty Charge Notice issued on 10 March 2025 at High Street (WD). I believe this penalty is invalid for the following reasons:
Who do you intend to send that to? I'm confused.
Because the deadline for representations was back in mid-April?
Unless I've missed a rejection somewhere? In whih case, if you want to pursue this, you need to register an appeal at London ribunals.
As DR600 said, this box and other(s have since been removed. I heard due to councillor pressure.
Perhaps Redbridge will not contest an appeal.
Yes definitely councillor pressure after concerns raised by Wanstead residents. Two box junctions removed, including this one which caused safety issues at the adjacent pedestrian crossing.
Apparently Redbridge will not contest appeals.
Best to go through with reps/appeals to ensure Redbridge do the right thing.
Talk of refunds for paid PCNs but I doubt that will happen.
-
Who do you intend to send that to? I'm confused.
This is an old thread that's been bumped, the OP was in time to appeal when they posted 2 months ago.
Thanks, I see that now.
-
Who do you intend to send that to? I'm confused.
This is an old thread that's been bumped, the OP was in time to appeal when they posted 2 months ago.
-
Thanks for the help and input, really useful! Here's a draft response which I'd appreciate feedback on or if there are any big tweaks to consider:
I am writing to formally contest Penalty Charge Notice issued on 10 March 2025 at High Street (WD). I believe this penalty is invalid for the following reasons:
Who do you intend to send that to? I'm confused.
Because the deadline for representations was back in mid-April?
Unless I've missed a rejection somewhere? In whih case, if you want to pursue this, you need to register an appeal at London ribunals.
As DR600 said, this box and other(s have since been removed. I heard due to councillor pressure.
Perhaps Redbridge will not contest an appeal.
-
Not sure of the outcome of the above appeal but all the yellow box junctions in Wanstead High Street which appeared about 9 months ago have now been painted over !. I have not seen any reason for this published but maybe if there is a technical reason then any tickets issued could be invalid ???
-
Thanks for the help and input, really useful! Here's a draft response which I'd appreciate feedback on or if there are any big tweaks to consider:
I am writing to formally contest Penalty Charge Notice issued on 10 March 2025 at High Street (WD). I believe this penalty is invalid for the following reasons:
1. Lack of Clear Location Information
The PCN states the location as "High Street (WD)", which is vague and unhelpful. Additionally, the video evidence provided only shows a nondescript section of road with the caption "LOC6991," which does not confirm the presence of a box junction or provide any meaningful location reference. I request clarification on exactly where the alleged contravention took place.
2. Failure to Demonstrate a Contravention
Having reviewed the video evidence frame by frame, there is no clear indication that my vehicle was stationary within a box junction. At no point are my brake lights illuminated while moving slowly, which suggests that my vehicle did not come to a complete stop. If the council claims otherwise, I request precise frame numbers where they believe this occurred.
3. Subject Access Request (SAR) for Evidence
Under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), I am making a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) for all data related to this alleged contravention
Please confirm receipt of this request and provide the information within the statutory timeframe.
4. No Clear Indication That I Would Need to Stop
When I entered the box junction, the vehicle in front of me was moving, and there was no stationary traffic ahead. Furthermore, there was no clear indication that pedestrians at a nearby crossing intended to step onto the road at that moment. The vehicle in front only stopped unexpectedly due to these pedestrians crossing, which was beyond my control. Given this, I had no reasonable way to anticipate that I would have to stop within the junction.
Given the lack of clear location details, the absence of conclusive evidence, and the failure to demonstrate a contravention, I request that this penalty be cancelled. If my representation is not accepted, I request a full response addressing each of the points above, particularly regarding the specific evidence relied upon.
-
There's no offence of "charging into a box on the tail of a bus without being able to see", and even if there was, that's not what the PCN alleges. It was unwise, but not unlawful.
I think the vague location is also a very strong argument, my guess is that an adjudicator who doesn't want to go frame by frame would avoid having to do so by accepting that, but I think a carefully worded SAR could get a written admission from the Council that the car did not stop, which even the harshest adjudicator would find hard to ignore.
-
If the car was never stationary there is no contravention. There is at least one adjudicator who will take time to examine the footage frame by frame and will sometimes give the benefit of doubt to the appellant where it's not clear so this treatment can be insisted on in a personal hearing.
-
100% agree the footage doesn't look good and fails the 'sniff test'. Also cannot give reliable odds of success of running this argument at adjudication (if OP decides to go ahead, I'd definitely run the vague location argument alongside).
But to my mind, either the rule isn't strict and there's some latitude for 'de minimis', in which case any stop here would have to be momentary and surely falls into scope, or it is strict in which case the car actually has to stop moving for an offence to be committed and I think it's hard to establish on the balance of probabilities that the car did come to a complete halt.
-
Whether left or right, it set off immediately the obstruction ceased.
IMO, an adjudicator would see what's immediately evident from the video i.e. a car charging into a box on the tail of a bus without being able to see, and therefore not assessing, the road conditions ahead and being forced to stop within the box because of the stationary bus.
But maybe they wouldn't? I wouldn't put any money on a favourable outcome on this point.
-
Assuming the bus was turning left (it's not clear from the footage but I can't see a right indicator flashing), then the car does not delay its exit from the box as it would not have been able to enter the box until the other bus had moved off anyway, and would also have had to wait longer to turn for the OP's vehicle to cross the full length of the box first as it is obliged to give way.
I don't know what an adjudicator would make of the "no actual stop" argument, but it seems to me to be inconsistent to, on the one hand, interpret the rule as being strict ("any stop counts, even a nano-second") and also simultaneously not strict ("moving at a snail's pace is close enough to stopping even if the vehicle doesn't actually stop").
-
OP, let's cut to the chase.
If you are the registered keeper then you're off to adjudication because IMO there is no way that the authority would accept your argument. And in my experience an adjudicator won't agree either. The car clearly caused the nuisance the prohibition is designed to address because the bus to your left set off immediately the obstruction, the car, moved. IMO the adjudicator would not engage in a millimetre by millimetre forensic examination.
But views differ.
-
I agree, stepping through the video frame by frame shows the car did not stop, and when it was going slowly the brake lights were off.
Also, I'd argue the location isn't clear - the video shows a nondescript bit of tarmac captioned "LOC6991" which is no help, and the PCN states "High Street (WD)" which is both vague and meaningless.
If this was my PCN I'd play it dumb and challenge on the grounds that you have no idea what you're supposed to have done, and include a Subject Access Request (SAR) for any evidence that they might have that shows you actually stopped in a box junction (including precise frame numbers) and for the location they believe you were at at that time. Wrap up the challenge by pointing out that any stop was de minimis (not so much because they might accept it, more that if you sneak it in to something that gets handed off to the SAR team, they might well hand you a win by failing to consider). If nothing else this will cause them a bit of work and make someone actually look closely at the video.
I recommend you post a draft of what you intend to send to them here, so we can polish it up if needed.
-
But the car didn't actually stop.
Pause the video and move it along a small step at a time (e.g. half a second). The car is always moving forward.
-
There is no definition of de minimis for cases like this, and many adjudicators seem to think even a nano-second is too long !
-
I disagree, anything less than 5 seconds could be argued to be de minimis, the video shows that if the OP's car did stop it certainly stopped for less than a second.
5 seconds is an eternity. It's a no stopping contravention and there are no de minimus rules but less than a second could win.
-
I disagree, anything less than 5 seconds could be argued to be de minimis, the video shows that if the OP's car did stop it certainly stopped for less than a second.
-
It's a slam dunk contravention if you did stop - you just charged in.
(https://i.imgur.com/ALQzUZ0.gif)
-
I've paused the video and moved forward incrementally second by second and on each frame your car is further forward - sometimes only marginally but further forward all the same. This suggests that you were never fully stationary, so technically no offence committed.
The location on the PCN is also typically vague for Redbridge. High Street is half a mile long with several junctions. The box is too new to feature on Google maps so without the benefit of local knowledge the PCN is not specific enough in my view to explain where this alleged offence occurred.
Ps stopping for pedestrians is a valid defence but unfortunately you didn't stop for pedestrians, you stopped due to the bus blocking your exit.
-
Here's the video:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lgo48tiUzYxpcGxnPPT4uqccfvbosF3d/view?usp=sharing
And the PCN is attached.
If anything else is required, please let me know.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We'll need the video and a copy of the PCN with only be name and address redacted.
-
I've been snapped in the yellow box of a high st. It's a fairly new box on Wanstead High St and placed just ahead of a zebra crossing - which has caused dangerous driving by some when they try to avoid being left in the box through no fault of their own.
When entering the box, the bus in front didn't look like it was about to stop and there was no one on the crossing at that point, so I should have had a clear exit.
Then when a pedestrian has stepped out unexpectedly, the bus has had to stop forcing me to stay in the box. There were no stationary vehicles in front of me when I entered the box.
I have the video from the council which I can share here if it helps. Below is the image they have supplied with the PCN.
The local councillors have already been contacted by locals and have been in touch with highway and parking officers about the new yellow box.
Apparently they have been informed that drivers should not be penalised for stopping to allow pedestrians to cross.
As you can see it's quite a long junction box. After the bus had stopped and I was stuck in the box, I tried to very slowly creep forward so I wasn't at a complete stop for more than 3 seconds.
(https://ibb.co/XrGZjtQh)
[attachment deleted by admin]