Skip to content

TFL 46:Stopped where prohibited (on red route or clearway) Eastern Ave IG2

1985 Views 16 Replies

0 Members and 140 Guests are viewing this topic.

#1
Good afternoon,

Please see below, PCN we received from TFL, It was for our family car and taking my parents who have a disabled badge.  It was parked briefly in the bay not on the Red line for picking up some groceries.

Worth appealing or not?

Thanks







Last Edit: April 27, 2024, 05:25:32 pm by fox10
#2
Quote
It was parked briefly in the bay not on the Red line for picking up some groceries.
Trouble was you were parked in the yellow-marked bay that is for e-Taxis only. Here is the GSV view.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps. · maps.app.goo.gl

I can say that we have seen this location before, but I don't know if it went to London Tribunals. The two signs are not in compliance with guidance that recommends that in a situation like this with two separate marked out bays with different restrictions, the signs should be placed on a single pole positioned at the dividing line alongside each other. Other thing is that the bay marking is also not compliant because there should be a double-dashed line to indicate the boundary between the bays. Here there isn't.
As it's a TfL PCN, there could well be other, technical, arguments against the PCN so wait for more advice, but don't miss the deadline on the PCN.
#5
@fox10 call TFL on 0343 222 3333 and ask for the video, they will send you a DVD in the post and put the penalty on hold while you wait.

I'm not sure the CCTV images show any bay markings:







The ones in your photos look like they might be freshly painted, so I'll get hold of the traffic orders and the maintenance logs.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
#8
I think I can see the bay markings on your first photo CP
Maybe, but they might be inadequate. The video should confirm.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
#11
Here you go:

Dear Transport for London,

I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. The section of road where my vehicle is seen to be stopped in the CCTV footage is not marked in accordance with any road markings at all, as the video clearly illustrates. I have since returned to the location and have noted that new bay markings have been added, but these were not present at the time of the alleged contravention.

While I appreciate lines do not need to be maintained in pristine condition and substantial compliance is sufficient, in this case the bay markings were wholly absent and they cannot therefore have been substantially complaint. It follows that there was nothing to put me on notice that stopping at this location was restricted.

Furthermore service of a postal penalty charge notice is a procedural impropriety. Regulation 11 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 provides that a postal penalty charge notice may be served if a road is marked in accordance with diagrams 1018.2 or 1017.1, and the High Court confirmed in Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) that this extends to bay markings.

However a road that is not marked with any visible markings at all cannot be marked "in accordance" with anything, rather it is unmarked.

In the circumstances service of a postal penalty charge notice is a procedural impropriety.

Yours faithfully,

Send this online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
#13
Reply from TFL about the marking of the bays:

The bay was last remarked on 18 March 2024. Please see a photo attached.

I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
#14
Hi,

I hope you are all doing well.

I nearly forgot about this, but after submitting my representations, I didn't receive any reply until this morning when I got a charge certificate. I logged onto the TFL website with my PCN details and saw that my representation was received back in May but rejected on June 27th. However, I didn't receive any email or letter about this; otherwise, I would have responded and posted it here. Please advise on what I should do next. Thanks.