Free Traffic Legal Advice

There's another current case at the same junction - very similar circumstances where you are in the box only to a marginal extent so could run an argument that the incursion is so small, unless you were right against the bumper of the car in front you could have crept forward another foot to clear the box junction completely.

In you case, there's also the roadworks which I think you've completely passed the start of.  This means you are beyond the effective junction with Kingsley Road which you should also mention in your representtions.

Thanks - I've redrafted a little bit.  See what you think.


Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal the above Penalty Charge Notice issued to my vehicle on 25/05/2026 at 10:48 on Forest Road E17 / Kingsley Road E17. I believe this PCN was issued incorrectly and request that it be cancelled for the following reason: the contravention did not occur.

A box junction contravention can only occur when there is insufficient space beyond the box junction to receive the vehicle.  This is because the contravention is defined based on the situation where a vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.

Upon my approach to the box junction, I judged that there was sufficient receiving space for my vehicle and stopped when I believed I had cleared the box.  As the video footage shows, I opened my door briefly to look back and check and saw that my rear wheels were still marginally in the box and so I moved forward a little more such that I believed I had cleared the box completely.

The video footage shows that after this my vehicle remained in the box to a de minimis extent (back wheels resting on the box extremities). Even if this level of incursion is not considered de minimis, for the reasons set out below, I am confident there was sufficient space between my vehicle and the one in front that I could have moved forward to clear it completely had I opted to and thus no contravention was committed.

There is what looks like a manhole cover on the road just to the right of the front end of my vehicle.  The stationary vehicle in front of my own had completely cleared that, and according to google maps distance measurer, the front of the manhole is about 5.6 metres from the front edge of the box junction.  The rear of the manhole cover is about 4.4 metres from the box junction.

My vehicle (2018 Mini Countryman) is 4.11m long so on this basis the front of my vehicle would be completely behind the manhole cover at the point it just clears the box junction, and thus could have moved forward and still been over a metre behind the vehicle in front.

Further, if you pause the video around 10 seconds in when the vehicle in front of my Mini (a Nissan Note, also 4.11m long) has itself just cleared the box junction, the front of it is also clearly entirely behind the manhole cover which further strengthens the conclusion that my vehicle would have been too.

On that basis I trust you will cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

No that's a different case (on Hornsey Road rather than Blckstock Road)

I don't think the discount has been reoffered, in which case there's no incentive not to appeal!

Deadline to appeal is, I think, 24 June.  What are your dates away?

Based on their logic, they could note you parked without a permit at 9.01am, you could add a permit at 9.02am, they could check you every hour during the day, all while confirming a valid permit is in force, then you remove the permit at 4.58pm and they serve a PCN at 4.59pm.

They've also admitted that you were legally parked while you had a permit (i.e. at 12pm) but then said the 10 minute grace period started at 11.54pm at a time during which you were covered by a permit.  It should start from the point your period of permitted parking ceases which by definition cannot be a time while your vehicle is covered by a valid permit.

As the legislation says:
"No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes."

We're still waiting for any detail in respect of the PCNs, particularly the first two.  Please can you provide this urgently.

The situations with the bays could be moot if you've locked yourself out of the appeal process due to missing deadlines.

You don't necessarily have to prove it. It's Waltham Forest's job to convince an adjudicator on balance of probabilities that you couldn't.

Do you know how long your vehicle is (to the centimetre)?  There's something that looks like a manhole cover on the road just to the right of the front end of your vehicle.  I think the vehicle in front has completely cleared that, and according to google maps distance measurer, the front of the manhole is about 5.6 metres from the edge of the box junction.  The rear of the manhole cover is about 4.4 metres from the box junction.

I'd be surprised if your vehicle is over 4.5 metres long so we ought to be able to establish sufficient doubt!

If you pause the vehicle in front as it just clears the box junction, the front of it is also clearly behind the front of the manhole cover which adds weight to the argument yours would have been too.  It looks to be similar in length to your own.

Combined with this, when you come to your eventual resting point (after you've opened the door to look back), you are only in the box to a very limited extent (your rear wheels seem to be resting on the boundary line).  WF may say you originally stopped further back, but that doesn't matter as the car in front of you doesn't move over this period so you could always have moved forward at least as far as you eventually did.

This recent tribunal case may be helpful:

Case Details
Case reference   2250524718
Appellant   Matthew Tedford
Authority   Royal Borough of Greenwich
VRM   MF66UBX
PCN Details
PCN   GR24060727
Contravention date   03 Sep 2025
Contravention time   09:59:00
Contravention location   Plumstead High Street J/W Garibaldi Street
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date   -
Decision Date   13 Feb 2026
Adjudicator   Martin Hoare
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
Mr Tedford attended this video appeal hearing. The Authority did not attend.

Mr Tedford submitted that he did not stop his vehicle on the box junction. The vehicle in front did not ‘pull fully forward’.

The Authority video established that the box junction was clear at the point of entry by Mr Tedford’s vehicle.

The rear point of his vehicle stopped on the fringe of the yellow marked area. The point at which it stopped was beyond the junction itself. The markings extended beyond the junction.

The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/contents

provide:

‘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……..

(6) For the purposes of this paragraph “box junction” means an area of the carriageway where the marking has been placed and which is-

(a)at a junction between two or more roads;


Part of the box that it purportedly authorises is not within the junction of the roads and is therefore not 'at a junction between two or more roads'.


The box extends beyond the junction itself. This increased the distance Mr Tedford’s vehicle had to traverse without stopping. This made it more difficult to progress without falling foul of the box.

The purpose of the prohibition is to stop stationary vehicles blocking the junction to crossing traffic. Stopping beyond the junction would not block the junction.

This yellow box is not in accordance with the Regulations in that it extends beyond the junction.

The appeal is allowed.