Free Traffic Legal Advice

They have not re-offered the discount so it is now a total no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals, as the penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs.

If you win you pay nothing, and if you lose you just pay what they want now, but this time they get much less money if they win because they have to pay the adjudication fee and also prepare an evidence pack which means staff costs.

Register an appeal at London Tribunals. YOu don't have to submit reps at that point, so you can just say 'details to follow'. Your reps need beefing up so they cite the succssful London Tribunals cases that precede yours, and probably quoting what previous adjudicators have said about this restriction.

You're very polite, which is fine.

But an appeal is a judicial proceeding and at this stage it's recommended that simple statements suffice..the charm can be held in reserve for the adjudicator!

Register your appeal.
Grounds:
I rely upon those set out in my representations but may add further representations upon receipt of the authority's evidence pack.
Personal hearing.


Once you've registered - which has two objectives namely to get your case into the appeals register and to stop the authority progressing their demand- come back. We can then help you refine your appeal.

Thank you, that's very helpful. I have now submitted my appeal.

Hi @John U.K. @H C Andersen @Incandescent

Hope you're all well.

My hearing is next Tuesday, and would be grateful for your help preparing for the case.

I tried searching on the London Tribunals using PCN Location Clements Road and found several cases, some of which were allowed and others rejected.

Your guidance would be most appreciated. Thank you.



Case reference   2240526386
Appellant   Marilyn Susan Stein
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   D20MSS
PCN Details
PCN   AF99146478
Contravention date   12 Sep 2024
Contravention time   08:04:00
Contravention location   Clements Road
Penalty amount   N/A
Contravention   Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date   -
Decision Date   16 Jan 2025
Adjudicator   Carl Teper
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
The Appellant has attended with her witness, Mrs L Stewart both by telephone.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses, cycles and taxis only) when in Clements Road on 12 September 2024 at 08:04.

The Appellant denies the contravention and states that they were directed to use this route by a Civil Enforcement Officer.

I have considered the evidence in this case and I find that this contravention is not proved for the following reasons:

First, I find the evidence of the Appellant and her witness to be credible and I find that they were directed to use this route by a CEO.

Second, I find the evidence in relation to the location produced by the Authority to have little evidential weight. There is produced one photograph, in the Additional evidence at 'J', which is undated and it is not possible to reconcile this image with the CCTV footage.

Third, there is no plan of the area showing the approach to this location.

Fourth, I find the Appellant's evidence to be stronger than that of the Authority's.

Finally, in light of the above I find that the Authority has not proved this contravention to the requisite standard.

The appeal is allowed.


Case reference   2240478986
Appellant   Santosh Kumari
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   SR53SLK
PCN Details
PCN   AF99204042
Contravention date   20 Sep 2024
Contravention time   18:31:00
Contravention location   Clements Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date   -
Decision Date   27 Nov 2024
Adjudicator   Andrew Harman
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
The appellant appeared before me today at Chancery Exchange.

The council did not attend the hearing it not being expected to do so.

The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles.

On the evidence before me the restriction was located after a bend in the road.

The appellant submitted that she was unable to avoid the restriction by bearing left as directed by advance warning signage because by doing so it appeared that she would have contravened it as indicated by the legend marked on the carriageway most of which was marked alongside the entrance to that turning. She argued that the restriction and the road layout was misleading.

Although this restriction applied at and from the point at which regulatory signage was posted the legend was marked well in advance of that signage and I agreed with what the appellant said.

The marking of the legend at the spot it was did I find suggest that the motorist would be entering the restricted area by bearing left and I found for that reason that there was an ambiguity as to the ambit of this restriction the contravention for that reason not therefore having been proved.
https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:70::INITIALISE::70:P70_CAS_REFNO,P70_PCN_REFNO,P70_RETURN_PAGE,P70_AST_CODE:1651092,3048575,60,APPEAL&cs=3aIJDrbqivrzMbj9SJZ76c20tggdV9o8EJPoBqISK_4P1OAZxr4dyaBI9En52Ne7W9CZ17fB1EEqjXhWW0fe2tA


Case reference   2230031831
Appellant   Victoria Tandu-Kienga
Decision Date   24 Feb 2023
Adjudicator   Anju Kaler
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   The footage shows the Appellant’s oncoming vehicle turn left from a side road into the main road. No signs ae visible in the footage. The additional evidence submitted by the Authority contains a black and white photograph of two upright signs that contain diagrams of a motorbike and a car in a roundel. That is a recognised sign for stating no access to motorbikes and cars.
There is nothing submitted from the Authority that tells me where the sign submitted appears and how it relates to the junction shown on the footage. The evidence does not show me what signs the vehicle went past. The Authority has not proved its case and I cannot be satisfied that the alleged contravention occurred.
https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:70::INITIALISE::70:P70_CAS_REFNO,P70_PCN_REFNO,P70_RETURN_PAGE,P70_AST_CODE:1554602,2925691,60,APPEAL&cs=3Au9H5u6lslMXJ086HL4_GZ9ryKFNuth7QVlk1e2XMjhBHrENkO7GDH-mhnUfmUz_hjnvgG9P9msE1-FpL9IVwg


Case reference   2230153985
Appellant   Lee White
Decision Date   05 Apr 2023
Adjudicator   Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   Mr White has attended the hearing today by telephone.
The CCTV footage shows Mr White's car passing the restricted route sign and stopping immediately after it. I accept Mr White's evidence that the car was immediately reversed. Mr White has explained that, by the time that he saw the signage, it was too late to stop quickly with the vehicle behind him.

The restricted route begins on the bend in the road. The footage shows that the glare of the light on the restricted route sign on the left hand side is such that it is unlikely to be clearly seen until the motorist is almost level with it. There also appears to be restricted visibility on the approach for the sign on the right hand side with overhanging tree branches. Although there is advance warning signage, it is not clear from the daytime images whether this would be clear for the motorist on the approach to the bend.

I am not satisfied that the signage was adequate to alert Mr White to the restricted route in time for him to safely take evasive action.

https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:70::INITIALISE::70:P70_CAS_REFNO,P70_PCN_REFNO,P70_RETURN_PAGE,P70_AST_CODE:1562146,2935519,60,APPEAL&cs=30pp3Q1cMBZ0zz21Pok0xRTLsl4T_EHTmu6kF64GlXLCQsJPC-FTstmqO1FwpQJRnwTYvEEQ0UfhyVec_1VKXtQ




Examples of rejection:


Case reference   2240541641
Appellant   Mariam Temory
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   GL08HZS
PCN Details
PCN   AF99259984
Contravention date   28 Sep 2024
Contravention time   14:54:00
Contravention location   Clements Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date   -
Decision Date   24 Feb 2025
Adjudicator   Michael Burke
Appeal decision   Appeal refused
Direction   Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons   
The allegation in this case is using a route restricted to certain vehicles in Clements Rd. at 2.54pm on 28.09.24. The Appellant does not dispute this but says that she was unfamiliar with the location and relying on satnav guidance. She says that she received 2 PCNs alleging contraventions 18 minutes apart at the same location. She has paid the other PCN and believes she should not have to pay a second penalty in these circumstances.

The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs of the signage relied upon, which can also be seen in the enforcement camera evidence and which I am satisfied was substantially compliant, clear and adequate.

The enforcement camera evidence shows the vehicle committing the contravention.

The motorist who commits 2 contraventions is liable for 2 penalty charges, regardless of the proximity in time. The Appellant has not established anything which goes beyond mitigation. The Enforcement Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion. An Adjudicator has no power to direct cancellation on the basis of mitigating circumstances.

Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.



Case reference   224053220A
Appellant   Naila Haitham
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   SN52WKV
PCN Details
PCN   AF9915165A
Contravention date   12 Sep 2024
Contravention time   16:50:00
Contravention location   Clements Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date   -
Decision Date   20 Feb 2025
Adjudicator   Gerald Styles
Appeal decision   Appeal refused
Direction   Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons   

The cctv footage I have viewed shows where the appellant car passed through upright traffic signs that in effect prohibited private motor cars. It was daylight with no exceptional traffic or weather conditions showing.

The footage shows the fork where cars were required to fork left not proceed right as the driver in this case did.

The lawful route was emphasised by clear surface markings.

The signage was not unclear or ambiguous in my judgment and I have rejected argument based on lack of more warning to make the required direction clearer.

I have accordingly upheld the penalty charge claimed by the Council.

I find the alleged contravention occurred and I have recorded this appeal as refused.



Case reference   2230519544
Appellant   Samiuddin Ghouse Mohammed
Decision Date   07 Feb 2024
Adjudicator   John Lane
Appeal decision   Appeal refused
Direction   Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons   
The issue of this appeal is whether the said vehicle used a route restricted to certain other vehicles.

I have considered both parties’ representations and studied the video and photographic evidence.

I am satisfied that the appellant’s vehicle passed signs that state only buses, cycles and taxis may pass through.

The appellant has stated owing to heavy traffic the appellant could not focus on the sign. No obstruction was caused.

Crucially, motorists must be prepared for signage and take it as they find it.

On the specific evidence available to me I am satisfied that the local authority has met the grounds of adequacy of signage and has adduced evidence to meet and challenge the points raised by the appellant.

The evidence leads me to conclude that a contravention occurred.

The circumstances described by the appellant are mitigating circumstances or extenuating factors. They do not amount to a ground of appeal. Mitigation moderates the seriousness of something but does not amount to a full ground of appeal.

The local authority has clearly considered the relevant circumstances but has chosen not to exercise their discretion in the appellant’s favour. Mitigation is the province of the local authority. An Adjudicator may only cancel a penalty charge notice if a ground of appeal has been established. An Adjudicator may not exercise their discretion and cancel or reduce a fixed penalty when mitigating circumstances and not a ground of appeal has been established. Mitigation is for the local authority. An Adjudicator is not permitted to mitigate a fixed penalty, a penalty fixed by law.

I have to find that the local authority was entitled to issue the penalty notice. I am satisfied that the penalty notice expressed the correct penalty amount, fixed by law. It did not therefore exceed the relevant amount in all the circumstances.

In those circumstances, as I find that no ground of appeal has been established, I have to refuse the appeal.

Where's their evidence pl, especially the traffic management order and case summary?

Surely the issue here is why the council, who acknowledge that a sign has been placed in advance of the restriction, and therefore implicitly the need for such a sign this distance from its commencement, then do not place an equivalent sign in Kenneth More Road for traffic about to enter Clements and that this failure amounts to a breach of their duty to place '..on or near the road .. such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;'

Having said this..

You were on notice after your passed first time, and
You had to have passed the advance sign in order to access Kenneth More Rd. in the first place.

The outcomes of arguments based in the signs are mixed as your research has shown.

Apologies, didn't realise I hadn't attached the Notice of Rejection. Just found it - was torn up but managed to piece it together! I've copied the main parts of their response below. Below this, I have also copied my representation.

Notice of Rejection

"Thank you for your formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). After careful consideration of the details provided, we do not feel that there is sufficient grounds to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. This letter issues is a formal Notice of Rejection of your representation.

We have rejected your representations because your notice indicates your vehicle was seen using a route restricted to certain vehicles.

There are signs and road markings on Clements Road advising the route is only for use by buses, pedal cycles and licensed Hackney Carriages only. Any other vehicle seen driving through this area will be liable for a Penalty Charge Notice.

In addition to the signs present on Clements Road, at the beginning of the restriction, there is also an advisory sign on Clements Road. Therefore, I cannot accept that there was insufficient signage to alert you to the restricted route.

Your comments are noted however being unfamiliar with the area has no bearing on this contravention as signs are clearly displayed, there signs are recognised nationally and are not specific to the area. Therefore, I am confident the notice was issued correctly.

Please be aware that regardless how many times the contravention may have been committed on the same day, if the Penalty Charge Notices were not issued at the same time then they must remain valid. Furthermore, the images taken at the time of the contravention indicate that they were at the location but at different times, which stipulates that the vehicle had moved.

As a driver you must ensure that you adhere to all the traffic restrictions in place and to be conscious of the signs showing the restrictions."

 

Representation
Dear Redbridge Council, I am writing to formally challenge PCN Nos. AF30090252 and AF30103944 issued on 17th November for the alleged contravention (33j) of using a route restricted to certain vehicles on Clements Road.

My challenge is based on the inadequate visibility of advance signage when approaching from Kenneth Road and the procedural unfairness of receiving two PCNs for the same restriction on the same day.

(1) No Advance Signage from Kenneth Road: I approached Clements Road from Kenneth Road, where there is no advance warning of the restriction. The signage only becomes visible once the motorist is already on Clements Road, at which point it is too late to safely avoid entering the restricted section. This lack of visible advance signage makes it impossible for drivers unfamiliar with the area to take an alternative route in compliance with the restriction.

(2) Issuance of Two PCNs Highlights Inadequate Signage: I was issued two PCNs for the same restriction on the same day, a few hours apart. This demonstrates that I was unaware of the restriction at the time of the first contravention and had no opportunity to rectify my actions before the second. Had the signage been adequate and visible from Kenneth Road, I would have been able to avoid the restricted route entirely.

(3) Location’s History of Signage Issues: This location has been found to have a history of inadequate and unclear signage. In Case Reference 2240478986, the Traffic Adjudicator ruled that the restriction and road layout at Clements Road were misleading, resulting in ambiguity for approaching drivers. The adjudicator concluded that the signage did not adequately inform motorists of the restriction, making compliance unreasonably difficult. The same issues described in that case apply here. The lack of advance warning from Kenneth Road and the sudden transition into the restricted section leave motorists, especially those unfamiliar with the area, with no practical way to comply.

(4) Fettering of Discretion in the Appeals Process and Resulting Confusion: The appeals webpage limits appellants to selecting only one ground of appeal (see attached image). This fettering of discretion contravenes the principle that decision-makers must consider all relevant circumstances when assessing representations. The limitation forces appellants to select a single reason for their appeal, even in cases where multiple, interconnected grounds exist. This creates unnecessary confusion for appellants and the risk of omitting critical arguments or presenting an incomplete appeal. Such restrictions undermine the principles of fairness and open representation as required by law, which mandates a fair and transparent process.

Given these points, I respectfully request the cancellation of both PCNs on the grounds of:
- Inadequate advance signage;
- Procedural unfairness of issuing two PCNs under these circumstances;
- The documented history of unclear signage at this location;
- Legal deficiencies in the appeals process itself, including the fettering of discretion and resulting confusion.

Thank you for considering my representation. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

My hearing is next Tuesday,

Which means you must have received the council's evidence pack which they've submitted to the tribunal or have access to it online.

Thanks for this - I have absolutely no knowledge of this. I have not received anything in the post, nor by email. Who do I contact to request online access?

Thanks again.