Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi everyone. Firstly thanks for the time everyone puts into this forum! I've used it previously to gather advice based on others' cases and successfully challenged an unfair PCN. This one I'm less sure about, but having read several similar but not identical 53J cases on here I'm interested in opinions about my case.

The council PCN states that on On 15/01/25 I drove down Telferscot Road SW12 0HW at 09:06, contravening a no entry restriction that's in place from 08:15-09:15 (I believe due to a school on the road). Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/oyLoSydoNqfYgRni6

The council sent a PCN notice dated 20/01/25:



The Council evidence is CCTV footage which shows my car entering the road and passing the signs.

I had a look at the online legal docs outlining the restriction and it all looks correct to my layman eye. The order is a written doc with a supporting map. There's an online portal to view traffic restrictions which is actually pretty good, kudos to the council: https://streets.appyway.com/lambeth

The reason I'm thinking about challenging the PCN is because of signage. When approaching the road, the signs showing the restriction are parallel to the road you travel on before turning into that road, making them harder to spot:



If you enter from the bottom of the road, off Emmanuel Road, they've helpfully put signs that are perpendicular to the direction of travel which are more visible:



They also have the same signs, perpendicular to the direction of travel, on nearby Scholars Road which has the same restrictions.

However where my car entered the top of the road, from Burnbury Road no equivalent sign is in place. This is where the sign would be, on the post with the CCTV camera on it:



I'd welcome thoughts on whether you think there's reasonable grounds to challenge here, or if it's unlikely to be successful. Thank you in advance!

Please screenshot the payment status page and report back as it will be wrong most probably.

The correct date is 3rd January.  I won a case on this recently.  Please do your own draft re the signage and I will provide a technical one later.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/motorbike-52m-pcn-lambeth/msg41795/#msg41795

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240362722
Appellant Ian Prideaux
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM KY15HXG
PCN Details
PCN LJ2877492A
Contravention date 15 Jun 2024
Contravention time 18:27:00
Contravention location Larkhall Rise
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
The Appellant appeared in person and was represented by Mr Morgan. Having heard the Appeal I reserved my decision to give further consideration to the rather detailed procedural and technical issues raised. I directed the Appellant to produce a chronological summary which has proved to be of assistance.

The Appellant has produced in evidence a copy of The Lambeth (Moving Traffic Restrictions) Order 2024 coming into force on the27th April 2024 which provides that “ all previous Orders are hereby revoked in their entirety.” This must include the 2023 Order relied on by the Council. However it seems to me highly probable that the 2024 Order would re-enact the restriction based on the “map-based schedule” and that if the Appellant is to challenge order relied on by the Council on this basis the onus is on him to produce a complete, not a partial, copy of it.

The main challenge lies on procedural grounds, In bare summary the Appellant submits that the Council’s website was giving incorrect and/or confusing information regarding payment dates, and that it was still showing a demand for payment after an appeal had been lodged. It seems to me that even if the Statutory notices are in themselves technically correct what is shown on the Council’s website should be in accordance with those notices; and that if it is not, it inevitably has the effect of undermining what is sted in the Notices. In the present case I see no reason to doubt the Appellant’s evidence, supported by screenshots, as to whet was shown on the website at various times These include a statement that “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Tue,16 Jul 2024. Please pay £65.00 now”. The correct date (the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the PCN) is in fact the 17th July. There is a subsequent statement that “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Mon,5 Aug 2024. Please pay £65.00 now. The Rejection Notice is dated the 16th July and states correctly that the Appellant has 28 days from that date before a Charge certificate may be issued. The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from a Council as to what is required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious enough for the Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge. In addition, I agree with the decision of my learned colleague Mr Greenslade in the case cited by the Appellant, 2240178326 Maurice Fisher v London Borough of Hackney, in which he sted that “it is not open to the Enforcement Authority to seek any sum beyond the prescribed amount or any amount at all whilst an appellant is appealing to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.”


The Appeal is therefore allowed.

That's fantastic, thank you Hippocrates! If you hadn't pointed it could I could well have read the website and thought I had until 16th Feb to pay £65 when by my reckoning the fee would actually have increased to £195 by that point.

If you have some wording to include that would be great.

How does this sound for challenge on signage?


I challenge the notice on the grounds of inadequate signage as to the restriction concerned.

There are two entrances to the restricted area on Telferscot Road, one from Emmanuel Road and one from Burnbury Road. Both involve turning off a main road onto Telferscot Road which is the minor road. If entering from Emmanuel Road there are two signs, back to back, placed perpendicular to both directions of travel on that main road which outline the restriction. This makes the restriction clear before turning onto the road.

Identical perpendicular signs are also in place for the same restriction on nearby Scholars Road.

However when entering from Burnbury Road, as my car did, no such sign exists. The only signs in place are parallel to the direction of travel, making them hard to see until you've already entered the restriction.

The placing of these signs perpendicular to the direction of travel at one end of the restriction shows that the Council believes they are required to secure "adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road" (The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders Regs 1996, Section 18, Para (1)(a)). Therefore by omitting such signage from the Burnbury Road entrance the Council has failed in this duty.

The Council should therefore dismiss the notice.

"Cancel", not "dismiss"

Shove it up them !

Thank you both! This is fantastic.

Ok to attach the photos of the signs or lack of too? I assume that's useful to support the argument.

Thanks Hippocrates, that makes sense.

Submitted! Will let you know how I get on.

Keep all receipts. Wait for the Order for Recovery and tick the appropriate box. Sign it in front of a solicitor or court officer.