Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: Incandescent on October 17, 2025, 11:45:22 am

Quote from: almep13 on October 17, 2025, 10:36:14 am

Quote from: Incandescent on October 17, 2025, 10:11:38 am

Quote

My three points below would be the main arguments to present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?

Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of alleged contravention.

Good morning Incandescent,

the time limit I was referring to was the time it took LBHF to respond to my appeal i.e. I submitted my appeal on the evening of 08 July and LBHF rejected it on 08 Oct serving it to me initially via email and then through a postal letter so that they could include the appeal form to London Tribunals.

Is there such a 3 months time limit for councils to respond to motorists' appeals for moving traffic PCNs or am I misunderstanding and misinterpreting?

Thank you and kind regards,

Almep13

Your PCN was issued under the LLA and TfL Act 2003. There is no time limit in this Act for responding to representations against a PCN. However, 3 months is getting into unfairness territory. Adjudicators in London Tribunals usually consider a response beyond 3 months as unfair as it prejuices the appellant who may have problems remembering tehe circumstances and also evidence becomes more difficult to obtain.

Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, there is a limit of 56 days to respond to formal representations.

With 3 months just barely passing on the date of response by LBHF, it's hard to judge how the Adjudicator is going to lean on such point. What's your view, does it have any small chance of success? Obviously, this is a call for me to make and risk to take of paying double the price, but I would appreciate your frank view on this.

The other point to raise is that such "unfairness" is not listed under the grounds of appeal and I wonder if it needs to be aligned to "contravention did not occur".

Thank you and kind regards,

Almep13

To win on the delay in their response of nearly 3 months, you would need to show some prejudice was caused to your ability to assess whether to take the matter to adjudication; can you do this ? This would be what is called a "collateral" appeal, and would come under the statutory grounds of "the penalty exceeded......in the circmstances of the case".

This is what an 'end of zone' sign looks like. It is not the blank backside of a gateway 'in' sign.

Items 3 and 4 in the Part 2 table: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8

If neither of these is present then the zone has been improperly signed - again- because the entry signs convey a prohibition which must be correctly terminated.

Good morning H C Andersen,

I hope you had a nice week-end.

It seems clear that LBHF hasn't complied with end zone signs. However, an old manual from 2008, Traffic Signs Manual, seems to suggest that it's "not a requirement to have the end zone" (p.94, point 11.13 as per link below). I wonder if the Adjudicator may sympathise with the fact that LBHF hasn't complied with the Schedule 8, Part 2 regarding the end zone, but still uphold the alleged contravention of entering the pedestrian and cycle zone during the restricted time period indicated in the signs.

http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/files/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03-2.pdf - pls see p.94, point 11.13

Nearby, two side roads along South Parade in Turnham Green, W4, part of Ealing Borough, were literally covered with black plastic bin bags a week ago and I presume either for amending the time restrictions and/or adding the end zones. Two neighboroughing boroughs having two different approaches to end zone signs for similar pedestrian and cycle zones. I attach some pictures for comparison. However, I wonder if showing these signs will sway the Adjudicator to consider the signs used by LBHF invalid or insufficient to prevent the contraventions from taking place.

https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/acoPTy5_xl.jpg - The Orchard W4 - Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/yiosBJ0_xl.jpg - The Orchard W4 - Zone Ends
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/rjoagOI_xl.jpg - Newton Grove W4 - Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/F0SDBv7_xl.jpg - Newton Grove W4 - Zone Ends
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/o8FsFCR_xl.jpg - Bedford Rd W4 - Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ayxUnCk_xl.jpg - Bedford Rd W4 - Zone Ends

I attach below copies of the TMO that LBHF provided me.

https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/lZtcMc1_xl.jpg - TMO Cobbold Rd - p.1
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/bwnXlWt_xl.jpg - TMO Cobbold Rd - p.2

What's your view on potential position that the Adjudicator may take that despite LBHF having failed to provide signs relating to end zones, the contravention did occur regardless and as such rejects the appeal?

Thank you and regards,

Almep13

Hi H C Andersen,

Thank you for your comments, I appreciate your efforts. I'll draft my response and place it here for comments before I submit it to London Tribunals.

Have a nice evening,

Almpe13

Hi Incandescent,

Thank you for your comments. I am well aware of the subjective matter of which the Adjudicator may sway either way. Unfortunately, there's no other way to find out other than go all the way to London Tribunal. A risky move as I may end up paying double the price and that's why such laws and regulations are stacked up against the common person.

I am incensed of how councils like LBHF introduce such schemes mainly to raise revenue rather than having the well being of its residents as their primary objective. This is the same council who for years wouldn't even allow installation of zebra crossing 100m away from the pedestrian and cycle zone to allow the school children to pass the road safely to go to school.

Thank you for your views, I appreciate them.

Have a nice evening.

Kind regards,
Almep13