Faded yellow box images and no proper proof of contravention?

ginnersinner

I agree, the only proof that would stand up would be moving footage showing that - even if for a short time - the OPs vehicle (the Rover I presume) - was stationary such that at least part of it was within the box. As to the question of fading - I can see the whole of the outside edge of the box and plenty of the diagonal lines on the shots, so I'd say you'd be pushing your luck to try that one. However, the moving footage is key.

Coupon-mad

ginnersinner wrote: »

I agree, the only proof that would stand up would be moving footage showing that - even if for a short time - the OPs vehicle (the Rover I presume) - was stationary such that at least part of it was within the box. As to the question of fading - I can see the whole of the outside edge of the box and plenty of the diagonal lines on the shots, so I'd say you'd be pushing your luck to try that one. However, the moving footage is key.

No, I beg to differ - because the contravention is not 'being stationary in the yellow box' nor is it 'do not enter unless your exit is clear' as forgotmyname thought (probably because that's the wording from the Highway Code - but that's not the statutory instrument relied upon for such a contravention).

RonJames has the contravention correctly worded in his first post. The contravention is strictly and only 'causing 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'.

And as Coblcris says, no still photos can show this particular moving traffic contravention beyond doubt at all. Even a video of his vehicle stopped in the box wouldn't pass muster with an adjudicator - unless it showed clearly, before he entered the YBJ that there were stationary vehicles in the way or vehicles which were clearly slowing down to a standstill at that point.

Ron needs to see the video footage, or if he cannot get there then I would just appeal anyway based on the flawed 'within' wording on the Notice of Rejection regarding the period allowed for reps. And the NoR also incorrectly states 'being stationary within a box junction constitutes a contravention' and tells Ron that his first appeal was 'irrelevant' which I think shows they have not considered or dealt with it properly.

IMHO there's enough procedural impropriety with the potential to win at adjudication - even if the video has him 'bang to rights'.

Then add to that there's also anything pepipoo experts can add to your appeal, plus the faded lines (and maybe they don't go right to the kerb at all four corners, worth checking).

Ron I think you have a good chance with this one, I would continue to appeal but it's your call.