Free Traffic Legal Advice

Apologies for the inconvenience of jumping onto this thread - but my issue is quite similar - happy to make a new post if that's better.

Topic split by moderator (Forum rule - one thread per case)from
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/hackney-52m-failing-to-comply-with-prohibition-stoke-newington-high-street-junct/

I'd be grateful for any advice on a Hackney 52M moving traffic PCN ahead of taking the matter to London Tribunals. This was essentially a mistake by my mother who wasn't feeling well and got lost on this particular day - for 20 years from the 90s-10s she lived in Hackney and took a route she was familiar with not knowing that it was now a LTN/restricted area.

I wasn't convinced that I had a strong case and considered paying the £80 at the original discount rate/timeframe but then a complication is that my mother suffered a stroke on 13 May 2026, after the contravention but before the matter was concluded. She now has speech and cognitive difficulties and I have been helping care for her. I appreciate that this is unlikely to be a winning tribunal argument in itself, but I mention it for completeness.

Now the fee is £160, potentially up to £240 and right to tribunal expires tomorrow. I have recently written to Hackney separately with medical evidence requesting that they exercise discretion and either cancel the PCN or reinstate the discounted amount but no proper response or luck thus far as it's outside the statutory process.

PCN Details

* Authority: London Borough of Hackney
* PCN: QZ23216440
* Vehicle Reg: WA17 ZJX
* Contravention: 52M – Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)
* Location: Stoke Newington Church Street junction of Lordship Road (Eastbound)
* Date/time: 21 April 2026 at 17:10

All relevant case details in this folder -

I submitted formal representations on May 6th 2026 which were rejected by Hackney in a Notice of Rejection dated 22 May 2026.

My original representations was broadly focused on:

* Inadequate advance warning/signage;
* The area has changed significantly since the driver previously lived and worked in Hackney;
* The LTN layout is not particularly intuitive for someone returning to the area after many years;
* The driver was feeling unwell and inadvertently entered the restriction.

Hackney's rejection is fairly comprehensive and appears largely template-based. They state that:

* The signage is compliant and adequate;
* There were advance warning signs before the restriction;
* Drivers had the opportunity to avoid the restriction;
* Mitigation is not sufficient to justify cancellation.

I appreciate that, on the face of it, I may not have a particularly strong appeal on the substantive contravention itself. I am not convinced that arguments such as "I didn't see the signs", "I used to live there", or "it was a genuine mistake" are likely to succeed before an adjudicator.

What I am trying to assess is whether there may be any technical, evidential or procedural weaknesses in Hackney's case.

My current thinking is that if I appeal, the strongest ground is likely to be:
**"The contravention did not occur"**
and then require Hackney to prove:

* The precise location;
* The applicable Traffic Management Order;
* The CCTV evidence;
* The signage relied upon;
* The positioning and visibility of all signs;
* The advance warning signs referred to in the Notice of Rejection.

I am particularly interested in whether anyone has:

1. Appealed this exact Stoke Newington Church Street/Lordship Road restriction;
2. Seen defects in Hackney's evidence packs for these LTNs;
3. Encountered issues with signage, TROs, CCTV evidence or location descriptions at this site;
4. Successfully challenged Hackney on inconsistencies between their standard Notice of Rejection wording and the evidence ultimately produced.

At this stage I am looking for an honest assessment of whether there are any potentially viable tribunal arguments or whether the realistic approach is to scrutinise Hackney's evidence pack for errors, inconsistencies, omissions or unsupported assertions.

Many thanks in advance.

Yeah I am the registered Keeper!
Will submit the appeal asap but was wondering if there was anything I should add to it.

this was my write-up below:


Ground of Appeal Selected:

☑ The contravention alleged by the authority did not occur

Details of Appeal:

The Appellant appeals on the ground that the contravention did not occur.

The Appellant does not accept that the Enforcement Authority has discharged the burden of proving the alleged contravention and requires strict proof of all elements relied upon by the Authority.

Whilst the Notice of Rejection makes a number of assertions regarding the restriction, signage and advance warning signs, the Appellant has not been provided with sufficient evidence to verify those assertions.

In particular, the Appellant requires the Authority to provide:

• The complete CCTV evidence relied upon;
• Evidence identifying the precise location of the alleged contravention;
• Evidence of the restriction in force at the material time;
• Evidence of all regulatory signs relied upon by the Authority;
• Evidence of the positioning, visibility and adequacy of those signs from the driver's perspective;
• Evidence of any advance warning signs referred to in the Notice of Rejection;
• The relevant Traffic Management Order and any amendments applicable to the location.

The Notice of Rejection states that the location was checked and that the signage is compliant, visible and adequate. It further states that advance warning signs were present prior to the restriction. The Appellant requires the Authority to substantiate those assertions with contemporaneous evidence.

The Appellant respectfully submits that the burden rests with the Authority to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the restriction was correctly signed and that the alleged contravention occurred as stated.

The Appellant reserves the right to provide further submissions upon receipt and review of the Authority's evidence pack.

For completeness, the Appellant has also requested that the Authority exercise discretion in light of exceptional personal circumstances supported by medical evidence that was not available when the original representations were made. Whilst the Appellant understands that mitigation alone is not ordinarily a basis upon which an appeal can be allowed, the Appellant respectfully requests that the Adjudicator take note of these circumstances and, if appropriate, consider whether the matter should be referred back to the Authority for further consideration of discretion.

The Appellant therefore requests that the appeal be allowed and the PCN cancelled.