Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

Received the below PCN on 25th April, notice dated 22nd April.

In short, I do not believe that the evidence provided is sufficient proof of the contravention TfL believe has been committed.

2 still photographs provided - the first showing my vehicle, but certainly not the yellow box itself, and the second showing my vehicle behind a TfL bus caught in the junction (3rd identical photo shown in online case linked below). However, the 2nd photo is not at all clear and given there are 2 lanes in the same direction of travel on both entry and exit to the yellow box, I do not believe that they have provided clear enough evidence that the contravention has occurred (i.e. that the same vehicle is shown in both images). Not least because the 2nd photograph also shows that traffic is still flowing clearly across the junction.

My second point, is that the bus was actually occupying both of the 2 lanes of the exit to the junction, which is what has caused the issue in the first instance - I felt that it should have left more space for me to utilise the 2nd exit lane, as I was anticipating to when entering the box. Indeed, I could have 'escaped' the box (and the camera!) by moving around the bus to my right in the partially-blocked 2nd lane, but this would have risked a collision when the bus moved off.

I am yet to respond to the PCN and would be interested to know if either, both, or neither of the above are worthy grounds for appeal. Many thanks in advance for any advice!

Supporting attachments below as follows-

Google Street View of location - frustratingly this is 6 years out of date and the road layout has since changed - the yellow box is much larger now, although the dual lane entry/exit from Kew Bridge to Chiswick High Road is still the case. I have linked the view that best aligns with the PCN camera angle:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/sXiJKJaB53PBbDYT9

I had trouble with Imgur on my laptop so I have used the attach function here for the PCN - I hope this works but the details can also be found here using reference GX24503283 and vehicle reg ML19WGV


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Thanks very much - I have done so today and they are sending it out, and they've put the case on hold for 14 days in the meantime.

I got the similar PCN today in the same junction box. What is the outcome your appeal?

No yet concluded.
Best if you start your own thread and continue looking at this one.

I got the similar PCN today in the same junction box. What is the outcome your appeal?

@Ki
I suspect the OP is still waiting for the DVD. Meanwhile, please have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

and start your own new thread by posting there
a brief account of the circumstance,
all sides of yr PCN (redact yr name & address - leave all else in)
and a GSV link to the location.
You shouild also telephone TfL and ask for the DVD and post the video on yr thread.

Hi all,

I received the DVD a few days ago but annoyingly I don't actually have access to a DVD player until tomorrow (or possibly tonight). I will share the video on here as soon as I have it to see if there is any cause for appeal. (I'm still within the original 14-day discount period - just!)

Thanks

There has been a recent appeal win at London Tribunals because the appellant was unable to view the video.

Be mindful of deadlines. If you PCN was dated 22 April, the deadline for submitting representations is nigh. Unless you have it in writing somewhere that the deadline has been pushed back while the DVD was prepared then I wouldn't trust TFL to honour an extension if it was only offered to you verbally.

Hi MrChips, indeed, I was very mindful of this possibility. Thankfully it is visible in the PCN history that it has been placed on hold (see attached image), and indeed the outstanding amount is still £80.00, although by my reckoning that will increase to the full £160.00 on Tuesday, but I'm treating it as Monday to be safe. Perhaps this is a useful reference for others in future to know for sure that their case is indeed on hold.

There has been a recent appeal win at London Tribunals because the appellant was unable to view the video.

Hi Incandescent, that's interesting, thank you for sharing. I suppose my question then would be, is the inability to view the footage (with evidence of attempts on multiple devices) in and of itself grounds for appeal, and if so should this be the sole basis or should I reference any of the points in my original post instead/alongside?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]