Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks H - i've put together MrChips rewrite and a shortened version of the PCN wording. Think this is succinct enough?


I am writing to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice. I deny that a contravention occurred and request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled, for the following reasons.
 
1. The contravention did not occur — any incursion into the box junction markings was of a de minimis nature and, on balance of probabilities, there was sufficient space to receive my vehicle.

A box junction contravention only arises where a vehicle enters and has to stop within the box junction because there is insufficient space beyond it to receive the vehicle, due to the presence of stationary traffic. It is not in itself a contravention simply to be stationary within the box markings if the vehicle could otherwise have moved forward and exited the box.

From the council's evidence, my vehicle stopped with only the rear wheels resting on the extremities of the box junction markings. I believe this is of a clearly de minimis nature. Notwithstanding the trivial nature of the incursion, I believe in these circumstances my vehicle could have cleared the box junction by moving forward a foot or so into the gap to the car directly in front. If the vehicle could exit but the driver chose not to for whatever reason, then no contravention has occurred.

2. The contravention did not occur - the installation of roadworks have reduced the width of the junction with Kingsley Road

From the council evidence, there are roadworks in the left hand lane of Forest Road. These encroach into the junction with Kingsley Road including into the box junction markings. I have taken my own photograph (attached) which more clearly shows the level of incursion is not insignificant.

These roadworks themselves block the junction to a far greater extent than my own vehicle did.  Due to the relative position of the roadworks and the rear of my vehicle, there is no way my vehicle could have caused any obstruction as a vehicle would have had to drive through the roadworks first. There would seem to be no logic or justice in enforcing a stop on the far extremities of a box junction which itself is no longer part of the usable junction between two roads.

The box junction regulations themselves require that box junction markings must be installed at a junction or two (or more) roads and as such any markings situated at a point which is not at such a junction is not legally a box junction and so cannot be enforced.

3. The Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the statutory requirements

Page 3 of the Notice states that if payment or representations are not made within 28 days, an increased charge becomes payable, and adds: "at this stage it would be too late to make representations." This conflicts with the Notice's own separate statement that the Council "may disregard" late representations — a discretionary power, not an absolute bar. An adjudicator has previously found materially identical wording on a Waltham Forest PCN to be non-compliant with the statutory scheme, rendering the notice unenforceable independent of the underlying contravention. I would ask the Council to review this wording.
For these reasons, I ask that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Quote from: Hippocrates on June 27, 2026, 02:58:14 pm

Check the website as it has a general box only I believe.

ETA Register of Appeals

Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

Case Details

Case reference 2220655455

Appellant Bysshe Wallace

Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest

VRM PK65WZA

PCN Details

PCN FR57211309

Contravention date 17 Jul 2022

Contravention time 14:12:00

Contravention location Forest Road / Russell Road

Penalty amount GBP 130.00

Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction

Referral date -

Decision Date 27 Oct 2022

Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade

Appeal decision Appeal allowed

Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons This decision has been amended under Regulation 15 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993.


At this scheduled personal hearing the Appellant was represented in person by Mr Morgan and her husband, Mr Emamally, also attended.

The Enforcement Authority did not attend and were not represented.

Under Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 a box junction marking 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 marking due to the presence of a stationary vehicle.

The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 ('the 2003 Act') on the basis of information provided by a camera

or other device. There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was at this location, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.

The Appellant’s case is that she was trying to steer clear of a scooter rider who was cruising around on the main carriageway and weaving in and out of the traffic. The Appellant submits that she was deeply concerned and anxious that there could be an accident and thinking it would minimise the chance of that, she pulled up behind the car which was already stationary at the lights.

The closed circuit television (cctv) images show that the Appellant’s vehicle did enter this box junction marking when the vehicle ahead was still in it and then had to stop within the box due to the presence of a stationary vehicle. The images do also show a scooter but it is some way behind the Appellant’s vehicle even after it had stopped in the box.

It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully at all times whilst driving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted. The contravention can occur if any part of the vehicle’s wheels are stopped within the box marking. No actual obstruction need be caused for the contravention to occur.

Rule 174 of the current edition of the Official Highway Code refers to box junctions. It explains that these have criss-cross yellow lines painted on the road and warns: ‘You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear. However, you may enter the box and wait when you want to turn right, and are only stopped from doing so by oncoming traffic, or by other vehicles waiting to turn right. At signalled roundabouts you MUST NOT enter the box unless you can cross over it completely without stopping.’

A box junction is the yellow criss-cross marking prescribed by Diagram 1043 at item 25 in Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the 2016 Regulations. The images produced show that in this case the marking does appear to comply. I am satisfied that it is clear to the motorist that this is a box junction.

Mr Morgan also submits that the Enforcement Authority failed to address properly the original representations to the Enforcement Authority and that the wording of the Penalty Charge Notice is non-compliant.

As to the latter, Section 4( of the 2003 Act provides that:

A penalty charge notice under this section must-

(a) state-

(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

(vi) the amount of the increased charge;

(vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and

(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to Act provides:

Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as "the notice of rejection") must-

(a) state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection-

(i) the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii) the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and

(b) describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,

and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.

Regulation 4(2)(a) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993 provides that the local authority shall produce a copy of the relevant Penalty Charge Notice.

Page 3 of the Penalty Charge Notice states:

"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £195 may be payable. We may send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount. At this stage it would be to [sic] late to make representations".

There is a clear, and incorrect, confluence of the two provisions. The wording on the Penalty Charge Notice produced to me does not comply with the legal requirements.

It might be said that the Appellant is not prejudiced as, in effect, the time limit for initial payment of the penalty charge is increased

However, the Appellant’s representative has referred to the decision in R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin).

Although that case involved a Penalty Charge Notice issued under different statutory provisions, it makes clear that the fact that an appellant may not have been prejudiced is not a "cure" to the substantive defect. The defect renders the penalty unenforceable. make clear the importance of complying with the requirements of the legislation. Mr Justice Jackson said in that case "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act created a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met then the financial liability does not arise."

I cannot find that there is any serious possibility of real prejudice here but the wording is not correct and, accordingly, for the reasons set out this appeal must be allowed.

It follows that no other issue need be determined.

Thats brilliant! What a spot. It's on mine aswell. I'm surprised they are still using the same wording after 4 years.
I'll add pics here in a mo

Thank you! I really appreciate your input and support

I wonder if something like this would be a good place to start with my appeal?

I am writing to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice. I deny that a contravention occurred and request that the Notice be cancelled, for the following reasons.

1. The contravention did not occur — there was sufficient space to receive my vehicle, and the vehicle ahead was still moving when I entered

A box junction contravention only arises where a vehicle enters and has to stop within the box because there is insufficient space beyond it to receive the vehicle, due to the presence of stationary traffic already occupying that space. It is not a contravention simply to be present within the box markings if the vehicle could otherwise have proceeded.

At the point I entered the junction, the vehicle ahead of me was still moving — it was not stationary, and I had no reason to believe my exit was blocked. The footage shows the vehicle ahead still moving forward at 0:11, before it came to a stop. As my entry was not made in the face of stationary traffic, and I was not caused to stop by a lack of receiving space, no contravention occurred on the proper definition of the marking, regardless of whether my vehicle was briefly within the box.

2. Roadworks had just been installed at this junction, altering its layout with no opportunity to become familiar with the change

Roadworks at the Kingsley Road approach to this junction were installed in the days immediately before my alleged contravention on 04/06/2026. Other CCTV-enforced PCNs issued at this same junction as recently as 28/05/2026 show no roadworks present, which indicates the works were installed within that narrow window — i.e. very shortly before my own contravention date. This is relevant for two reasons:


It materially altered the layout and visual extent of the junction from what a regular road user would have expected, at extremely short notice.
The roadworks barrier itself encroached on the box junction, reducing its effective width by approximately 1.4 metres (measured using Google Maps' distance tool against the barrier's position). This means the area I am alleged to have stopped in had already been partly obstructed by the council's own works, and the practical space available within the junction was materially less than the marked dimensions would suggest. I have photographic evidence of this which I am able to provide if helpful.


I would ask the Council to confirm the exact date the roadworks were installed and to consider whether it is reasonable to enforce against a layout that had only just changed, with no advance signage or warning of the altered junction.

3. There was sufficient receiving space for my vehicle to clear the box completely

To the extent any part of my vehicle remained within the box markings, I am confident there was sufficient space ahead of me to have moved forward and cleared the box entirely, had I judged it necessary.

There is a manhole cover on the carriageway in the path of travel beyond the box junction. The vehicle ahead of mine had passed this manhole cover before coming to a stop. Using Google Maps' distance measuring tool, the rear edge of this manhole cover is approximately 4.8 metres from the relevant edge of the box junction markings. My vehicle (a third-generation Toyota Prius) is approximately 4.46 metres long [confirm exact figure from your V5C]. Had I drawn level with the vehicle ahead — i.e. with the front of my vehicle at the rear of the manhole cover — the rear of my own vehicle would have been approximately 0.34 metres clear of the box junction markings. This demonstrates there was sufficient receiving space available to me, and that I was not prevented from clearing the box by the presence of the vehicle ahead.

4. Request for evidence to be reviewed against these points

I have reviewed the photographs/CCTV footage provided with the Notice. I would ask the case officer to specifically review [insert timestamp/frame reference] showing the position and movement of the vehicle ahead of me at the moment of my entry into the junction, which I submit supports the above.

For these reasons, I ask that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled. I look forward to your response within the statutory period.

Thanks so much MrChips. This all makes perfect sense and agree on your points. I'll consider this in next few days and put update with draft appeal

Hi @MrChips,
What are you thoughts of success with this one? I'm going to tribunal for another appeal tomorrow, so will know more about the process but something's telling me it's a tougher fight against yellow box offences. Not sure how much fights left in me! But £80 is a though pill to swallow for a couple of centimeters

Cheers @tincombe - i've added clearer pictures of the area, bays and parking signs. And the appeal info shown at the bottom... Let me know your thoughts/comments

Wide angle of parking spot:





Alternative to above showing the space empty, thoughts?:





Entrance to parking bays (no signs):



Only sign present:


Redundant historical signs:


Further information about the appeal: I am a permit holder for Wood Street North and on
the day in question was parked slightly outside the markings as can be seen in the
council's photos. The council have placed a 'traffic sign' adjacent to this area (see
Evidence A) which advises that only WSN resident permit holders may park. As the
area is not a road, and indeed the contravention regards the area as part of an off-road
car park, I submit that this sign is advisory only. The council's position is that it conveys
that in law and subject to being penalised with the rate prevailing for off-street car parks,
a motorist:
Must hold the specified permit (and presumably display etc.); and
Must park wholly within the markings; and
That failure to do either renders the motorist liable to the penalty in this case.
I submit that this sign on its own conveys none of the above, but that if the council
wishes to penalise motorists then it must bring these conditions of use of private land to
motorists' attention by erecting at every vehicle entrance a noticeboard which sets out
the Ts and Cs of use, that failure to comply might make an owner liable for a specified
penalty and in general how this would be recovered.
The council acknowledges that there are no such signs (as shown in the wide-angle site
photos + historical/redundant parking signs in Evidence B) and rely wholly upon a 'traffic
sign' prescribed for use under the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations for use on roads only
while acknowledging that the area is not a road.
I submit that not only is their position untenable, their continued resistance to my
representations meets the threshold for a costs award