Free Traffic Legal Advice

Do not send your draft.

The PCN alleges a contravention at 16.00 but at 16.00 your car was not to be seen. The video starts at 16.00.45 sec so at 16.00 the CEO had no reason to believe a contravention had occurred which they must have in order to issue a PCN

The de minimis argument can be second but to be honest both arguments are more roe the tribunal as the council will not entertain them

V2 draft, thoughts please?

I am writing to formally appeal the PCN issued.

According to the evidence, I left a bus lane at 16:00:54, while the bus lane was active at 16:00. Given the very narrow time difference of just 54 seconds, I believe this case falls within the de minimis threshold. It is unreasonable to expect my vehicle's clock, which is not synchronised with an atomic clock, to be perfectly precise.

Considering this minor discrepancy, I kindly request that the charge be reviewed and dismissed on the basis that this is a negligible timing difference that cannot reasonably be subject to enforcement.

In addition I attach a photograph showing the bus lane time signage. The photo was taken today, 25.09.2025 by me, standing in the road to emulate the view from a car. The photo was taken at chest height, although the viewpoint for a driver would be much lower. Due to the angle of the sign, it is very difficult to read from the drivers seat. I would say that this sign does not meet regulations for highway signs.

Thank you for your understanding and consideration. I look forward to your response.

Sorry for nagging guys but time marches on. Could someone please check my revised appeal text? TIA

Well, it looks OK to me, but bear in mind they will inevitably reject it, because they just want your money, and know from experience that almost all people just cough-up when reps are rejected. You'll have to take them to London Tribunals where it is virtually certain you will win.

Are you going for trivial timing or sign not visible. You can't really do both in full but with clever wording you could get both in.

Ok, this is what I ended up submitting:

I am writing to formally appeal the PCN issued.

According to the evidence, I left a bus lane at 16:00:54, while the bus lane was active at 16:00. Given the very narrow time difference of just 54 seconds, I believe it is unreasonable to expect my vehicle's clock, which is not synchronised with an atomic clock, to be perfectly precise.

In addition I attach a photograph showing the bus lane time signage. The photo was taken by me on 25.09.2025, standing in the road to emulate the view from a car. The photo was taken at chest height, although the viewpoint for a driver would be much lower. Due to the angle of the sign, it is very difficult to read from the drivers seat. It would appear that the sign has been hit by a high vehicle and now is at an angle from the road view. I would say that this sign does not meet regulations for highway signs because.

1. Regulation 10 of TSRGD 2016 states that traffic signs must be placed such that they are visible to drivers and arranged at an appropriate angle to ensure they can be seen clearly and read easily.

2. Schedule 13 of the TSRGD specifies the different types of signs, including bus lane signs, and emphasises that these signs should be positioned in advance of the lane or road restriction, at a location and angle that provides maximum visibility to approaching drivers.  Guidance and best practices usually recommend signs be mounted at an angle that makes them easily visible to drivers approaching from a distance, typically around 30-45 degrees relative to the direction of travel

3. The overarching legal requirement is that signs must be placed so that they are clearly visible and readable, which involves appropriate height, placement, and angle — mandated by Regulation 10 of the TSRGD 2016 and supplemented by best practices and guidance from the Department for Transport (DfT).

I would also say that the white line separating the bus lane is very faded and damp conditions made this even harder to see. Specifically, Schedule 2 Part 1 of the TSRGD 2016 covers this and says that markings should be clear and easy for motorists to see. That was not the case here.

Due to the three reasons above (timing, signage and faded white lane), I kindly request that the charge be reviewed and dismissed as it cannot reasonably be subject to enforcement

1. His clock led him to believe that it was before 4pm.
2. The sign was not legible.

When he exited the bus lane, there was a sign up ahead.

Additionally, bus lanes in that area are typically 4-7.