Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

I received below PCN which alleges I was parked on a red route, however, there were no red lines visible where I was parked, neither is there anything to suggest I was parked on a red route from the images provided by TFL. Whilst there are red lines in front and behind where I was parked, there were none in the location where I was briefly parked. (The PCN correctly states that I drove off before the CEO was able to attach a PCN to my car)

Would this be valid grounds for representation that no contravention occured, and if so, how would I word it?

Any help is much appreciated.

GSV Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/4aLqGRm7uwr7vGSA8?g_st=ac

You were stopped adjacent to a red route parking bay on a red route so the contravention is there.

But check this:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/tfl-red-route-postal-pcns/

Does the parking bay not need any red lines? There were none. It seems from GSV they have faded away, so I presume they are meant to be there...

No, because the red lines apply to both carriageway and footway/verge just like yellow lines.

Correct, I wouldn't have parked there had there been a solid red line either on the road or in the parking bay, the same way I wouldn't if there was yellow lines present. My assumption was if there is no red line it shouldn't be enforceable. Also I believe the red route traffic sign was facing the wrong way.

My point is there is nothing in the images from TFL that proves I was parked in contravention. No red lines, no red route traffic signs visible.

Obviously I'm not disputing I was parked there, but I'm trying to find a technicality or procedural impropriety to get me out of this.

Is this really enforceable??

OP, I agree: where is the evidence of a contravention?

All the photos show is you stopped adjacent to dashed white lines - so what?

If the CEO wants to rely upon what I believe is TfL's position which is that you should have known that white markings on a length of road between RR restrictions indicate the full time presence of and conditional exemption from a red route restriction, as per the fore and aft DRL, then it's obvious why they didn't include the traffic sign because it's part-time!

IMO, the rules relating to red route markings are unclear.

However, I think you could put the following to TfL.

You parked adjacent to white road markings as shown in the photos. As these were not red, you interpreted their meaning as being lengths of road excluded from the red route 24/7 prohibition as indicated by the fore and aft double red lines and parked accordingly. After being served with the PCN you researched the matter and discovered in TfL's own publications that actually these markings indicate areas where parking or a similar activity is permitted for the whole of the time of the prevailing red route prohibition. However, in this case you have discovered that there's also a traffic sign which indicates a part-time exemption.

You submit that either TfL use white markings only for full time exemptions(from the prevailing prohibition) or they should abandon these and use red markings for all areas instead of, what is the case here, which is a part-time exemption to a full-time prohibition. The use of white markings for either full or part-time exemptions cannot be anything other than confusing.


IMO, the signage is improper.


OP, the permitted markings for a Red Route are:

SRL;
DRL;
Dashed red line, signifying a 'parking' bay which may be used only for part of the time that the RR is in force;
Dashed white line, signifying 'parking' bay in use for ALL the RR hours(although the convoluted wording of the Traffic Signs regs suggests otherwise).

These markings are white and the RR is 24/7 as indicated by the DRL, therefore IMO you may not have a part-time exemption, as here.

Please post up here the NoR.

I intend to appeal to London Tribunal with the following reasons:

A. The owed amount in the NoR; whether it is discounted or not, is confusing - similar to the succesfull appeals in cases 2220767288, 2230535074, and 2240018512.
Based on what I've read in case 2230535074 I am a bit onfused and unsure whether this argument is still relevant, and would really appreciate some guidance on this.

B. In their NoR TfL failed to consider my representations and only repeated their allegations against me.

C. TfL were in breach of section 76(3) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 - namely that the PCN was issued by a PCSO in Met Police uniform and not in TfL uniform as required.
My quetion is do I have to prove this with evidence (I have dashcam footage) and if so how do I include this in my appeal, being as I'm having to submit it by post?

I am relatively new to this and have never before submitted an appeal to London Tribunal, so would really appreciate any guidance/advice offered.

I've submitted formal reps to TfL....

..where are they?

S76(3). Who advised including this?

Anyway, you're home and dry.

Read the NOR. Don't read what you think it says, read what it actually says.

This was my reps

I challenge liability on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. I also do not accept that the CEO had started to prepare the PCN before the vehicle was driven away from the location where it was seen. Furthermore, the authority is in breach of section 76(3) of the Traffic Management Act 2004, that is a procedural impropriety which means the penalty charge must be cancelled in any event.

Yours faithfully,

S76(3) - advised via PM by a forum member.

By "home and dry" do you mean I'm on the right track? I'm sorry, I'm new to this, have done a lot of reading up, to try minimise the burden of the kind forum members on here.

Read the NOR.

I have read it and re-read it.

I don't mean to be ignorant but I'm still no more enlightened than before. My questions remain.