DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 79771--------------------------------------------------
PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: jamapple123
Date: July 6, 2025, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
The driver was driving on Ilford Lane on 29/05/25. The driver
approached the box junction with the clear intention to proceed
through it only if the exit was clear. At the time the driver
entered the box, they observed that the vehicle in front was
moving and there appeared to be sufficient space to clear the
junction. However, unexpectedly and without any prior
indication, a van in front of the car stopped and began a
reverse parking manoeuvre into a space on the left-hand side of
the road.
This forced the car directly in front to stop abruptly within
the junction, which in turn caused the driver to become
temporarily stationary within the box junction. This situation
arose after the driver had already committed to entering the
junction, based on the assumption of continued movement by the
vehicles ahead.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The following appeal was made after receiving this notice:
Subject: Formal Representation Against PCN for Box Junction –
PCN Number [xxxxxx]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally contest the issuance of the Penalty
Charge Notice (PCN) [Insert PCN Number], dated [Insert Date],
which alleges that my vehicle stopped in a yellow box junction
on Ilford Lane, Redbridge.
I respectfully request that this charge be reviewed and
cancelled based on the following mitigating circumstances, which
are clearly supported by the video and photographic evidence
provided by Redbridge Council.
On the day in question, I approached the box junction on Ilford
Lane with the clear intention to proceed through it only if my
exit was clear, in accordance with Rule 174 of the Highway Code,
which states:
“You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is
clear.”
At the time I entered the box, I observed that the vehicle in
front of me (a car) was moving and there appeared to be
sufficient space for me to clear the junction. However,
unexpectedly and without any prior indication, a van in front of
the car stopped and began a reverse parking manoeuvre into a
space on the left-hand side of the road.
This forced the car directly in front of me to stop abruptly
within the junction, which in turn caused me to become
temporarily stationary within the box junction. This situation
arose after I had already committed to entering the junction,
based on the assumption of continued movement by the vehicles
ahead.
The obstruction caused by the van’s reverse parking manoeuvre
was unforeseeable and occurred after I had entered the box. This
is a crucial point as I did not enter the box recklessly or
without regard for the rules, but rather due to circumstances
outside of my control.
Compliance with Rule 174 of the Highway Code:
Rule 174 allows for reasonable judgment to be made at the time
of entry into the junction. I entered the box believing the exit
was clear, which satisfies the requirement of the rule. The fact
that a vehicle in front stopped unexpectedly due to a third
vehicle's manoeuvre should be considered a mitigating factor and
not a deliberate or negligent act on my part.
The CCTV/video footage provided by Redbridge Council
corroborates my explanation. It clearly shows the van’s
manoeuvre and the chain of events that led to my vehicle
becoming stationary in the box junction. I urge the reviewing
officer to consider this visual evidence alongside my
explanation.
According to the Department for Transport’s Operational Guidance
to local authorities on enforcing moving traffic contraventions,
enforcement should be “fair and proportionate” and not used to
penalise motorists who are caught in situations they could not
reasonably predict or avoid. This applies directly to my case.
Given the exceptional circumstances and the fact that the
contravention was not due to any deliberate or negligent action
on my part, I believe this PCN has been issued unfairly and
should be cancelled. I acted responsibly and in accordance with
the Highway Code, and the obstruction that caused the stop was
entirely beyond my control.
I would appreciate your fair and reasonable consideration of
this representation, and I respectfully request the cancellation
of the PCN.
____________________________________________________________________________________
All supporting docs including initial PCN, Rejection and Image
and video of incident:
HTML https://1drv.ms/f/c/6b806e5341044f24/EiUOXQX04NtGiWbG-mWTyMoBqM3FfLhITqyY5vyf7gTAXw?e=hf2WNR<br
/>- NOTE: Drivers car is car in dark blue (AUDI A5)
Please advise what should the driver do in this situation.
Your help is much appreciated.
#Post#: 79775--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 6, 2025, 8:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not sure about this - you should still have waited for the car
ahead to give you a space especially as you were stationary at
the edge of the box.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hJHDYQkn/red-ezgif-com-optimize.gif
#Post#: 79790--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: jamapple123
Date: July 6, 2025, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Not sure about this - you should still have waited for the car
ahead to give you a space especially as you were stationary at
the edge of the box.
>
>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hJHDYQkn/red-ezgif-com-optimize.gif
>
--- End Quote ---
thanks for the response. At that time I didn't notice the van
wanted to park to the left. That is essentially what caused the
issue. Also as per the video the van was indicating to park but
my focus was on the car coming out of the junction as I wanted
to see he was coming out or not.
In any case if others feel I have no grounds for further appeal
I will have to bite the bullet and take this one on the chin :(
#Post#: 79801--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 6, 2025, 12:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is an unfortunate one - your exit was apparently clear and
you had the right of way. The other car, unsurprisingly, took
the opportunity to turn in but by that time you were already
mostly committed to moving across the junction. A harsh
adjudicator might say that's tough, a kinder one might feel
sympathy.
Redbridge PCNs are also very vague as to location, this says
Ilford Lane which is about 1 mile long with numerous junctions
and more than one box junction. The PCN recipient should be
given enough information to know where the alleged offence took
place.
#Post#: 79828--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 6, 2025, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
hmm no stationary vehicles when the OP entered the box.
#Post#: 79836--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 6, 2025, 4:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Alas I don't think that's relevant, it's whether there are any
stationary vehicles that prevent you leaving the box junction
that's important. But the state of play upon entry is relevant
and the exit is clear, if one allows for the realities of
reaction time.
#Post#: 79837--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 6, 2025, 4:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This is one where we would have once hoped the authority would
use discretion owing to the expectation of normal traffic flow,
and indeed the old Hammersmith & Fulham guidance included this
type of situation as worthy. But those days have gone.
This doesn't mean an adjudicator may not find for you - here are
two that are relevant and involve pedestrians beyond the vehicle
in front whereas in your case the reversing van is the cause.
The first also turns on the wording in the legislation of
vehicles (plural) not vehicle (singular).
--------------
Case reference 2240416752
Appellant Anisha Patel
Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM DC23AVG
PCN Details
PCN FR62861981
Contravention date 25 Jun 2024
Contravention time 16:26:00
Contravention location Lea Bridge Road / Argall Way
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 03 Dec 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement
Notice.
Reasons 1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said
vehicle entered and stopped on a location subject to an
operative restriction denoted by yellow cross-hatching, such
demarcation indicating a prohibition against a vehicle entering
and remaining stationary within the defined area due to the
presence of stationary vehicles.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge
Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and
challenges as comprehensively stated in her written
representations, supported by annotated images and freeze
frames.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle
was so driven contrary to the operative restriction are obliged
to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate
that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises
the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice together with
contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still
frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ and
the applicable carriageway markings notifying motorists of the
prohibition.
It is incumbent upon a motorist to be acquainted with [by
reference to The Highway Code], and comply with, such
prohibitions.
4.The prohibition, as set out in The Traffic Signs Regulations &
General Directions 2016 prohibits vehicles (or parts there-of)
from entering and stopping within the cross-hatched area due to
the presence of stationary vehicles.
There is no requirement that the vehicle be causing an
obstruction.
There is no minimum period since a vehicle is in contravention
immediately it is stationary.
There is no minimum portion of a vehicle since any stationary
part thereof is subject to contravention.
5. The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined
(repeatedly) to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the
Appellant's representations and supporting documents.
6. The Appellant described the sequence of events in relation to
the traffic flow and vehicles ahead, and her calculation as to
it continuing to move so as to accommodate the said vehicle on
the right-hand side of the box.
In order to satisfy myself that a contravention occurred I must
establish that the said vehicle entered and stopped on the box
junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
With the benefit of rewind and freeze frame it is evident that
the traffic flow was halted, as is borne out by the footage, by
pedestrians crossing the road beyond the vehicle ahead of the
said vehicle; the said vehicle was not thereby caused to stop on
the cross hatching by virtue of stationary vehicles, plural.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred,
accordingly I allow this Appeal.
---------
Case reference 2240519427
Appellant Robert Wilson
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM LY08OXM
PCN Details
PCN AF99198507
Contravention date 20 Sep 2024
Contravention time 22:31:00
Contravention location Ilford Lane
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 13 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The contravention alleged is entering and stopping in a
box junction when prohibited. The prohibition is contained in
the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016,
Schedule 19 Part 2 paragraph 6. This provides as follows.
7. (1) Except when placed in the circumstances described in
paragraph 8, the road markings shown in diagrams 1043 and 1044
shall each convey the prohibition that no person shall 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.
The CCTV footage shows the vehicle drive behind another that
stops to let pedestrians walk across the road. The Appellant,
who was in the car behind, could not have anticipated that the
car in front would come to a halt, leaving a large gap in front
for several seconds. The Appellant’s path was clear up until
that moment.
Additionally, the Appellant’s vehicle came to a stop in the box
for three seconds at the most; that is insufficiently long to
establish that a contravention has occurred.
#Post#: 79842--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: jamapple123
Date: July 6, 2025, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Lucky for me I know exactly where it was.
It's here:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/Eq3q8JLhwMbFiQfTA
Outside a shop called BB fatima. And the road to the left is
Cecil road. Note that on Google Street view you can't see any
box junction painted as these where added by the council only a
few months ago, as we all know just to take more of our hard
earned £
#Post#: 79843--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: jamapple123
Date: July 6, 2025, 6:35 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for this.
Is it worth me appealing again or should I just pay the fine.
Apparently if I do go ahead and appeal and if I loose then I am
liable for the full penalty and not the discounted rate of £80
Thanks all for the replies so far.
#Post#: 79851--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Redbridge council - Box Junction
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 7, 2025, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> Alas I don't think that's relevant, it's whether there are any
stationary vehicles that prevent you leaving the box junction
that's important. But the state of play upon entry is relevant
and the exit is clear, if one allows for the realities of
reaction time.
>
--- End Quote ---
has there been a change to the argument that the contravention
states "causing a vehicle to enter the box" and stop due to
stationary vehicles? I thought it was a winning point that if
there were no stationary vehicles when entering the box the
contravention is not made out?
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page