Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: abipa on August 11, 2025, 11:49:11 pm

Quote from: Hippocrates on August 10, 2025, 10:13:52 am

Still thinking on it. Probably later this evening.

PCN wording. Bus Lane legend. Left hand sign. Circumstances making it impossible to reverse out.

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice, issued for an alleged moving traffic contravention at the Townley Road bus gate at 00:28 hours on [date].

I respectfully submit that the PCN should be cancelled on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, for the following reasons:

⸻

1. Inadequate and Poorly Maintained Road Markings (TSRGD Compliance)
 • The road legend “BUS LANE”/“BUS ONLY” at the location is extremely faded and barely visible, particularly in low-light conditions.  Which is it? If Bus Lane, say it is not in the regulations for it to be placed with a 953 sign.
 • Under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the council has a duty to ensure that traffic signs and road markings are maintained so that they are clearly visible at all times.
 • TSRGD 2016 and Department for Transport guidance require that road markings and signs be both lawful and sufficiently conspicuous to give road users adequate warning.
 • At 00:28 hours, visibility is naturally reduced; the poor state of the markings made it impossible to clearly recognise the restriction before committing to the turn.

⸻

2. Lack of Adequate Advance Warning Signs
 • There was no clear advance warning on my approach to indicate that the exit ahead was restricted to buses only.
 • TSRGD and DfT guidance recommend advance signage for bus gates so that drivers can take an alternative route without making unsafe manoeuvres at the point of entry.
 • The first visible sign to me was on the left-hand side after I had already begun turning, making avoidance impossible without hazard.

⸻

3. Immediate Attempt to Comply Once Restriction Noticed
 • Upon realising the lane gate was for buses only, I immediately attempted to reverse out to avoid entering the restricted section.
 • The council’s own video evidence shows my attempt to do so. Unfortunately, a bus entered the lane at that moment, preventing me from safely reversing without endangering myself or other road users.
 • This demonstrates my lack of intent to commit the contravention and my willingness to comply once the restriction became apparent.

⸻

4. Time, Circumstances, and Lack of Gain
 • This incident occurred at 00:28 hours, when bus traffic is minimal and there is no benefit or advantage to me in entering the bus gate.
 • My actions were not motivated by any attempt to bypass traffic or gain priority — I was simply unaware of the restriction due to the inadequate signage and faded markings.

⸻

5. Supporting Precedent and Public Interest
 • The London Tribunals have previously allowed appeals in cases where bus gate or bus lane signage/markings were not sufficiently visible or maintained, especially where drivers took immediate action to comply once aware.
 • Enforcement should be aimed at preventing deliberate misuse, not penalising drivers caught out by unclear or poorly maintained restrictions, particularly in low-light conditions.

⸻

Conclusion
Given the inadequate road markings, lack of advance warning, reduced visibility at night, and my immediate attempt to avoid the restriction upon realisation, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.

I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been withdrawn.


Is this okay?

I have amended accordingly.  Also, I would add this at the end:

I make this collateral challenge regarding the wording of the sentence immediately above the box re payment. Since the PCN omits mandatory information that the PCN must be paid by 28 days beginning with the date of the notice, the said statement therefore conflates the two distinct time periods and renders the PCN unclear and invalid.  In light of all the above, please cancel.

Thank you so much for your elaborate reply. I have a few questions, I would be very grateful for your response to them. I will post my questions in the next reply.

Quote from: Hippocrates on August 12, 2025, 09:07:01 am

Quote from: abipa on August 11, 2025, 11:49:11 pm

Quote from: Hippocrates on August 10, 2025, 10:13:52 am

Still thinking on it. Probably later this evening.

PCN wording. Bus Lane legend. Left hand sign. Circumstances making it impossible to reverse out.

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice, issued for an alleged moving traffic contravention at the Townley Road bus gate at 00:28 hours on [date].

I respectfully submit that the PCN should be cancelled on the grounds that the contravention did not occur, for the following reasons:

⸻

1. Inadequate and Poorly Maintained Road Markings (TSRGD Compliance)
 • The road legend “BUS LANE”/“BUS ONLY” at the location is extremely faded and barely visible, particularly in low-light conditions.  Which is it? If Bus Lane, say it is not in the regulations for it to be placed with a 953 sign.
 • Under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the council has a duty to ensure that traffic signs and road markings are maintained so that they are clearly visible at all times.
 • TSRGD 2016 and Department for Transport guidance require that road markings and signs be both lawful and sufficiently conspicuous to give road users adequate warning.
 • At 00:28 hours, visibility is naturally reduced; the poor state of the markings made it impossible to clearly recognise the restriction before committing to the turn.

⸻

2. Lack of Adequate Advance Warning Signs
 • There was no clear advance warning on my approach to indicate that the exit ahead was restricted to buses only.
 • TSRGD and DfT guidance recommend advance signage for bus gates so that drivers can take an alternative route without making unsafe manoeuvres at the point of entry.
 • The first visible sign to me was on the left-hand side after I had already begun turning, making avoidance impossible without hazard.

⸻

3. Immediate Attempt to Comply Once Restriction Noticed
 • Upon realising the lane gate was for buses only, I immediately attempted to reverse out to avoid entering the restricted section.
 • The council’s own video evidence shows my attempt to do so. Unfortunately, a bus entered the lane at that moment, preventing me from safely reversing without endangering myself or other road users.
 • This demonstrates my lack of intent to commit the contravention and my willingness to comply once the restriction became apparent.

⸻

4. Time, Circumstances, and Lack of Gain
 • This incident occurred at 00:28 hours, when bus traffic is minimal and there is no benefit or advantage to me in entering the bus gate.
 • My actions were not motivated by any attempt to bypass traffic or gain priority — I was simply unaware of the restriction due to the inadequate signage and faded markings.

⸻

5. Supporting Precedent and Public Interest
 • The London Tribunals have previously allowed appeals in cases where bus gate or bus lane signage/markings were not sufficiently visible or maintained, especially where drivers took immediate action to comply once aware.
 • Enforcement should be aimed at preventing deliberate misuse, not penalising drivers caught out by unclear or poorly maintained restrictions, particularly in low-light conditions.

⸻

Conclusion
Given the inadequate road markings, lack of advance warning, reduced visibility at night, and my immediate attempt to avoid the restriction upon realisation, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.

I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been withdrawn.


Is this okay?

I have amended accordingly.  Also, I would add this at the end:

I make this collateral challenge regarding the wording of the sentence immediately above the box re payment. Since the PCN omits mandatory information that the PCN must be paid by 28 days beginning with the date of the notice, the said statement therefore conflates the two distinct time periods and renders the PCN unclear and invalid.  In light of all the above, please cancel.

Thank you so much for your elaborate reply. I have a few questions, I would be very grateful for your response to them. I will post my questions in the next reply.

Could you please help me with the first point? I did not understand what to erite.

.

The PCN was issued to you because your vehicle was seen driving through a route that is restricted to certain vehicles.

Having reviewed the case, we have decided not to cancel the PCN. The reasons for our decision and options available to you at this stage are set out below.

Whilst we appreciate that driving in the dark can be difficult, there are two restriction signs at the location both of which are illuminated. There is no exception for using the restricted route and the motorist is responsible for checking the signs and ensuring that they adhere to the regulations.

We remain satisfied that the regulations were met and that recommendations contained in guidance are not actual legal requirements.

There is also no requirement for motorists to drive the whole length of the restricted route for a contravention to have occurred. Therefore, as the CCTV footage shows that your vehicle passed the restriction signage, a contravention occurred and the PCN was issued correctly.

We are satisfied that the wording on the PCN is compliant.




Do you recommend that I appeal online at www.londontribunals.gov.uk?

Do you you think I have a chance?

Quote from: Abdullah on September 16, 2025, 12:44:22 pm

Do you you think I have a chance?

If I PM you my details you can send a pdf to me. I need to see all of it plus all the documents.

I would be much obliged please.

Sent.

Thank you