Free Traffic Legal Advice

Received a PCN from TFL for allegedly 'failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign' at Lansdowne way JW A3 Clapham Rd.

As I didn't see a white arrow on a blue sign and the photos supplied by TFL don't show the sign, I requested the video evidence to confirm this contravention.
 
After analysing the video evidence, this also failed to show the arrow on a blue sign.

Therefore I decided to appeal on the grounds of 'no contravention occurred' and stating along the lines of "after analysing the photographic and video evidence supplied by TFL, the camera angle of the alleged contravention is such that the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign is not visible.  Therefore there is no proof that at the relevant time and date the sign was visible.

Unfortunately I don't have a copy of my representation as i sent it online and forgot to save it.
 

Most recently I received a Notice of Rejection (08/05/24) saying "In your representation you have stated that the camera angle direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign is not visible in any of the evidence supplied."

This does not make sense and it seems like they have messed up their wording as this was not what I stated in my appeal.

Do you believe I have a strong enough argument to take it to the adjudicator?

I have attached the original PCN and NOR.  I will try to add the video later if you deem it necessary as I was unable to upload it.
 
https://imgur.com/a/huGJ1MT

Yes, I was thinking more on the fact that they seem to have messed up their response (doesn't make sense) in the NOR, if that has any grounds.

video link.

https://1drv.ms/u/s!AsrfdSGKUjuUlm5BZlt0KkIGfOw6?e=Opr9TJ

You didn't comply with a clear traffic sign, which we can see in GSV.

Your defence is that the video doesn't show the sign.

This has won at adjudication, but it's also lost if the authority produce evidence that convinces the adjudicator that the sign was in situ and clear to see.

Will the charge remain at £160 if i appeal to the adjudicator and lose?

@Hippocrates..
But they must produce evidence which is not dated and must show the name of the street.

IMO, they must adduce evidence which satisfies the adjudicator as to the presence and visibility of the sign in question on the day. Whether the adjudicator would accept library evidence is in their discretion alone.

OP, I think you're on a loser with the contravention.

However, I find the wording of the NoR very questionable, in particular:

Their repeated references to 'Within* 28 days of the date of service' or similar'.

It's simply wrong, it's 28 days beginning on.

But what really annoys me is:
'..please read the enclosed form ...and then complete, sign and send within 28 days of the date of service to..... '. This clearly implies by post which means that their instructions are misleading because the appeal must be received by the tribunal no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service in order to maintain your statutory rights. Yes, the adjudicator could in their absolute discretion register an appeal sent late IF this is accompanied by reasons for lateness.

However, TfL's instructions do not refer to reasons for lateness and therefore anything sent within 26 days of the date of service could be submitted LATE and therefore disregarded. And if this was sent on a Thursday or Friday then anything sent within 24/25 days could be LATE.

How they get away with this tosh after all this time is one of the wonders of the modern world IMO. (NB. the PCN is squeaky clean with its references to periods i.e. 28 days beginning on..)

One of our regular posters has also done battle on the issue of 'for further info see the Tribunals website' i.e. seeking to convey info by linking to an external source. IMO, whatever that site contains has NOTHING to do with TfL's duty to issue a compliant NoR.

*- the courts have held that 'within' excludes the trigger date. Therefore the end of the period of within 28 days of, say, 1 May is 29th whereas 28 days beginning on is 28th.

@Calidon well you have nothing to lose and there are always various technical grounds that might come up on appeal. For instance if the sign is embedded in a traffic light array then there needs to be a traffic order which sometimes turns out not to exist (I know of one other location where they recently changed some signs without enacting the traffic order, so all the PCNs at that location are invalid).

This is the sort of thing that won the day in your case of Rafael Mendez v London Borough of Lambeth (2230157501, 15 April 2023).

I'll drop you a PM in case you'd like to be represented at the tribunal.

Outcome.