Free Traffic Legal Advice

The normal convention (not law BTW), is that councils receiving reps within the discount period will re-offer it when rejecting representations.

Havering is the exception, but has made a rod for its own back, because by not re-offering it, it is then a total no-brainer to take them to the adjudicators at London Tribunals, because the penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs. But the authority must prepare a detailed evidence pack and pay the adjudication fee.

Even if reps are received outside the discount period, many councils re-offe the discount for the same reason, because most people then cough-up the discount. It's important to note that this is current practice and the PCN recipieint has no right to a discount after the discount period expires.

Hi

I appealed the above PCN on that the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention were unusual and the available evidence does not present the full context of events. It has been rejected. I made points about confusing signage due to blocked exits as well as requesting full video camera footage as it has been truncated before still images that are shown and I asked for full untruncated video footage.

The latter point about video footage has not been addressed. The rejection ignores the fact that the driver had to come out of the entry which has no immediately visible signage for no entry to the bus lane. It instead makes reference to the fact that there is signage on entering the road but the car park is immediately to left after entering so this signage cannot be seen when leaving car park.

Please can I post my appeal here together with the rejection and someone take a look? I am frustrated that this has been rejected as I sent still photos, screen grabs of the multiple signage etc.

Many thanks

This was my appeal (prob too long)

I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and wish to make formal representations regarding the alleged contravention (Code 51J – Failing to comply with a no entry restriction) said to have occurred on 23 April 2026 at Temple Mills Lane E20 / Celebration Avenue E20.

I, as the registered keeper, requests cancellation of this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the basis that the circumstances surrounding the alleged contravention were unusual and the available evidence does not present the full context of events.

On the date in question, the driver had intended to leave the area using the normal route from the adjacent car park. However, that exit was unexpectedly closed due to construction works within the car park. As a result, the driver had to perform a U-turn within the car park and exit via the entrance. The driver was unfamiliar with the altered layout and was therefore using the additional assistance from navigation guidance which was simultaneously recalculating following the diversion from the intended exit.

The layout encountered immediately upon exiting was confusing. There is no immediately visible “No Entry” signed to the left. Once turning left out of the entrance there are multiple “No Entry” signs in close proximity serving different purposes: those signs associated with the adjacent car park and those associated with the bus gate restriction. Two such (non-related) signs appear within only a few metres of each other. In addition, one of the roadside signs on the opposite side of the carriageway appears partially obscured by foliage, reducing visibility on approach. The positioning and concentration of signage, particularly when approaching from an unexpected direction due to closure of the intended exit, materially increased the likelihood of confusion. Evidence of the proximity of multiple restrictions and obscuration is attached (Appendix A).

Had the intended exit route been available, the driver departing normally through the actual exit would instead have encountered a materially clearer arrangement consisting of a single fully visible no-entry restriction applicable to buses and cycles together with another sign on the opposite side (that is partially obscured by foliage). By contrast, the altered exit route placed several restrictions close together in a way that did not clearly distinguish restrictions applying to the road from those associated with the adjacent car park. Evidence of the signage at the usual exit is attached (Appendix B)

Upon realising an error may have been made and that the route appeared inconsistent with the navigation guidance, the driver slowed substantially and began corrective action. The available footage appears to show the vehicle reducing speed to a near stop or complete halt. The driver’s intention was not to continue through a restricted route but to correct the mistake immediately.

The keeper also has concerns regarding the completeness of the CCTV evidence disclosed.

The downloadable CCTV clip supplied by the authority commences at approximately 15:18:36 BST (23424005) and ends at approximately 15:18:43 BST (23424220). The clip appears to show significant braking and reduction in speed before ending.

The keeper also notes that the downloadable online footage ends (as stated above) at approximately 15:18:43, whereas additional still images supplied by the authority are timestamped beyond that point (including imagery at approximately 15:18:51 - 23424453). This indicates that the authority possesses records of events occurring after the disclosed clip ends.

The footage available online therefore appears incomplete and may omit material showing the vehicle stopping and immediately correcting course. The keeper requests that the authority review and disclose the complete unedited recording before determining these representations.

The keeper is concerned that the online video available for review may not represent the full sequence of events. The still images provided as evidence appear to continue beyond the timestamps shown in the online clip. If the vehicle subsequently stopped and turned around immediately after the footage ceased, that context is directly relevant to assessing the circumstances and whether discretion ought to be exercised.

In light of the above, the keeper respectfully requests:

1. Disclosure and review of the complete unedited CCTV recording, including footage before, during and after the alleged contravention, before these representations are determined;
2. Confirmation whether the online clip made available to the keeper has been truncated or edited;
3. Disclosure of any additional footage, still images or records relied upon;
4. Confirmation that all footage showing the vehicle’s actions after 15:18:43 BST has been provided.
5. Consideration of the unusual circumstances, namely

•   unexpected closure of the intended exit route
•   the unusual routing circumstances
•   reliance on recalculating navigation following the unexpected diversion
•   the close proximity of multiple no-entry signs serving different restrictions
•   the partial obscuration of signage
•   the immediate slowing and corrective action once the driver recognised a possible mistake
•   concerns regarding incomplete disclosure of CCTV evidence,

The keeper submits that these circumstances materially contributed to confusion and that enforcement in this case would not reflect the purpose of the restriction, given the apparent immediate attempt to correct the situation.

The keeper respectfully requests that the authority exercise discretion and cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

The keeper further notes that the notice came to attention only after returning home following an extended absence, despite the driver remaining at the address and not opening correspondence addressed to the registered keeper. The representations have therefore been made promptly upon the keeper becoming aware of the PCN. If the authority is not minded to cancel the notice, the keeper respectfully requests that discretion be exercised to preserve the discounted payment amount.
Yours faithfully,

Joanne Bourne
Registered Keeper

Attachments:
Appendix A – Signage layout and proximity of restrictions (viewed from Temple Mills Ln)
Appendix B - Signage layout from within the car park (viewed from usual exit)
Appendix C – Additional still image held by authority (15:18:51 BST)

Here are the apendices to my initial appeal

Appendix A – Signage layout and proximity of restrictions (viewed from Temple Mills Ln)
Appendix B - Signage layout from within the car park (viewed from usual exit where you can clearly see no entry signs on LHS)
Appendix C – Additional still image held by authority (15:18:51 BST)


Appendix A : https://imgpile.com/p/c6Tm3D0#gKJzX1Z
Appendix B : https://imgpile.com/p/c6Tm3D0#iIPqWqu
Appendix C : https://imgpile.com/p/c6Tm3D0#0gNQSmA