Double parked cars can be reported to the council and they will be dealt with accordingly. I live on an estate which has 1 road in / out .We had problems with double parking at the entrance end of the road,and various cars were hi-lifted away at different times (under police supervision) as the double parking made it impossible for emergency vehicles to access our estate , and the refuse collection trucks etc too. .I was trapped in my road a few times ,not being able to get to work until the cars were removed. We have a yellow line system in place now so it doesn't happen anymore .Direct action can get taken and when double parking motorists relise their cars could be towed away they might think twice about it

As said before , most things are checked automatically (a.n.p.r. to name but one) .The cars reg plate is old fashioned too , the only real way to check a cars I.D. is the chassis # (assuming it's not a cut & shut) I think cars of the future will have an 'electronic fingerprint' which will be scanned like a.n.p.r. is and all of the duties (road tax / mot / insurance will show up as paid or not), but as this is all electronics based it's open to equipment failure or hacking and too much info is available . Paying road tax via fuel purchase duty has been done a for a long time abroad , 'pay as you go' -the more you drive the more you pay ,and the less you drive the less you pay - the fairest way?, most people pay for water / gas / electric that way .Payments via the internet is the prefered method for most things these days as it is electronically recorded, so pretty much all of us a going to be bludgeoned into using the web at some point in our lives , either directly or by getting someone else to push the buttons - thats progress I guess ?

The oldest is warden joke is :- Q -Why do they have yellow bands round their hats? A -To stop people parking on their heads

I totally agree , although this box junction has been here since at least 2008 (google image) and now in the last couple of weeks in gets CCTV which has basically made the whole area grid lock with the backlog of traffic as it impacts on the High Road and side roads .The answer is probably a traffic light system or mini roundabout here ,which is what they have done on the other side of the hill near this junction as it gives some sort of order rather than relying on motorists being courteous on their way home in rush hour

Looks like this box junction is going to be a cash cow for the council .I came past there last night and cars were bumper to bumper in the box

Cool , yes I follow that , cheers

Ah , got it now - didn't know about the 2 days after bit , thanks . So, together with the 'vague locus' - 28 days ammo , and the Sheikh V's Newham Patas case I should have a good shot at it. .Thanks again , much appreciated

Hi G&M , .I'm having a bit of a blonde moment here . The 28 days notice - is that 28 days from 3/12/13 (the alleged contravention date as in my case) or 9/12/13 which is the date of the notice, as it says Notice was served twice in the payment statement ,and then just states 'if you don't pay or challenge before the end of the 28 day period' at the end of the statement.Which is the 'wrong' part? Just a thought .What is the impact to an appeal of using the the 'vagues locus' arguement against appealing the contravention with a (as in my case) clear lane arguement? .Would appealing acknowledge there was a contravention ?,as you are discussing the box junction and why you should not be charged with the alleged offence ,when you are also arguing that you don't know the location they are talking about as it is vague? .Does one cancel out the other in the legal technicalities argument?

Just been up to view the footage after being told I could when I phoned up this morning , only to be told in the building that I needed an appointment as the footage needs to be retrieved as it is a new camera ! .I have an extention granted for my appeal time . Appointment is 3rd Jan , so I'll update then when I've viewed it . I would still welcome any views on the important 'do not ignore this notice' section - is the wording legal (see scan in a previous post)

How does the 14 / 28 days wording on the pcn look to you guys , is it correct? / legal? as I know some are illegal in there wording Just found out that the CCTV footage can be viewed at a 'walk-in centre' .This info is not offered on the pcn ,it just states that you should write in to book an appointment , so they have just wasted a week of my time as I posted off a letter to them a week ago and have been waiting for them to contact me with an appointment !! .I'm going to view the footage later today .

Hi SS . Yes , I have only been honest here , It has become a nightmare junction recently after the addition of CCTV .This has been a box junction since at least 2008 , and now in 2013 they intro. CCTV.on it . I haven't seen any signs in the High Road warning motorists of the placing of cameras here either, other than one A4 sized laminated sign zip tied to a post in Chadwell Heath Lane (the side road with the van coming out of it in pic ) and facing the footpath, which I read when I walked down there on Saturday to have a look (update today wednesday 18th -the A4 sign has gone , so no warning signs at all). The case of Sheikh V's Newham as suggested by G&M is a similar case to mine ,as, he was stopped in traffic when the lane to left of him was clear , but he chose to stay put in his lane and still won his appeal. I moved to the clear lane to keep the traffic flow moving .I need to view the CCTV to see how long I was actually stationary (5 seconds or more?) and also if it recorded my point of entry into the box .The adjudicators seem to be judging cases on what they think you were thinking of doing of at the time (minority report springs to mind). The Gillingham case concluded that the appeal should be based on what he did ,not what he might have done

Ok , sounds good ,thanks.

Thanks G&M , I thought the Sheikh V's Newham might work , although the adjudicators in the Patas rulings you linked me to don't neccecarily agree with the appeal being upheld but I will use it anyway .I also thought about the 'Gillingham' case where the adjudicators said he had stopped and although there was a clear exit , Mr G didn't take it ,so it (the clear exit) is irrelevent . My point is if he had taken the exit (as I did in my case) would it have been relevent to the appeal that he lost? . Has anybody tried the 'vague location ' angle? Did you get a chance to read the pcn scan I posted up?

Hi SS , that is me in the box ,you can see the right turn lane next to me , that is the lane I used to exit the box, the van has just entered the box from the side road. This is the problem with the box , the traffic in the side road (where the van is ) enters the high road , and takes up any available spaces , thus preventing the high road traffic from moving foreward. After the shot was taken I moved over to the right turn lane and exited , a full video will show the events , a still photo doesn't show much at all.

Here it is :-