Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello all,

I recently received a PCN dated 18/12/2024 for a contravention that allegedly occurred on 8/12/2024. I would appreciate any advice or guidance you can offer on whether there is a basis to challenge this PCN, based on the circumstances I outline below.

Summary:

On 8/12/2024, my vehicle was captured on CCTV temporarily stopped in a bay marked with white dotted lines. My vehicle was fully within the marked bay while stopped. Beyond the bay are double red lines. There is a 'Red Route' sign-post on the pavement next to the bay (facing oncoming traffic), indicating certain restrictions. A photo I took of the signage is below. Google maps link to the location of the bay: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4rvae6sCYw8szpZT7

The PCN posted to me includes two photos: one of my vehicle (silver Mazda - KL05 KWD) in the bay at time 10:36:37; another of a different vehicle (dark grey - not mine) at 10:35:53.

Although not appearing on the PCN posted to me, on the TfL website, there is a third photo showing: my vehicle (silver Mazda - KL05 KWD) in the bay at time 10:38:46.

Current status:

Since receiving the PCN the only action I have taken so far is: I called TfL by phone on 27/12/2024 to request the full evidence package. The PCN is shown on the TfL site as currently 'on hold: SUS20 - enquiry received'. I am still waiting to receive the evidence package.

My layman's remarks:

1. Has TfL alleged the correct offence? Offence 46 is described as 'stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway)'.  However, my vehicle is in a white-dashed marked bay that 'breaks up' the double red lines that lie beyond it, so it is not clear to me whether a white bay that sits 'in between' two parts of a red route can constitute the offence of being stopped 'on a red route'. If this is a valid challenge, is there any specific wording I should employ in making it?

2. I note some some similarity in my case to the previous case linked here:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-(46-red-route)-tfl-opp-cobalt-sq-south-lambeth-road-sw8/msg40652/#msg40652

In that case, member H C Andersen observed that the signage "comprises only two panels and the lower, second, panel does not accord with regulatory requirements." Indeed, I can see that the signage is non-compliant in several respects (not least the absence of the "clearway" graphic in the top panel and the absence of "No Stopping" wording in the second panel), when compared to the requirements in:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/6/made

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/18/made

H C Andersen also observed "And even if it [was compliant], what does set down or pick up mean in the context of private vehicles on a Red Route and regulatory wording?". Indeed, there is no provision in the legislation for these terms from what I can see.

And, again, more practically, the signage does not actually say or indicate "No Stopping" anywhere, and is situated alongside a bay that does not contain (double) red lines, so I unable to see how this signage can be construed as a 'stopping restriction' at all (irrespective of any conditions shown in the signage).

In the photo I took after the event (imgur below), the signage still contains these defects. I assume this remains a valid (and strong) challenge, is there any specific wording I should employ in making it, or is it enough just to state both (1) its non-compliance with the legislative requirements above and (2) lack of clarity in relation to "set down ... pick up" and (3) lack of any indication of any restriction against stopping in the bay?

3. I note the PCN posted to me does not appear to make out the offence, as there is only one photo in which my vehicle can be identified. Is this a basis of challenge, or (even if the signage could somehow be construed to by clear) is the alleged offence based on all the evidence held by TfL (i.e. the 'third photo' on the TfL website and the evidence package, once received).


Imgur images below:
- PCN (6 pages)
- street view location of sign-post/bay and approx location of my vehicle
- photo of sign-post (taken after event by me)

https://imgur.com/a/pcn-18-12-2024-xNMcp5b - all pages of PCN







Thank you all very much in advance!

@cp8759

IMO,

If the bay indicates an 'exception' then it is obliged to display a sign in conformity with the TSRGD or a Secretary of State's Authorisation if it's to meet the authority's LATOR burden.

As far as TSRGD is concerned, the sign is non-compliant.

It does not refer to 'Except' neither does it use terms which are prescribed or permitted expressions of Time, Distance or Parking Restrictions.

IMO, the starus of the bay is at best ambiguous.

Unless TfL have specified an extended deadline for reps then you must submit these no later than 16th Jan. As per the PCN, 'no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of[ deemed] service' which was 20th Dec.

I presume these can be made online - see the PCN for details.

Penalty exceeded .....circumstances of the case
As far as I can see, your reps are based on TfL not using a prescribed or authorised traffic sign to indicate the restriction which applied and for which they believe that a penalty is due, therefore rendering the demand unenforceable and in excess of that which these circumstances support.

Specifically:
I invite TfL to look at the traffic sign situated o/s SKVP Food which is immediately adjacent to the location of my alleged contravention. Quite properly this comprises 3 panels: Red Route; No Stopping at Any Time; Except Taxis. I then invite you to look at the traffic sign which purportedly regulates my location which comprises 2 panels: Red Route; 'P' 2 minutes, Pick up and set down only.

This sign does not specify the hours of operation of the Red Route neither does it use the prescribed term 'except' nor does it comprise 3 panels. The only area of conformity with regulations is 'Red Route'.

Unless the authority can produce an authorisation from the Secretary of State to use what is otherwise a manifestly non-compliant sign [as regards the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations] then the PCN must be cancelled.

Wait for other views.

Thanks again.

I have just submitted the challenge ("contravention did not occur" one-liner).

Screenshot:


I will revert when TFL respond.

@alphabetazebra well it seems the NoR is still flawed, I'll drop you a PM in case you'd like me to represent you.

The ill wind continues.