Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Movieman9000 on June 24, 2026, 04:56:41 pm
-
Update
I paid today as the balance showed £80 outstanding and i thought it was the easier option (maybe i got lucky as i thought it was going to be £160)
the reason i paid is my case relied on the below and the case reference appeared very similar to mine, i share my research below
Code 33 is defined in the statutory guidance as "Using a route restricted to certain vehicles."
Contrast that with other codes on the same table: Code 31 is "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited" and Code 51 is "Failing to comply with a no entry restriction." Parliament used the word "entering" where it meant entering. For Code 33 it chose "using." That distinction is deliberate and can argue it directly.
Statutory language — Code 33 says "using," not "entering." You didn't use the route.
Purpose of the restriction — Bus gates exist to prevent through traffic. You did not travel through.
Incomplete evidence — Their own footage ends before showing how you exited. They cannot prove a completed contravention.
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2250210174
Appellant Salim Chowdhury
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM GP19OZC
PCN Details
PCN CU70172658
Contravention date 04 Mar 2025
Contravention time 08:55:00
Contravention location TOTTENHAM COURT ROAD By Junction With Howland Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles 33H
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Jul 2025
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
The appellant attended the hearing of this appeal today on the Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform.
The council did not attend the hearing, it not being expected to do so.
The contravention alleged in this case was that this vehicle used a route restricted to certain vehicles.
The appellant said that upon seeing the sign he reversed, he not continuing to drive down the road.
I viewed the council's cctv footage of the incident at the hearing, my sharing it with the appellant. I was satisfied on that footage that the appellant's vehicle stopped on passing signage. I did not doubt that the appellant had then reversed, but this contravention occurs at the point at which a vehicle passes signage, whatever remedial action the driver then takes. I found this contravention proved.
The appellant's case amounted to mitigation only which I have no power to take into account.
The appeal was refused.
-
We are not the arbiters in this matter. You must put your arguments to the adjudicator.
Reduced payment offer ends on 11 Aug, the 28-day period on 25th.
You are placing great weight on something which you recollect but have not seen. They've offered to provide the full video and yet you've not triggered this. You have plenty of time because an appeal would not be heard for many weeks/months. At this stage, all you need to do is register your appeal, collecting additional evidence can be done in parallel and referenced in your submission.
-
Whether you used 100 ft or 500ft, you used the route. You do not have to traverse the whole route.
IMO, their interpretation is correct and your argument goes to mitigation only which the adjudicator may not consider.
Well, you may be right, but for me, "use" means for a purpose, so by going along a road, you are using it to get somewhere, but in this case, the route was not "used" because the motorist turned round and went another way. No doubt the adjudicators agree with you, but I think they are wrong. Of course if it was an offence just to pass the sign, like a No Entry sign, it's another matter.
Look at the different contraventions.
For example:
Code 31
Entering and stopping in a box junction.
Code 53
Entering a pedestrian zone.
Code 32
Failing to proceed in the direction shown.
Code 33
Using a route restricted to certain vehicles.
it's quite clear if they wish to penalise entering and using
in this case surely even if we go by the spirit of the law , the aim of the 33H is to not use the road as a through route
-
Whether you used 100 ft or 500ft, you used the route. You do not have to traverse the whole route.
IMO, their interpretation is correct and your argument goes to mitigation only which the adjudicator may not consider.
Well, you may be right, but for me, "use" means for a purpose, so by going along a road, you are using it to get somewhere, but in this case, the route was not "used" because the motorist turned round and went another way. No doubt the adjudicators agree with you, but I think they are wrong. Of course if it was an offence just to pass the sign, like a No Entry sign, it's another matter.
Look at the different contraventions.
For example:
Code 31
Entering and stopping in a box junction.
Code 53
Entering a pedestrian zone.
Code 32
Failing to proceed in the direction shown.
Code 33
Using a route restricted to certain vehicles.
it's quite clear if they wish to penalise entering and using
-
Whether you used 100 ft or 500ft, you used the route. You do not have to traverse the whole route.
IMO, their interpretation is correct and your argument goes to mitigation only which the adjudicator may not consider.
Well, you may be right, but for me, "use" means for a purpose, so by going along a road, you are using it to get somewhere, but in this case, the route was not "used" because the motorist turned round and went another way. No doubt the adjudicators agree with you, but I think they are wrong. Of course if it was an offence just to pass the sign, like a No Entry sign, it's another matter.
-
Whether you used 100 ft or 500ft, you used the route. You do not have to traverse the whole route.
IMO, their interpretation is correct and your argument goes to mitigation only which the adjudicator may not consider.
-
What they've conceded and what they've claimed
They've conceded it was a genuine error. More importantly, they've made a specific factual claim I can dispute: "the footage clearly shows the vehicle entering and continuing travelling within the restricted area until the video footage stops."
Surely "until the video footage stops" is significant. They're not saying the footage shows me completing the restriction or exiting at the far end. They're saying the footage ends while i'm still inside. That is not the same as a completed contravention.
Surely the evidence is incomplete, it shows me entering and then?
Code 33 - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles - there was no use of the route and i gained no advantage by entering.
Their legal argument
They're arguing the contravention is complete at the point of entry — that any vehicle crossing the restriction line has committed the offence, and what happens afterwards is irrelevant.
-
Date of NOR?
NOR Date 27 July 2026
Hang on a minute. When and how did you receive it?
-
Date of NOR?
NOR Date 27 July 2026, recevied via email
-
Date of NOR?
-
Please show the NOR (Notice Of Rejection).
(https://i.ibb.co/fTpFzRV/NOR-Page-1.png) (https://i.ibb.co/8Q5sL3n/NOR-Page-1.png) (https://i.ibb.co/pvmRP57R/NOR-page-2.png) (https://i.ibb.co/8DhdBtCd/NOR-page-2.png) (https://i.ibb.co/3yrDjGWF/NOR-page-3.png) (https://i.ibb.co/pv0tMGZK/NOR-page-3.png)
-
Please show the NOR.
-
Thanks a lot and thanks Rob for the updated picture.
What the photo shows is the absolutely absurd height of the sign on the left. If this was the only sign there when the OP drove past it, then that height should be a major point in the evidence because it is totally out of the sightline of the driver who should not have to be looking at sign positioned in the sky. The new sign on the right is correctly positioned.
Hi, both signs are there and yes the left side sign is quite high
Had a job in Leyton this morning so popped to the site and took a pic;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bs2sVO7vNjC3yxwe4cLOr7s4CYQfnSgh/view?usp=drive_link
it is on the "unicycle" post, minus the unicycle.
Pic taken from the route the OP took i presume, as the vid doesn't show turning.
High sign on left sits in the sight line of the chimney. Time 21.18 so dusk so sign not visible and unlit. No RH sign in vid.
There is a RH sign I believe the video isn't wide enough to catch it, When i entered the bus lane i was entering straight on (no turning from either side road)
As far as I understand it:
There is nothing to corroborate the OP's claim regarding stopping and exiting:'I realised by the time i reached the zebra crossing (short way in) stopped and reversed back out. This part has been removed from the clip.';
They have made formal reps to which they have not yet had a response.
OP, is this correct?
I definately stopped, paused to check rear view and reversed back out (no U turn) I requested the full video they said If I want the full video I need to submit a freedom of information request
Update
Council have rejected my appeal today (as expected) I would like to go to the tribunal but i'm not sure what i need to do next, I believe its a gamble as If i lose I pay £160 but i do feel this charge is unfair so willing to risk it
they didn't respond to my complaint I didn't use the route, they said entering it triggers the PCN (Code 33 - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles)
Gov.uk (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/bus-lane-and-moving-traffic-enforcement-outside-london/annex-b-contravention-codes-for-civil-bus-lane-and-moving-traffic-enforcement-england-wide)
Next steps
This letter is a formal Notice of Rejection therefore, before the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date of service of this Notice of Rejection ("the 28-day period") you must
either:
- pay the Penalty Charge; or
- appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators ("ETA").
-
What the photo shows is the absolutely absurd height of the sign on the left. If this was the only sign there when the OP drove past it, then that height should be a major point in the evidence because it is totally out of the sightline of the driver who should not have to be looking at sign positioned in the sky. The new sign on the right is correctly positioned.
-
Had a job in Leyton this morning so popped to the site and took a pic;
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Bs2sVO7vNjC3yxwe4cLOr7s4CYQfnSgh/view?usp=drive_link
There is now a RH sign, it is on the "unicycle" post, minus the unicycle.
Pic taken from the route the OP took i presume, as the vid doesn't show turning.
High sign on left sits in the sight line of the chimney. Time 21.18 so dusk so sign not visible and unlit. No RH sign in vid.
-
Which TWO signs are these? I see only one in the vid, and that one quite high, presumably to enable visibility of the 20mph restriction which was originally on a post directly beside it in 2024, and which they moved back.
The post on the right with the "unicycle" attached to it, is the original post that the RH sign was attached to in the OP's gsv photo. You can see a yellow blip next to it on the DYLs in the vid and in that GSV.
I wondered why the vid doesn't show the RH sign, can only assume it did when the camera was installed, but it is not there anymore.
Would be good to get a recent pic showing it missing, or perhaps moved, but showing the unicycle post and it's relevant position to the other posts
-
As far as I understand it:
There is nothing to corroborate the OP's claim regarding stopping and exiting:'I realised by the time i reached the zebra crossing (short way in) stopped and reversed back out. This part has been removed from the clip.';
They have made formal reps to which they have not yet had a response.
OP, is this correct?
-
The 3 cases quoted above should give you plenty of ammo.
-
Hi guys,
if anyone has a similar experience, would be great to share thank you
-
I been busy of late. Extra reps. can always be added. Website only has general box and my conflation argument. Sorry: 6 cases tomorrow so back after them.
hi sorry to chase just seeing if you have any thoughts on my case , thanks
-
What do you think of the below i got from google
Send it back to it!
You passed the signs, that's it. Whether you 'only' went a little further and reversed out is mitigation, NOT a statutory defence, sorry.
Let's hope a technical defence emerges.
i don't know if these help, my case is 20m total entry, started breaking at 11m reason - i had to check mirrors first before breaking
Case 1: Avis Rent A Car v London Borough of Camden (Case Ref: 2120038831)The Focus: Minimal penetration and immediate correction.The Facts: The vehicle turned into a restricted bus lane, immediately braked, and safely reversed out within 3 seconds. The council argued that crossing the threshold line completed the contravention.
The Adjudicator's Ruling: Appeal Allowed. The adjudicator formally recorded:"The CCTV footage shows the vehicle crossed the threshold line but immediately stopped and reversed out of the restriction. The entire episode lasted no more than a few seconds. I am satisfied that this was a momentary error, immediately corrected, and did not constitute 'using' the bus lane. The matter falls within the principle of de minimis non curat lex."
Case 2: Dr. S v London Borough of Hackney (Case Ref: 219036728A)The Focus: Distance penetrated vs. intent to comply.
The Facts: A motorist crossed into a Code 33 pedestrian zone by roughly half a car length before spotting the signs, stopping, and immediately reversing straight back onto the main road.
The Adjudicator's Ruling: Appeal Allowed.
The adjudicator noted that the absolute nature of moving traffic offenses must be balanced against reality:"While the council's camera technically records a crossing of the restriction line, the footage shows the driver stopped almost immediately upon passing the signs and reversed out safely. Enforcing a financial penalty where a driver actively takes instant, safe corrective action to comply with a restriction would be wholly disproportionate. The contravention did not occur in any meaningful sense."
Case 3: M v Transport for London (Case Ref: 2210041275)The Focus: The definition of "entering" a restricted route.
The Facts: The appellant’s car entered a restricted route junction due to a sudden lane merge. The driver immediately realized they could not legally proceed down the street, halted, and backed up 3 metres to exit the mouth of the junction.
The Adjudicator's Ruling: Appeal Allowed.
The tribunal ruled:"To satisfy the requirement of 'entering' or 'using' a restricted route, there must be a element of passage along it. A vehicle that penetrates the zone by a nominal margin and is immediately reversed out has not used the route for traffic purposes. The appeal is allowed under de minimis."
-
I been busy of late. Extra reps. can always be added. Website only has general box and my conflation argument. Sorry: 6 cases tomorrow so back after them.
Thank you.
-
I been busy of late. Extra reps. can always be added. Website only has general box and my conflation argument. Sorry: 6 cases tomorrow so back after them.
-
What do you think of the below i got from google
Send it back to it!
You passed the signs, that's it. Whether you 'only' went a little further and reversed out is mitigation, NOT a statutory defence, sorry.
Let's hope a technical defence emerges.
Will the Hippocrates Cavalry come to the rescue !! (or maybe they are Dragoons)
-
What do you think of the below i got from google
Send it back to it!
You passed the signs, that's it. Whether you 'only' went a little further and reversed out is mitigation, NOT a statutory defence, sorry.
Let's hope a technical defence emerges.
-
I haven't had a reply, i didn't know he was the Guru :(
i have already appealed and i went with the below
- I admited i entered the junction (i think this is obvious)
- i went along the lines of the contravention didn't occur as i didn't proceed along the route.
- i requested the full CCTV footage including showing me reversing out (break lights come on
11m in, full stop at 20m). i reversed out the way i came no vehicles or people were around me.
- Di minimis
33H says - Using a route restricted to certain vehicles. Contravention Code 33These contraventions relate to using routes restricted to certain vehicles like cycles. The restrictions are shown on signs with white diagrams on blue backgrounds.
Suffixes:
33b) buses only
33c) buses and cycles only
33e) buses, cycles and taxis only
33f) buses and taxis only
33g) local buses only
33h) local buses and cycles only
33i) local buses, cycles and taxis only
33k) local buses and taxis only
33s) tramcars and buses only
33q) tramcars and local buses only
-
Have you heard from Hippocrates yet ? If not, as he said, hold fire for a bit as he is our "technical" appeal expert, and these do win appeals at LT.
-
Yes, those points can be made, but will they result in a win at London Tribunals ? I think not. The council will, of course reject them, because they keep the money if they reject the reps and re-offer the discount, and they know that >95% of people then do so, to get the discount.
would have thought, at least been it when a human views it , they will see the full picture .
For me the fact they cut if off when I stopped and didn't show the reversing back the way I came indicates they know they can't show that otherwise the case falls apart by itself.
It's £240 as well I think if I go to tribunal and lose as they say they'll increase it by 50% (discount £80, normal fee £160)
-
Hold fire.
-
Yes, those points can be made, but will they result in a win at London Tribunals ? I think not. The council will, of course reject them, because they keep the money if they reject the reps and re-offer the discount, and they know that >95% of people then do so, to get the discount.
-
What do you think of the below i got from google
Yes, you can absolutely appeal this, and you have strong legal grounds to do so.
Since you acknowledge the signage was clear, your appeal will rely on a legal argument called ***de minimis non curat lex*** (the law does not care about trivial matters), combined with **lack of full video evidence**.
Here is how you structure your representation to Tower Hamlets Council:
### 1. The "De Minimis" Argument (Trivial Breach)
Crossing the line by only 20 meters before immediately stopping means no actual contravention occurred in a meaningful sense. You did not use the restricted route to gain an unfair advantage, bypass traffic, or compromise safety.
### 2. Failure to Show the Full Incident / incompelte evidence
A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for a moving traffic restriction must show a complete action. If the council's footage cuts off while your brake lights are on and fails to show you reversing, **their evidence is incomplete**. They cannot prove you proceeded down the restricted route.
request the full video footage from them, if they fail to provide you have a strong case to have the PCN dismissed
-
Not much we can recommend for this PCN, but there could be a 'technical' appeal based on the PCN or TH web pages related to it. Hippocrates is our resident expert on these and has won appeals at London Tribunals on them, but of course you must be willing to risk the full PCN penalty; no discount option there
-
Yeah the signs are there for sure, it clicked about a second later after i had gone through what the situation was.
By then i had driven through but went no further than the zebra crossing (this part has been cut from the video)
-
The LLA & TfL Act 2003 (see your PCN), allows 28 days to send out a PCN.
Video shows that you approached the signs head-on, so they would have been visible to you on approach. Any reason for ignoring them ?
-
Date of PCN - 22/06/2026
Date of contravention - 04/06/2026
TT61772255
EJ59AOE
Video clip
https://streamable.com/e/flh1q7
PCN Photos
(https://i.ibb.co/5xzX26c5/1000083373.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5xzX26c5) (https://i.ibb.co/LDnk5NYd/1000083376.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LDnk5NYd) (https://i.ibb.co/j9XJps0V/1000083379.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j9XJps0V) (https://i.ibb.co/CpXww7SB/1000083364.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CpXww7SB) (https://i.ibb.co/S7Djm5H4/1000083366.jpg) (https://ibb.co/S7Djm5H4) (https://i.ibb.co/35sDVj2t/1000083367.jpg) (https://ibb.co/35sDVj2t)
Location photos
(https://i.ibb.co/yFh15jgq/front-2019.png) (https://ibb.co/yFh15jgq) (https://i.ibb.co/GQhjP93g/offence-1.png) (https://ibb.co/GQhjP93g) (https://i.ibb.co/VWWw036G/offence-2.png) (https://ibb.co/VWWw036G) (https://i.ibb.co/rfMYhX0B/other-side-Sept-2024.png) (https://ibb.co/rfMYhX0B) (https://i.ibb.co/rRSL8S9H/Sept-2024.png) (https://ibb.co/rRSL8S9H)
Google street view link
https://maps.app.goo.gl/omGgu9N6HA8pHCAe9
other information
I realised by the time i reached the zebra crossing (short way in) stopped and reversed back out. This part has been removed from the clip.
does the date of offence (04/06/2026) being more than 14 days (18/06/2026) make the PCN invalid ?