Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear Legal advisors,

Thanks you for your support in appealing the above Penalty. I have received the reply from the Merton council as under with notice of rejection of appeal. Just to remind you appeal was sent on 19/08/2025 for the Penalty date 30/07/2025.

Does that mean we can't challenge anymore and have to pay the Penalty ?




""

Parking Services
London Borough of Merton
Merton Civic Centre
London Road
Morden SM4 5DX
Date: 24 September 2025

Dear
,
NOTICE OF REJECTION
Penalty Charge Notice: MT01544199
Environment and Traffic Adjudicator Verification Code: 76I519
Contravention Date: 30/07/2025 at 14:20 Vehicle Registration: YK65SWO
Location: MTC - QUEENS ROAD JW THE BROADWAY

Thank you for writing to us.
We sent you a PCN because our camera evidence shows your vehicle disobeying a sign
and using a route that was only for buses, cycles and taxis. The sign is blue and round, with
a white picture of the vehicles allowed. In this instance, you are required to use the right
hand lane, and turn left at the top, as indicated by the road markings and signs.
I have investigated the circumstances raised in your correspondence and have made the
decision to not cancel your notice. The reasons for my decision are set out below, along with
the options available to you at this stage.
You have stated that the video does not support the alleged contravention because it does
not show any signage allegedly passed. I must advise that this does not change the fact that
your vehicle was in contravention when the PCN was issued to the vehicle. There is clear
and adequate signage at the location for drivers to adhere to which meets the statutory
requirements. The onus remains firmly on the motorist to observe and interpret the relevant
signage whilst driving and ensure compliance with the restrictions in place. I have reviewed
the camera evidence available to me (still images and video footage) and can confirm the
above vehicle failed to comply with signage in place and the vehicle drove through the
restriction.
Prior to entering Queen’s Road from Wimbledon Broadway you will have passed a sign
indicating that there is no through road except for buses or bicycles. Once you have entered
Queen’s Road it is compulsory to enter the car park and come back out. This compulsory
turn is indicated by the blue sign with the white arrow and also in white paint on the
tarmac. Taxis, cycles and buses are permitted to travel straight ahead at the traffic lights
however they MUST be in the left hand lane and you were supposed to be in right hand
lane. Therefore, the contravention occurred and the PCN has been issued correctly.
I have noted your comments where you have mentioned 28 days to pay the PCN. In this
instance, If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with
the date of this notice the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50% to £80.00 as
the PCN is £160.00. If the you do not pay the Penalty Charge or make representations
before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an
increased charge of £240.00 may be payable. The charge Certificate will be sent asking for
increased amount as the case will progress. ""

I meant that my appeal is rejected . Does that mean we can't challenge anymore and I have to pay now , right ?

Hello everyone,


please see the copy of my reps to council below as requested :


Submission Date/Time: 22/08/2025 11:50:41
Reference: MT01544199
Submission Reference: 10838528


Notes:

1.The video does not support the alleged contravention because it does not show any signage allegedly passed 2.I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para.4 (8 )(v) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted (v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable. Clearly, this refers to Para.4(8 )(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice statement lack clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information .So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively

Uploaded Evidence: