Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: zeezee on October 11, 2025, 08:34:11 pm
-
If I were you.I'd get on with re-scheduling for a personal hearing after his return.
That will give you time to get all your ducks in a row.
Once you have changed the date, then assuming your friend is the RK, he should appear at the hearing but can also nominate you to assist him or in his absence to represent him.
-
I would add the missing information in my first link. Today is the last day unless you reschedule the hearing.
Success here:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-pcn-entered-a-pedestrian-zone-sydney-road/msg98608/#msg98608
I am sorry @Hippocrates, is this the correct link?
-
I would add the missing information in my first link. Today is the last day unless you reschedule the hearing.
Success here:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-pcn-entered-a-pedestrian-zone-sydney-road/msg98608/#msg98608
-
When is the hearing? -----25th Nov
How long out of the country? ---------- He's going this Fri and back in 2 weeks
Has he received the Evidence Pack? -------- Yes
-
PS. He will be out of the country on the date of the hearing, hence drafting the appeal letter.
When is the hearing?
How long out of country?
Has he received the Evidence Pack?
LTribunals are normally amenable to changing date of hearing, and also to changing from decision on papers to personal.
P.S.
In th draft, I'd change the phrase stationary queue to stationary vehicles wherever it appears.
-
Hi guys
So he has drafted the appeal for submission - will this be ok to attach?
PS. He will be out of the country on the date of the hearing, hence drafting the appeal letter.
-------------------
To: The Adjudicator, London Tribunals
Ground of Appeal: The Alleged Contravention Did Not Occur
Dear Adjudicator,
I respectfully submit this appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice issued by the London Borough of Waltham Forest. Having reviewed the CCTV evidence provided, I maintain that the alleged contravention did not occur for the reasons detailed below.
1. I did not stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, a yellow box junction (YBJ) contravention occurs only where:
The vehicle enters the box junction and has to stop within the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles. The CCTV clearly shows that I did not stop because my exit was obstructed by a queue of stationary traffic. Instead, I stopped solely to give way to a large vehicle completing a turning manoeuvre ahead of me.
This is an entirely lawful and expected action.
Stopping to allow another vehicle to safely turn or pass is not prohibited by YBJ regulations and does not satisfy the statutory test for the contravention.
Adjudicators have repeatedly found that if a driver stops due to moving traffic, turning vehicles, or safety considerations—as opposed to stationary queues—no contravention occurs. (please refer to case = 2160310225).
2. My exit was not blocked when I entered the junction.
I entered the box when I reasonably believed my exit was available.
There was no stationary queue preventing me from clearing the junction at the moment I entered it.
The short stop occurred only because the turning vehicle ahead required space to complete its manoeuvre. Once that vehicle passed, I cleared the box promptly.
As such, the stop was not the consequence of stationary vehicles, and therefore the contravention cannot be made out.
3. The enforcement relies on the Highway Code wording, not the statutory test.
Authorities often take the view that stopping in a yellow box for any reason constitutes a contravention.
However, the Highway Code phrasing (“Do not enter the box unless your exit is clear”) is guidance.
It does not define the legal offence.
The legal test remains narrow and specific:
• Did the vehicle stop because of stationary vehicles?
In this case, the reason for my stop was a moving vehicle performing a turn—not stationary traffic. Therefore, the statutory elements of the contravention are not satisfied.
4. My actions were safe, reasonable, and fully compliant with the law.
I entered the junction with space ahead of me and only paused to avoid conflict with the turning vehicle. I acted in accordance with normal safe driving practice.
The council’s enforcement appears to focus solely on the fact that I momentarily stopped, without considering the actual cause.
The CCTV evidence makes clear that:
• The vehicle ahead was turning;
• There was no stationary queue blocking the exit;
• My temporary stop was safety-related and not due to any stationary obstruction.
This falls outside the scope of the contravention.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the statutory basis for the alleged contravention is not met. The stop was caused by a turning vehicle and not by stationary traffic. I therefore respectfully request that the Adjudicator allow this appeal.
Thank you for your careful consideration.
Yours faithfully,
-
Scrap all of that. In any case all you need to do is register the appeal and opt for a video or telephone hearing.
If you want to send something now just send the below but you can upload stuff later.
----------
In its rejection of my representations the authority misunderstands the law.
The contravention did not occur as at no point did I stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles - the second limb was missed by the authority.
The video shows a truck moving to encroach across my route across the box and I stopped only to allow it to proceed. The truck was moving when I did stop to give way, as were the two following cars, and no contravention occurred.
+1 HCA and Stamfordman have given you the grounds for appeal stick with them the shape and size of the box are not winners. Also see the excerpt from the case I posted in support of the popular view it outlines how adjudicators can and should interpret the law
-
Scrap all of that. In any case all you need to do is register the appeal and opt for a video or telephone hearing.
If you want to send something now just send the below but you can upload stuff later.
----------
In its rejection of my representations the authority misunderstands the law.
The contravention did not occur as at no point did I stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles - the second limb was missed by the authority.
The video shows a truck moving to encroach across my route across the box and I stopped only to allow it to proceed. The truck was moving when I did stop to give way, as were the two following cars, and no contravention occurred.
-
My friend has created an initial draft to send to the adjudicator.
Would he need to add or remove anything here, and also discuss costs in this appeal letter?
------------------
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to appeal the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur, and that the signage and layout at the location are unclear and misleading.
⸻
1. The junction layout and signage are ambiguous
The location in question is a Y-junction with markings and signs that are not sufficiently clear to indicate that a driver must give way to oncoming traffic in the manner alleged. The “Give Way to Oncoming Vehicles” sign (if present) is not positioned in a way that gives adequate notice before the decision point. Furthermore, there is no clear road marking or controlled line that would indicate exactly where a vehicle is required to stop or yield.
A motorist approaching the junction would reasonably assume that the key requirement is to ensure their exit path is clear and that they do not obstruct oncoming vehicles. The layout therefore allows for differing interpretations of when and where a vehicle should stop or proceed, creating unfair grounds for enforcement.
⸻
2. My driving was reasonable and in compliance with visible conditions
At the time of the alleged contravention, I approached the junction from [insert direction]. I slowed appropriately, assessed the oncoming traffic, and proceeded when my exit was clear and it was safe to do so. There was no risk of collision or obstruction, and my actions complied with both the Highway Code and the apparent road design.
At no point did I obstruct or fail to give way to oncoming traffic. If any movement was made while waiting for traffic to pass, it was to position safely and allow for clearer visibility. The enforcement video (if reviewed) should confirm that my actions were cautious, proportionate, and consistent with safe driving.
⸻
3. The alleged contravention is based on an unclear interpretation of the regulations
The traffic sign “Give Way to Oncoming Vehicles” (diagram 615 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) requires drivers to yield only when necessary to avoid conflict with oncoming traffic. It does not prohibit a driver from proceeding when their exit is clear and no oncoming vehicle has priority at that specific moment.
Therefore, unless the authority can demonstrate that an oncoming vehicle was actually impeded or that I entered the junction contrary to a clear and enforceable restriction, the contravention cannot be proven.
⸻
4. Inadequate evidence and unfair enforcement
From the available evidence, there is no clear indication that I failed to give way. The CCTV stills provided do not establish that an oncoming vehicle was forced to slow or stop, nor do they show any contravention markings such as a solid stop line or controlled junction. The enforcement appears to rely on subjective interpretation rather than a clear breach of signage or road rules.
In such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to uphold a penalty, as drivers cannot be expected to comply with signage or layouts that lack clarity or enforceable instruction.
⸻
5. Conclusion
For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the alleged contravention did not occur and that the Penalty Charge Notice should be cancelled. The junction’s layout and signage fail to provide the necessary clarity to fairly impose enforcement, and my driving at the time was both lawful and considerate.
I kindly request that the adjudicator allow this appeal and direct that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yours faithfully,
-
Plus the truck was moving when car stopped as truck was edging across.
-
Precisely! +1.
-
The offence isn't just stopping due to the presence of stationary vehicles, it is having to stop.
-
Thank you all for your responses - I feel the same way in him going all the way (to adj - which is the current stage) & so i will relay that info to him in a structured way so that he understands.
In the meantime i will get him to put the appeal in - Is it the same process where you can submit the appeal & come back to it at later date (within the timelines) with the attachment (compiled word document - appeal letter)?
-
OP, you entered the box as shown in the video. You observed the large vehicle ahead indicating their intention to turn right. As can be seen, they're somewhat larger than you and colliding with them was not an option. You therefore stopped solely to allow this vehicle to cross ahead of you. This was your prerogative. Stopping had nothing whatsoever to do with the yellow box, you treat other drivers with the same consideration whatever the circumstances and road layout and feel aggrieved when the same courtesy is not extended to you.
As you did not stop 'due to the presence of stationary vehicles ahead' then the contravention did not occur. It is not a contravention simply to stop.
The authority was over-zealous in issuing the PCN simply because you stopped within the YBJ and it must be cancelled if the law as it relates to this contravention is applied correctly, not to mention the council's duty to act fairly.
Is my take.
They're judges in their own cause and given that they issued the PCN in the first place - after consideration of the self-evident facts HA HA - then what do you think they'll do in response to your reps??
I've set out what I believe would form the basis of any appeal, should it get that far.
IMO, whether your exit was clear when you entered is NOT something about which too much time should be spent. You were in the driver's seat, not sitting atop a pole. Your view is always the car ahead. You have NO certainty that your exit would be clear in moving traffic without leaving at least one car's space beyond the box. In fact, given that there's the length of the YBJ to consider, you'd need to be either 6+ car lengths behind at all times - there are no pre-warnings for these markings- or be prepared to STOP in moving traffic as soon as the car ahead touches YBJ markings. There are decisions, and I think judgments, on the effect this would have on traffic. Poring over 'what ifs' and 'after the event' matters are not options available to a driver in real time.
I would take this all the way to adjudication if necessary, but it's your money.
-
He stopped, it would appear because the truck turned in front of him.
But when he entered the box at about 08:35:24, his exit was not clear:
(https://i.postimg.cc/PqVDdTx7/image-2025-10-16-010046055.png)
He was anticipating it would be, but I'm wondering if what he could see from the driver's seat made him worry, for a brief moment, that it might not be when he got there, and slowed a little so that he wouldn't end up being forced to stop by vehicles blocking his exit. And when he slowed the truck driver took his chance.
Neither was the exit clear for the silver van at 08:35:19 or the black one a couple of seconds after.
Now - I've always been led to believe that if the HC says "MUST", it's reflecting an actual law, but in this case it is not.
The HC says "You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear". But the law doesn't - it says "a person must not cause 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."
So why does the HC say "MUST NOT"? I wonder if the two van drivers have also been done?
I always thought it was a case re the exit being clear of "should not enter on the grounds that you must not stop", but hands up - who hasn't at some time entered a YBJ anticipating that they'd make it across, and with some of those times had a brief don't-stop-don't-stop-don't-stop worry about the traffic in front?
And that rejection is a mess. It quotes the HC "MUST NOT" and in the next para says "should not".
-
That may be the case but it doesn't constitute a box junction offence. You can stop in there whenever you like, so long as your exit is free from stationary traffic.
I don't think they know what forthwith means in Walthamstow.
they will probably count the number of times the op wrote "with" and come up with "secondwith"
-
:)
But to just modify the previous post and identify the laziness of adjudicators, the law makes no reference to where stationary traffic must be, IMO this business of always referencing stopping in the context of whether traffic is stationary outside the box and an exit is clear is misleading.
IMO, while you might stop inside the box to have a fag or take a telephone call or whatever while your exit is clear without contravening the YBJ restriction, the same would not apply to anyone who entered the box after you and stopped behind you because that's not permitted: their exit is not clear. 'Stationary vehicles' applies equally inside the box as outside, subject to the specified exception, which of course exists for the very situation I've described above.
-
That may be the case but it doesn't constitute a box junction offence. You can stop in there whenever you like, so long as your exit is free from stationary traffic.
I don't think they know what forthwith means in Walthamstow.
-
see this relevant finding by the tribunal
2160310225
I have heard the appellant in person who I find an honest and credible witness. The Authority did not appear and was not represented.
The Authority has produced the details of a link to their website on which I have viewed CCTV footage. The footage shows that the exit lane of the box junction was clear when the appellant’s vehicle entered it. Further, it shows that the vehicle stopped only briefly in the box junction when there was sufficient space to move forward. The vehicle was not forced to stop in the box because of stationary traffic.
I find as fact that the exit lane was clear when the vehicle in question entered the box junction. I find as fact that the vehicle was not forced to stop because of stationary traffic. The components for the contravention have not been met. I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred.
I allow the appeal.
-
OP, the law as regards the definition of the restriction imposed by a YBJ:
Box junctions
11.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4), the yellow criss-cross marking provided for at item 25 of the sign table in Part 6 conveys the prohibition that a person must not cause 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.
Para. 11 Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regs refers: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9
We don't need to worry about the exceptions, as far as this case is concerned the following apply:
Did the driver CAUSE their car to enter the YBJ? Of course, they deliberately drove into it;
Did the vehicle HAVE TO STOP due to the presence of stationary traffic? Of course not. Although the artic was stationary, the driver in this case did not HAVE to stop, they CHOSE to stop. Frankly they could choose to stop for any number of reasons, including bloody mindedness, but this would not be a contravention as regards the YBJ.
The definition is clear, there are no judgments or body of adjudication decisions to the contrary so take the stupid b******s to adjudication and ask for costs.
Step 1 - register the appeal.
-
That may be the case but it doesn't constitute a box junction offence. You can stop in there whenever you like, so long as your exit is free from stationary traffic.
-
Gotta say though that it really does look in the video like the offending car slowed dramatically, almost to a complete stop, before the truck turned in front of him.
-
+1
Their letter is complete tosh and indeed, mendacious, as it is a complete mis-statement of the law on YBJs. The person who wrote this tosh needs to be sacked forthwith.
-
No stationary vehicles causing the stop either.
No contravention.
-
AFAIA, I thought you Ould enter a YBJ if you are turning right...?
Yes that's fine, but he wasn't turning right.
He was the driver going straight on, who entered the YBJ when his exit was clear, but then was forced to stop because a truck which did not have right of way turned across in front of him?
Blimey.
Yes sir. Sorry sir. :-X
-
AFAIA, I thought you Ould enter a YBJ if you are turning right...?
Yes that's fine, but he wasn't turning right.
He was the driver going straight on, who entered the YBJ when his exit was clear, but then was forced to stop because a truck which did not have right of way turned across in front of him?
Blimey.
-
AFAIA, I thought you Ould enter a YBJ if you are turning right...?
Yes that's fine, but he wasn't turning right.
apologies..looking at wrong vehicle :o
-
AFAIA, I thought you Ould enter a YBJ if you are turning right...?
Yes that's fine, but he wasn't turning right.
-
AFAIA, I thought you Ould enter a YBJ if you are turning right...?
-
This isn't a contravention and if they contest this at tribunal you should ask for costs.
The rejection is just fraud.
(https://i.ibb.co/6cV4PVWG/wf-ezgif-com-optimize.gif)
-
Someone else more helpful will come along but I'm pretty certain that the council would have no chance at adjudication.
-
Hi
A friend received a PCN in a YBJ while giving way to on-coming traffic.
He appealed, and, surprise, surprise, they rejected it, with the next step being either to pay the discount or go to adjudication.
I feel the council is being unjust here, and he has a case to fight.
Any advice would be much appreciated here
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bB9mmQPUGRE
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54847678411_08d9832791_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ryGFVM)1 (https://flic.kr/p/2ryGFVM) by Zee Aze (https://www.flickr.com/photos/203616810@N04/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54847678651_f66d787095_c.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ryGFZV)2 (https://flic.kr/p/2ryGFZV) by Zee Aze (https://www.flickr.com/photos/203616810@N04/), on Flickr
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/54847933513_86af0a1b19_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2ryHZL6)3 (https://flic.kr/p/2ryHZL6) by Zee Aze (https://www.flickr.com/photos/203616810@N04/), on Flickr