DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 123334--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: June 29, 2026, 4:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
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.
#Post#: 123660--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: July 3, 2026, 6:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks again everyone. I sent the above and will update the
thread with their (default rejection) response.
#Post#: 125226--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: July 20, 2026, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm still waiting on a reply to my appeal in this one. It's been
20 days now. They usually reply sooner than this. Is it worth me
chasing or to just wait longer?
#Post#: 125244--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 21, 2026, 12:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Whart's the online status/history showing?
#Post#: 125246--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: July 21, 2026, 1:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
NTO/E...
Notice sent
I have the email acknowledgement of my appeal, so perhaps just
taking longer at the minute
#Post#: 125281--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 21, 2026, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Website flaws when you click on Other:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/wERopXp_xl.png
No less than 5 errors.
#Post#: 125382--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: July 22, 2026, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, what implication does this have on the appeal
process?
#Post#: 125434--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 22, 2026, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tommytbone link ---
>
> Interesting, what implication does this have on the appeal
process?
>
--- End Quote ---
Unfairness. Misinformation. We win cases on this. check cp's
magic list: READ FIRST.
#Post#: 125435--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 22, 2026, 5:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
oops.
#Post#: 125457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Waltham Forest - 31 Entering and stopping in a box junction
when prohibited - Forest Rd E17/Kingsley Rd CCTV
DIR By: tommytbone
Date: July 23, 2026, 4:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> oops.
>
--- End Quote ---
? What did you realise?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page