Free Traffic Legal Advice

My partner mistakenly drove into a bus lane as she was in a part of Bedford she had never driven in before.


Just wondering whether it is worth challenging the PCN.


If I have understood the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, an enforcement notice must include the information set out in Regulation 3(2).


Having looked at the PCN, I don't believe that it does because for several reasons.


Firstly, while it states that a representation can be made it only refers to  doing so on "one of the statutory grounds"; however, it makes no mentioned of being able to do so "in accordance with regulation 5" of the Representation and Appeals Regs as is required by Regulation 3(2)(a)(i).


Secondly, despite noting, in the third paragraph on page 3, that statutory grounds are set out "below", this is not the case. Page 4 contains a list entitled "The Specified Grounds" but, ironically, this list does not include ground (f) of Regulation 5(4), namely that there has been a "a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority" or ground (g) or ground (h). Additionally, the fourth ground in the council's list appears to mis-state ground (d); according to the council, a ground for making a representation is if the recipient has hired the vehicle and that at the time of detection there was no hiring agreement and the recipient had not signed a statement of liability for penalty charges incurred during the hire period. My understanding of ground (d) is that it applies where the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was hired under a hiring agreement at the time of the alleged contravention and the person hiring the vehicle had signed a statement of liability for penalty charges incurred during the hire period.

Thirdly, although it is stated that there is a right to appeal to an independent adjudicator if the representations are rejected, no mention is made, as is required by Regulation 3(2)(e), of being able to do so for those representations made during within the payment period or outside of that period where the council but which has not been disregarded.


Lastly, the PCN fails to include, as required by Regulation 3(2)(f), the form and manner in which an appeal may be made. Instead, in the fourth paragraph on page 3 says that information "on appealing further will be included at the end of the rejection letter".


Given that the 2022 General Regulations also require that a PCN includes the information in Schedule 2 thereof and that at in Regulation 3(2) of the 2022 Appeal Regulations, is any one of the above sufficient to establish procedural impropriety by the council and thereby satisfy ground (f)? Or should I go with all of my points? If successful, is there anything to stop the council serving another PCN?


Otherwise, I don't think that the PCN sets out the grounds on which it believes a contravention has taken place. The video imagery does not show the vehicle going past any signage indicating that there was a bus lane ahead nor is the registration mark clearly visible in any of the imagery clearly showing the vehicle in the bus lane.


Rather unhelpfully, the PCN doesn't make it clear where on Kingsway the alleged contravention took place; however, I believe it was https://maps.app.goo.gl/PNgCkCi9SmjPySv8A, in which case there isn't much warning that a bus lane is ahead, so I wonder if that is worth chucking into a representation or saving for an appeal.


PCN:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/regulation/5

They've left out "procedural impropriety", (see above). Leaving this out is a procedural impropriety on its own.

The PCN's crap basically, but we've seen some worrying decisions at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal which slough off appeals based on the council not following the regulations, and the adjudicator being apparently completely ignorant of the law, and ignoring the reps because "no prejudice was caused".  So councils can, apparently, do what they damn well like provided "no prejudice is caused". What tosh, but these people are the bloody adjudicators !!!!

The basic principle of decrminalised parking and traffic enforcement was laid down by a High Court judge some years ago; "A penalty charge can be demanded provided a set of statutory conditions are met. If those statutory conditions are not met, then no penalty can be demanded"

I am getting to the point of despair at people who should know and follow the law, but totally ignore what it says. No wonder people are voting for a new "you know who" party.

Sadly, it really doesn't surprise me that the PCN is not compliant, hence why I thought it worthwhile checking. Slightly disappointed, though, to hear that the adjudicator in Slough have given worrying decisions. Do you know the name of the High Court case you referred to?

Comparing the PCN to those issued by other councils, there is probably more impropriety I could find were I to delve into it. For example, the PCN doesn't state the reason it is being served by post contrary to paragraph 3(1)(h) of Schedule 2 to the 2022 General Regs. I'm also not convinced that they have set out the grounds on which they believe a penalty charge is payable.

Quote

the PCN doesn't state the reason it is being served by post contrary to paragraph 3(1)(h) of Schedule 2 to the 2022 General Regs

It does, by telling you the contravention was detected by CCTV. Your PCN is for a moving traffic offence so CCTV is allowed.
Strongest argument is omission of one of the statutory grounds.

Thanks Incandescent.

I've drafted a representation. Any thoughts or comments would be gratefully received.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As recipient, please find set below representations made under regulation 5 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (“the Appeals Regulations”) against the PCN issued by Bedford Borough Council (“the Council”).

The alleged contravention is that the vehicle with the registration mark HW65 LPA was in a bus lane at 16:37 on 29 September 2025. Accordingly, regulation 10 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 (“the General Regulations”) are applicable.

In accordance with regulation 10(5)(b) of the General Regulations, the PCN must include all the information set out in paragraph (3) of Schedule 2 thereof and regulation 3(2) of the Appeals Regulations; however, it does not.

Regulation 3(2)(b) of the Appeals Regulations is clear that the PCN must include “the nature of the representations which may be made under regulation 5”.

In the sixth paragraph of page 1 of the PCN mention is made of being able to make representations “on one of the statutory grounds” without further information being provided. Later, in the third paragraph of page 3, the PCN states that “the statutory grounds on which representations may be made are set out below…”. No such list is included; instead, page 4 contains a listed headed “Specified Grounds” and another headed “Other Grounds”.

Under “Specified Grounds”, there are seven grounds, whereas “Other Grounds” only includes a single ground which simply invites the recipient to set out other reasons why he or she believes the PCN should be cancelled.

By making it clear, in the third paragraph of page 3, that establishing one or more of the “Specified Grounds” will result in the PCN being cancelled, which infers an outcome prescribed by law, the only reasonable conclusion that the recipient can reach is that the “Specified Grounds” are one and the same as the statutory grounds referred to by the Council elsewhere in the PCN.

Furthermore, it is also reasonable to conclude from the unequivocal statement that a PCN may be cancelled “for other compelling reasons even if none of the specified grounds apply”, that the list of “Specified Grounds” is a definitive list of the statutory grounds set out in regulation 5(4) of the Appeals Regulations; the use of the modal verb “may” implies discretion on the part of the Council in all other circumstances but this cannot be the case where a recipient successfully establishes a ground in regulation 5(4) but not listed under “Specified Grounds” since to argue otherwise would be an admission that the Council is acting ultra vires.

Nowhere within the PCN is the recipient made aware of the ability to make a representation under ground (f) of regulation 5(4) of the Appeals Regulations, viz. that “there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority”.

The failure to list ground (f) is of itself procedural impropriety. The omission is not inconsequential in terms of procedural fairness, it is prejudicial to the recipient who by the wording of the PCN is:

i. misled into believing that the Council’s “Specified Grounds” are the only grounds on which the PCN can successfully be challenged, and/or

ii. discouraged from making a representation on ground (f) in the belief that the Council can choose to disregard, at its own discretion, it even when successfully established, thereby opening up the possibility of the recipient losing the ability to pay the penalty at the reduced rate.

The procedural impropriety is fatal to the validity of the PCN and renders it unenforceable. Therefore, the PCN must be cancelled.