DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 110753--------------------------------------------------
Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 23, 2026, 5:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
PCN AF21695635
VEHICLE REG -YA 65 Z
for a neighbour this one not for me , a Redbridge PCN, she might
have saved herself by angling the car at the last minute to
leave the box and thus could have cleared the box to the right
and therefore she stopped short but not due to presence of
stationary vehicles?
Any thoughts welcome.
#Post#: 110754--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 23, 2026, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry reg is YA 65 ZKJ
#Post#: 110758--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 23, 2026, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5pms5l0s3fhbi47giywfi/aWR2dlVYZVdXck5wdkRQL3V6WThYOXdaK2ZLTDZsM0lvemdBSllWdkxpZk9lQVM1bFZZd08yQmt1Q3NGOjpkYzcyNDIzNzkzYjViNTQ1MjQ1ZTFhNWYzZDg2MzU2Ng.mp4?rlkey=7nb7wg5i6c4sy6o9yilhkajy6&st=x5xilj4l&dl=0
Link to PCN video
#Post#: 110905--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 24, 2026, 4:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Any thoughts on the video? I'll try and get a copy of the PCN
today to post up but I think they're on the verge of paying it /
being mugged which would be a shame !
#Post#: 110920--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 24, 2026, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I make representations against this Penalty Charge Notice on the
two following grounds.
Firstly, it is asserted the contravention has not occurred as
alleged or at all. Having reviewed the CCTV footage provided by
the council, the appellant’s vehicle did not come to a complete
stop until it was alongside the white vehicle to its left at
which point the appellant’s vehicle came to a stop in the box
junction with no vehicle directly in front of it. Having
measured the space available** to the appellant directly in
front of their vehicle it is noted that the space available to
the appellant was no less than 5.33m.
The appellants vehicle’s length is 4.37.1 metres in length*.
It is clear therefore that there was more than sufficient space
in front of the appellant’s vehicle for the appellant to have
completely cleared the box junction and therefore the appellant
did not stop in the box junction due to the presence of
stationary vehicles***. It is noted that the still image
provided by the council was taken whilst the appellant’s vehicle
was still in motion and had not come to a stop. The provision
and reliance of such an image by this council in issuing this
penalty charge notice is clearly misleading and therefore of no
evidential value whatsoever.
The second ground of challenge is that the box junction itself
is of an unlawful size as the markings extend beyond the
junction and therefore it does not meet the guidance laid down
for councils by the Department for Transport, noting the
definition in Paragraph 11(6)(a) of Part 7 of Schedule 9 of the
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016
(TSRGD)****. The Appellant puts Redbridge council to strict
proof as to why they have installed an oversized box junction in
this location and requests that the council produces evidence to
justify the introduction and retention of the full box marking.
The appellant relies on the analysis and decision of Adjudicator
Sean Stanton-Dunne in the case of Nojrul Askaari V LB of
Redbridge (case number 2230304887) which concerns the same box
junction that the appellant has been sent this penalty charge
notice for.
For the above reasons, the Penalty Charge Notice must be
cancelled.
#Post#: 110938--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: February 24, 2026, 7:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes it's a ridiculous box and sightlines turning right are very
far from what we see on an overhead camera.
I'll check the tribunal register.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/0jbCQJKm/a-WR2dl-VYZVd-Xck5wdk-RQL3-V6-WTh-YOXda-K2-ZLTDZs-M0lvemd-BSll-Wdkxp-Zk9l-QVM1b-FZZd08y-Qmt1-Q3-NGOjpk-Yz.gif
#Post#: 110950--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: February 24, 2026, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
While it's arguable that the vehicle did not have to stop in the
box as it manoeuvred over to the lane for oncoming traffic
(which was clear), I'd be very surprised if this was accepted at
tribunal. After all, in many yellow box situations it would be
the case that escape was technically possible by exiting on the
opposite side of the road and I've not seen an adjudicator allow
an appeal on this basis.
But I've not seen this specific situation arise before, not been
argued, so I don't have any cases to back this up.
If we can have sight of the PCN, we can check the wording for
technical issues.
#Post#: 110955--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 24, 2026, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I take your point Mr chips but I think she was substantially on
the correct side of the road, if not wholly.
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/b72pjhxvswy0dvqw9tcmt/Screenshot_20260224-141618.png?rlkey=xh9txwnpnzau003p2h81rukpj&st=lyxjrg8c&dl=0
I've asked her for a copy of the PCN and will upload when she
provides it
#Post#: 110969--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: February 24, 2026, 9:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
At best, the vehicle would have been 50:50 on each side of the
lane divider had it exited in my opinion.
#Post#: 110979--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge yellow box junction
DIR By: Princeperch
Date: February 24, 2026, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I spose it's for the council to prove that as it's their PCN and
the burden of proof of proving the contravention as alleged has
been committed is on them. I'm sure they'll respond with a load
of old bolloaux anyway.
As it happens I have measured the width of the road and it is
theoretically possible for both the Evoque and the van to have
been next to each other in the space that was available. I'm not
sure if it's worth pointing that out or whether keep the powder
dry on that point and let them prove otherwise and that the
Evoque would have been on the otherside of the road (arguably
there are no road markings in the space she could have moved
into anyway so it's not clear cut that that section of the road
is one lane or the other).
I appreciate the wizard is usually very busy and can't reply to
everything but I am wondering if this is one for Ivan to treat
us to his view on given it's fairly novel and not seen all that
often?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page