Free Traffic Legal Advice

Greetings and thanks for running this forum!

I have been notified by the lease company of a PCN issued about entering the bus lane in Minster Street, date of Notice 08/12/2025. Lease company replied to Council with my details (which are correct).

I haven't received a "new" PCN in the post yet, but I have the details of the original one, which I checked on the council's website and it's still pending. Now the original "bribe" deadline for not challenging the PCN (only paying half of the Ł70 amount) has expired. But a Charge Certificate was not issued yet (or at least I haven't received yet) despite having been more than 28 days from the original letter (to the lease company).

Unsure of what to do. Chances are the new PCN got lost in the post; I don't think the council is going to cancel it.

- Should I contact the council and ask them to pay the reduced rate?
- What if I want to appeal the PCN?

PCN **as received by lease company**

https://imgpile.com/p/UH4GNku#fsETwFR
https://imgpile.com/p/UH4GNku#s1YtI0l

Thank you @Incandescent for the reply. So you're basically suggesting that:

- The lease company might have paid it already - pretty sure it didn't happen, because if I visit the payment link it still shows it pending.
- The council may not yet have cancelled the old PCN, and I should check with the lease company whether they've been advised or not from the council - I'll try to check with them.

In cases like this, if you know, does the old PCN get cancelled and a new one issued with a different number? The original one is definitely still pending. Perhaps it is a sign that the new one has not been issued yet? Although the lease company replied to the council on 12/12/2025 so it has been some time now.

PCN scans:

https://imgpile.com/p/UH4GNku#fsETwFR
https://imgpile.com/p/UH4GNku#s1YtI0l

As the car is leased, this is the PCN received by the lease company. The one I received is **identical** (including PCN) except for:
- Notice date: 21/01/2026
- My address instead of the lease company's (which I blanked out anyway)

Minster Street in Reading is a known spot where a lot of PCNs are issued. A bus-only road, it begins at the end of another road (King Street) where there is no option to turn anywhere else bar making a 3-point turn in a normally busy area. The only sign before the bus lane, signaling that restrictions are in place, is a 6-line descriptive sign just ahead of the "last good turn" and horizontal markings indicating "all traffic" to turn left (into Duke Street) and "bus gate ahead" entering the last stretch of King Street.

Location of the bus gate:



Here's a YouTube video, taken from a bus (not by me) showing the route - helps to understand if you haven't been there:



(the road where I was supposed to turn into to avoid the bus lane (Duke Street) wasn't closed at the time I went through the bus lane).

The "descriptive sign" is at 11:34. The driver here stops right ahead of the bus gate at 11:55 and enters it at 12:20. Cameras are visible at 12:25.

Some people call it a "trap" and effectively I felt trapped. I saw the sign with the 6 lines of text and thought "I need to be careful, there are traffic restrictions ahead" but I did not realize that I should have turned left there and then. I saw the road markings, but did not interpret them properly. Finally, I saw the signs before entering Minster Street, knew exactly that I should not enter it, yet I saw no other option (as I don't normally do 3-point turns in the middle of traffic) and thought that it was too late, so I entered the road and saw the cameras after.

I am inclined to challenge this. I know common points brought forward are:
- Unclear signage
- Road layout making it nearly impossible to avoid the bus gate once past the last intersection where it is possible to turn left
- A few issues with the wording of the PCN

I should also note that the infraction happened at 10:48, and the bus gate ends being active at 11:00 - not sure if this qualifies as "de minimis" violation.

I know the council will very likely reject the appeal. I know some people have had success with an adjudicator, but others have not, by browsing through pepipoo archives.

Is there an "update", or recent advice, on how to act when challenging PCNs at this specific location? And, thanks!

(Issue originally raised here: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/reading-minster-street-bus-lane-leased-car-pcn-not-received-yet/ reopening for clarity)

Gentle bump on this

I'm going to make representations using the points I mentioned earlier:
- Unclear signage
- Road layout making it nearly impossible to avoid the bus gate once past the last intersection where it is possible to turn left
- A few issues with the wording of the PCN

I will stress out how drivers who are not familiar with the area are more easily caught unaware.

I also plan to include a link to version of the youtube video I posted, with added my voiceover commenting the route, but using Vidcast, which will let me count the visits (as a last resort, considering that in the template rejection they say to have "fully considered" my arguments but I doubt they'll watch a video). This was suggested in a sticky post. Any other suggestions or alternative options for using a "verifiable" clickable link?

Something I don't know to choose is the "ground" on which I make representations. Should I use:
- The alleged contravention did not occur; or
- There has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority; or
- Other grounds

Any further advice / recommendations?

Best to proceed as you have outlined. Of course Reading will refuse these reps as they always do. Post up their response when you get it.

As expected, my representations were rejected.

I'm linking the representations themselves and the rejection. The rejection is fairly generic and does vaguely address the signage issues, maintaining that it's adequate, and it says that there were no procedural improprieties with the PCN (so 2 of my 3 points are summarily dismissed).

However, there is no mention at all of the "evidence video" I posted, and I can prove that it has not been visioned (view counter).

What is my best approach for appealing going forward? What arguments should I raise?
Also, will I need to appear at the tribunal?

Thank you for any help/support you can offer!

Representations: https://imgpile.com/p/cTi3yr2
Rejection: https://imgpile.com/p/oWBOhE4

Here's the summary of my appeal at the tribunal:

I appeal PCN RG84619650 for Minster Street (westbound) on the grounds that (1) the alleged contravention did not occur because the restriction is not adequately signed and operates as a trap, and (2) there have been procedural improprieties in the PCN wording and in the council’s consideration of my representations.

I approached Minster Street via King’s Road and King Street. The only advance sign on King’s Road before the King Street junction is a long narrative sign with several lines of text, positioned on a priority route with a pedestrian island at the junction. In real traffic conditions it is not safe or realistic to slow or stop to read multiple lines of text, so a driver only has a momentary glance. At that glance, the sign and carriageway markings give the impression that only buses etc. may proceed in a particular direction and that “all other traffic” should take a different route, but they do not clearly and accurately explain that entering King Street is always lawful and that the real restriction is at the far end when leaving via Minster Street.

Once in King Street, the road feels like an ordinary city‑centre street and leads naturally towards the western end. There is no clear warning that by continuing, an ordinary motorist may be left with no safe and realistic exit. At the western end, “No Entry” signs block both the Broad Street and Butter Market options; in live traffic there is no practical or safe way to turn around or reverse back up King Street without creating a hazard and contrary to basic Highway Code advice about reversing in busy roads. In practice, the only apparent way out is left into Minster Street, which is the camera‑enforced bus‑lane exit. I say this layout functions as a trap: I entered King Street lawfully and then found that the only realistic way to leave during the restricted hours was by using the bus lane.

These are the same fundamental concerns identified by an adjudicator in an earlier case about this location (Carnevale v Reading BC, RG00104‑1610, 7/12/2016), where the same advance sign was found to be misleading, too long to be assimilated, and inconsistent with the diagrammatic advance signing recommended in the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) Chapter 3. I rely on the reasoning already quoted in my representations and do not repeat those extracts here. I also provide a photo of the current narrative sign and copies of the relevant 2019 TSM Chapter 3 figures (9‑26 and 5‑4), which show the recommended diagrammatic style.

On the procedural side, the PCN states that if I do not pay or make representations “the Council WILL serve a Charge Certificate”, whereas under the current Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions regulations this is a discretionary step (“may”), not automatic. This misstates the legal position and fetters the council’s discretion. The PCN also fails clearly to state that still images of the alleged contravention will be provided free of charge on request, and appears to reserve control over viewing arrangements entirely to the council, so it does not fully and clearly convey my statutory entitlement to evidence.

Finally, with my representations to the council I supplied a narrated video of the approach from King’s Road into King Street and the constrained exit at Minster Street, and expressly asked that it be considered. In the Notice of Rejection the council states that the representations were decided “after full consideration of the representations”, yet the letter does not mention my video at all; it refers only to the council’s own CCTV and responds largely with generic assertions about signage. I also have evidence that the council did not in fact access my video link. Taken together, the absence of any reference to the video and the failure to engage with the substance of my signage/trap arguments show that the council did not genuinely give “full consideration” to my representations or supporting evidence as required by the 2022 Civil Enforcement regulations. I say this is a further procedural impropriety.

For clarity, my original representations to the council used the terminology of the earlier Bus Lane Contraventions regulations. I now understand that enforcement in Reading is governed by the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 and the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. My legal points are intended to be read as applying under the current 2022 regulations.

I attach my original written representations (including the Carnevale passages already cited, photographs of the signage and the 2019 TSM figures), the council’s Notice of Rejection, the narrated video link itself, and the other supporting evidence I have retained.

Unsure if I should add any more evidence other than the one I mentioned at the end of the summary.

@tincombe I'm sorry I could not fully understand your reply - due to my lack of knowledge / lingo

I was not the owner...

I was not the hirer of the vehicle...

Either or both are likely to be sound grounds at adjudication IMO.

I was the hirer of the vehicle. I did receive a Penalty Charge Notice in my name. How would that affect adjudication?

From whom i.e. to whom was the first PCN addressed?
Nature and term of your lease.

The contravention falls under the TMA and regs.

You are not the RK and IMO you may not be considered the 'owner which means no liability falls to you. (and because the council have accepted reps from the RK, none falls to them either)

This is purely procedural and IMO an adjudicator wouldn't get to your substantive points.

First PCN was addressed from Reading BC to the lease company (the RK), which then forwarded my details to Reading BC - they said I am the hirer. Reading BC then re-issued the PCN in my name.

This is what the leasing company wrote to Reading BC:

Please accept this letter as confirmation that <REDACTED> authorise you to communicate directly with the nominated person
detailed below in relation to the Penalty Charge Notice they have received:

<REDACTED PCN DETAILS>

The above vehicle is on long term lease with <REDACTED> and the nominated person above has full use of the vehicle.

What does it mean "The contravention falls under the TMA and regs. "?

Now it's possible that the lease company made reps under the correct grounds (which have nothing to do with being a hire company) and provided sufficient proof, but I very, very much doubt it.

Anyway, pl set out your lease details and have you actually registered your appeal?

Lease company simply "redirected" Reading BC to me. I'm not sure that counts as representations. After Reading BC sent a re-issued PCN to me directly, I made my own reps.

The appeal is registered already with the TPT.