Hi guys
I ended up deciding to fight it anyway and escalate it to tribunal, don't have anything to lose if i fight it anyway.
Here's my representation letter, im expecting them to reject it and me having to escalate it, so i'd appreciate some support in formulating a proper argument. Any advice will be much appreciated!
3 June 2026
Highways, Transportation and Parking Services
London Borough of Tower Hamlets
PO Box 14790
London
E14 2WA
FORMAL REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE
PCN Number: TT61001743 | Vehicle: VA17SJO | Date of Contravention: 07/02/2026
Dear Sir or Madam,
I write to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice, issued in respect of vehicle VA17SJO for the alleged contravention of ‘being in a bus lane’ on Cambridge Heath Road on 7 February 2026. I am the registered keeper and driver of the vehicle.
I submit these representations on two grounds, both of which I respectfully contend are sufficient, individually and cumulatively, to warrant cancellation of the PCN.
GROUND 1: INADEQUATE SIGNAGE — INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH CONTRAVENTION
The enforcement footage and still images submitted in support of this PCN do not clearly show a sign to diagram 959 (as required under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) in a manner sufficient to confirm that the bus lane restriction was properly authorised and signed at the point of alleged contravention.
In the enforcement footage, a blue sign is partially visible to the rear of the scene. However, it is substantially obscured by tree vegetation such that its content cannot be read or confirmed. It is therefore not possible to establish from the footage alone that:
1. the sign conforms to diagram 959 of the TSRGD 2016;
2. the sign was of the prescribed size, in good condition, and unobstructed at the time of the alleged contravention; or
3. the sign clearly indicated the operational hours and classes of vehicle to which the restriction applied.
The burden of proof in PCN proceedings rests with the issuing authority, not the motorist. Where the evidence submitted does not clearly establish that the restriction was properly signed in accordance with the relevant legislation, the Penalty Charge Notice cannot be sustained. I submit that this is precisely such a case.
I note that the council has not provided any supplementary evidence to address this deficiency — for example, a ground-level photograph of the sign taken at or near the date of the alleged contravention, a signing schedule, or a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order confirming authorised signage for this location. In the absence of such evidence, the footage alone is insufficient to discharge the council’s burden.
I formally request that the council provides the following documents in connection with these representations:
4. A copy of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in force for this bus lane on Cambridge Heath Road at the date of the alleged contravention;
5. A ground-level photograph of the diagram 959 sign at or near this location, taken at a date reasonably proximate to 7 February 2026; and
6. Confirmation that the sign was compliant with TSRGD 2016 requirements (size, placement, condition, and visibility) at the time of the alleged contravention.
GROUND 2: MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES — BRIEF, INADVERTENT, AND IMMEDIATELY CORRECTED INCURSION
Without prejudice to Ground 1, and in the event that the council considers the signage to be adequate, I respectfully draw attention to the following mitigating circumstances.
Having reviewed the enforcement footage, my vehicle was present within the bus lane for no more than approximately 7–10 metres, and was not at any point wholly within it. Upon becoming aware that I had inadvertently drifted into the bus lane, I took immediate steps to return to the traffic lane, having first checked for vehicles to my right as safety required. The incursion was momentary, minor, and self-corrected without delay.
I submit that the imposition of a full Penalty Charge Notice in these circumstances is disproportionate and that this case properly falls within the category of minor and inadvertent contraventions where the exercise of discretion in the motorist’s favour is warranted.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that this Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled in full. In particular:
7. The enforcement footage does not clearly show adequate signage compliant with TSRGD 2016, and the council has not supplemented this with any ground-level or TRO evidence. The burden of proof has not been met.
8. Even if the signage were considered adequate, the nature of the contravention — a brief, partial, and immediately corrected incursion — renders the full penalty disproportionate in the circumstances.
Should the council reject these representations, I wish to be notified accordingly so that I may exercise my right of appeal to the independent Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
Yours faithfully,
