Free Traffic Legal Advice

not to mention putting on the hazard flashers as if it's going to absolve you from any restriction. it does in fact weaken your case.

Apologies for delayed reply, have been away with work.

OP, your PCN scan is low quality and I cannot see the times on the embedded photos. However, the Everfresh van is still behind you and by cross referencing this to the video shows that they must show 14.14 if not 14.13 and not 14.15, the time of the alleged contravention.

Pl confirm.

I can confirm that the images (link to higher quality HERE) on the PCN are from 10:14:01 and 10:14:04. The video does show 9 seconds of 10:15 right at the end. (10:15:00-09)

I suppose it is a gamble, but perhaps my best option is something as follows. Any alterations or amendments would be appreciated.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to represent against this PCN issued on Tooting High Street SW17.

I acknowledge that the images provided by TfL show my motorcycle stationary for a short period. However, I was not parked and my engine remained running.

At the time of the alleged contravention, I was travelling down Tooting High Street when I encountered significant traffic congestion due to roadworks and a large lorry stationary at the side of the road, blocking a significant amount of the nearside lane. This obstruction prevented me from moving forward. Due to the size and weight of my motorcycle, lane splitting was not a safe or feasible option in these congested conditions. I used this brief pause to move out of the way of any cyclists/couriers without causing any additional disruption, and to re-plan my GPS route due to the unexpected obstruction before resuming my journey.

I would also like to point out that time of the alleged contravention is listed on the PCN as 10:15. However the images provided by TfL are time-stamped at 10:14. I requested footage which arrived on DVD, which only contains 9 seconds of the minute of 10:15. It does not show when I moved off and continued along the road. This discrepancy suggests that the stop was very brief and that I resumed my journey shortly after.

I understand the importance of maintaining the free flow of traffic on red routes. However, I believe the circumstances in this instance warrant the cancellation of this PCN.

I request that TfL review this matter and consider canceling the PCN.

Best,

I realise it's a long shot - but unless anyone has any other thoughts, I'll submit the above later tonight...

Nothing ventured, nothing gained, so bang it in !

As the video (which is their primary evidence) shows, you were stationary on a red route at the time of the alleged contravention.

The burden falls to you to establish a legitimate reason. IMO, 'circumstances beyond your control..' is all that's available, but you weren't broken down etc, therefore you would need to show that you were unable to move forward. Clearly, if you were in a line of stationary vehicles in the traffic lane then this could be argued(it's what the exemption addresses).

But IMO you weren't because the traffic was moving past and beyond you.

As regards the contravention, I cannot see a probable defence.

As regards enforcement propriety, the NOR does not comply with the regulations in that:

The statutory period which must elapse before the authority may serve a charge certificate and which must be given in the NOR has been misstated;

Similarly, the statutory 28-day period during which you may make an appeal has been misstated,

In both cases it's 28 days beginning on the date of service;

Furthermore, the NOR omits reference to the adjudicator's power to register an appeal after the expiry of the 28-day period.

A procedural impropriety means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by[in this case]:


(a)

(b)

(c)these [the 2022 Appeals] Regulations.

'Procedural impropriety' is grounds for appeal.

Wait for others.

Pl post 'the enclosed form' referred to in the NOR. I doubt that this gives the correct info and in any event even if it did you would have 2 sets of contradictory instructions. I also doubt that the form would be included in the authority's evidence at a hearing and therefore the NOR would stand on its own.

Payment of a discounted sum is not a matter for the regulations, it's therefore not an issue here.

The enclosed form simply reinforces the errors in the NOR.

Also, IMO even if, and I think it's a big IF, the enclosed form was considered to be part of the NOR it does not include the mandated regulatory information.

A procedural impropriety is not some form of 2nd division grounds of appeal when compared with 'the contravention did not occur', it's on a par.

I would carry on, but it's your choice.

Hopefully others will comment.