Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: flash2005 on June 25, 2026, 03:05:02 pm
-
As usual chapter and verse. Too long. This is a Notice of Appeal not a full argument. Just: I rely upon whole correspondence and will file further submissions accordingly upon receipt of the council's evidence pack.
ok
-
As usual chapter and verse. Too long. This is a Notice of Appeal not a full argument. Just: I rely upon whole correspondence and will file further submissions accordingly upon receipt of the council's evidence pack.
-
Please see a draft of the London tribunals appeal. Kindly provide feedback
London Tribunals Appeal
Appellant: [Name]
PCN:
Vehicle Registration:
Enforcement Authority: London Borough of Redbridge
Grounds of Appeal:
* The alleged contravention did not occur.
* There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority.
⸻
1. The alleged contravention did not occur
The vehicle was not stopped for the purpose of waiting at a bus stop.
The driver observed a vehicle already occupying a nearby lawful parking bay. Its occupant had entered the vehicle and closed the door, making it clear that the vehicle was about to leave. The driver therefore waited behind that vehicle for approximately 20 seconds while it started and vacated the bay, before immediately parking in the now vacant space.
The driver remained in the vehicle throughout and never left it. During this brief period, the passenger exited the vehicle safely.
The Council’s CCTV supports this explanation by showing the other vehicle driving away immediately before the appellant parked. However, the CCTV does not show the full sequence before recording commenced and therefore fails to provide the complete context of why the vehicle was stationary.
The Enforcement Authority has relied upon incomplete CCTV evidence and has failed to prove the contravention.
⸻
2. Failure to consider the representations
My formal representation stated:
“I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed. If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN.”
The Notice of Rejection simply asserts that compliant signage exists but provides no contemporaneous evidence whatsoever.
Instead, the Council relies upon Google Street View images dated August 2025. The alleged contravention occurred on 16 June 2026, approximately ten months later.
Historic Street View imagery does not prove that the required upright sign existed, remained unobstructed and was compliant on the date of the alleged contravention. The Council has therefore failed to provide strict proof of lawful signage at the material time.
The recent decision in Fahim Muhammad Haque v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Case 2260000010, 29 July 2026) confirms that an enforcement authority must prove that the required upright sign was sufficiently visible. In that case, although the road markings were present, the appeal was allowed because the authority failed to establish that the required sign was adequately visible. Attached: Fahim Muhammad Haque v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (2260000010, 29 July 2026).pdf
⸻
3. Failure to properly consider the representations
The Notice of Rejection fails to address the substance of my representations.
It does not address:
* the incomplete CCTV evidence;
* my explanation that the driver was briefly waiting for a lawful parking bay to become available; or
* my request for strict proof that the bus stop was lawfully signed.
Instead, it simply repeats that stopping is prohibited. That is not proper consideration of the representations as required by the 2022 Regulations.
⸻
4. The Notice of Rejection demonstrates a failure to consider this case
The Notice of Rejection states:
“Our enforcement officer observed your vehicle…”
This statement is plainly incorrect.
The PCN itself confirms that it was issued solely on the basis of evidence from an approved CCTV device. No Civil Enforcement Officer observed the vehicle.
This factual error strongly suggests that the Council has issued a generic template rejection without properly considering the facts of this particular case. Whilst this point may not be decisive on its own, it reinforces the wider procedural impropriety that my representations were not genuinely considered.
⸻
5. The Notice of Rejection misstates the statutory right of appeal
Regulation 9(4)(b) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 requires that a Notice of Rejection informs the recipient of the right to appeal under Regulation 10.
Regulation 10 expressly provides that an appeal may be made:
(a) within 28 days beginning with the date of service of the Notice of Rejection; or
(b) such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
The Notice of Rejection omits this statutory right entirely and therefore fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Regulations.
⸻
6. The Notice of Rejection compounds that error
The Council goes further by stating that after 28 days there will be no further opportunity to appeal.
That is incorrect.
Regulation 10 expressly permits an adjudicator to accept a late appeal where appropriate.
By informing the motorist that there is no further opportunity to appeal, the Council has misrepresented the statutory position and is capable of discouraging a motorist from exercising rights expressly conferred by Parliament.
This amounts to a procedural impropriety.
-----
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that the Adjudicator allows this appeal and directs the London Borough of Redbridge to cancel PCN
-
1. How old are those Google images?
2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D9H5QrIcb2exzFShYUfyrPIu4UVff8Ta/view
3. Same criticisms of NOR as per other PCN?
They are scraping the barrel in a few appeals at present.
Timestamp of google images shows August 2025. I can read it on the letter they sent but the scan I uploaded here is a bit blurry.
-
1. How old are those Google images?
2. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D9H5QrIcb2exzFShYUfyrPIu4UVff8Ta/view
3. Same criticisms of NOR as per other PCN?
They are scraping the barrel in a few appeals at present.
-
I have received the rejection notice from the council today. Funnily enough they have included a google street image of the sign as they have realised that the original notice doesn't have it. Please see below and advise on next steps.
<br> Page 1 <br>
<br>(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/5snVFK1.jpeg)
<br>Page 2 <br>
<br> (https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/4yyHN74.jpeg)
<br>Page 3 <br>
<br>(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/bO97Ntt.jpeg)
<br>Page 4 <br>
<br>(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/CwgpYYe.jpeg)
<br>Page 5<br>
<br>(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/uSytQ5r.jpeg)
<br>Page 6<br>
<br>(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/dRd6sHQ.jpeg)
<br>Page 7<br>
<br>(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/XgtgEdK.jpeg)
<br>Page 8<br>
<br>(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/zmB4Yrf.jpeg)
-
I have submitted the representation now.
-
I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed. If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN.
-
After further discussions with @Hippocrates, here is the final simplified version of the appeal
"I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed. If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN."
-
The first thing to say is that Redbridge will reject your reps, as the video shows a contravention, and they like to have the money as well, even if just the discount amount. So you'd have to take them to London Tribunals, and I have to say I don't think the odds are good, but wait and see what the others say.
Of course the PCN, and also the relevant Redbridge web pages may show serious errors which could be used for a technical appeal on the basis of a procedural impropriety, as the PCN is under the Traffic Managment Act 2004, where this is a statutory appeal ground. Such appeals have no connection to the actual contravention.
Are there any serious errors remaining in the PCN ? I can see one of the previous ones has been fixed from the PCN
-
You cannot require them to consider each point: HALTON CASE.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.pdf
I have reworded the appeal slightly
DRAFT BELOW
I make representations on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. The vehicle waited for approximately twenty seconds while the vehicle ahead manoeuvred out of the adjacent parking bay across its path, and parked in that bay the moment it was clear; it was prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control (Schedule 7, Part 6, paragraph 4(2)(b), TSRGD 2016). No bus was present or impeded.
The burden is on the Council to establish the contravention. There must be a yellow stopping plate, but there isn’t. The stills served do not show the signage relied upon or the full extent of the clearway marking; please provide that evidence, together with the full, unedited footage from camera 3341 covering two minutes either side of the alleged contravention.
Alternatively, given the momentary and harmless nature of the halt, I ask the Council to exercise the discretion referred to on the face of the Notice and cancel the PCN.
-
You cannot require them to consider each point: HALTON CASE.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.pdf
-
Here is the revised letter. Given the signage is there (albeit a bit small), should point 1 still be included ?
Dear Sir or Madam,
I make representations against this PCN on the statutory ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The bus stop at this location is not signed with any upright “no stopping” plate. I put the Council to strict proof that the restriction was lawfully in place and properly indicated at the material time. Please provide:
1. evidence of the upright signage at this bus stop as at 16 June 2026;
2. contemporaneous photographs showing that the road marking conformed to diagram 1025.1 of the TSRGD 2016 and was complete, unobscured and in good repair;
3. the operative hours of the restriction and the legal basis on which contravention 47j is enforced at this location; and
4. the full, unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341.
If the Council is unable to evidence each of the above, please cancel the PCN. I require each point raised in these representations to be addressed in any Notice of Rejection.
Yours faithfully,
-
Here is a draft of my appeal, Please let me know if there is any feedback.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I make the following formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the statutory ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. I do not admit the contravention and, without prejudice to that position, I also rely on the further matters set out below.
Background – the circumstances of the stop
1. The vehicle was in the process of parking. The driver had identified a vehicle in a marked parking bay immediately ahead whose occupant had already entered that vehicle and closed the door, such that it was evident the bay was about to become vacant. The driver drew up behind that vehicle and waited, for approximately twenty seconds, while the vehicle ahead started its engine and manoeuvred out of the bay into the carriageway. The moment the bay was vacated, the driver parked in it and the vehicle was clear of the bus stop area.
2. While the vehicle ahead was pulling out of the bay and into the live carriageway, it would have been unsafe and impracticable for the driver to proceed: the vehicle ahead was moving across the driver's path, and overtaking a vehicle mid-manoeuvre on its offside into oncoming traffic would have created an obvious risk of collision. In those moments the vehicle was, in substance, prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver's control. I refer the Council to Schedule 7, Part 6, paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which expressly excepts “a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property”.
3. The stop was momentary and incidental to a lawful parking manoeuvre. The vehicle was not parked, was not left unattended, the driver remained at the controls throughout, and the vehicle moved off and into the bay as soon as the bay was clear. No bus was present at, approaching, or in any way impeded from using the stop during this brief period.
Signage and marking of the alleged restriction
4. There is no upright “no stopping” sign (diagram 974 or similar) at or serving this bus stop on Clayhall Avenue. The Council is put to strict proof that a bus stop clearway restriction was lawfully in force and properly indicated at the material time, and in particular to confirm:
(a) whether the restriction relied upon is a 24-hour bus stop clearway or one operative only during specified times. If the restriction is time-limited, an upright sign indicating the operational times is required for the restriction to be adequately conveyed to drivers, and none is present;
(b) that the road marking relied upon conformed in all respects to diagram 1025.1 of the TSRGD 2016 (including the required broad continuous yellow line) and was complete, unobscured and in a good state of repair at the material time. The Council is requested to provide contemporaneous photographs of the markings and any signage, together with details of the last site inspection;
(c) the legal basis of the restriction (statutory provision and, if applicable, any order) under which contravention 47j is enforced at this location.
5. I further refer the Council to paragraph 13.24.9 of the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3 (Regulatory Signs), which contemplates that upright signing accompanies bus stop clearway markings and states, in terms, that where a time period applies “it will be helpful to drivers if the sign does face oncoming traffic”. In the absence of any upright plate whatsoever, a driver momentarily halted in the course of a parking manoeuvre had no adequate indication of the extent or operative hours of any restriction.
The CCTV evidence
6. The still images served with the PCN show only a short excerpt and do not capture the full sequence of events, in particular the period during which the occupant of the vehicle in the parking bay entered that vehicle, closed the door, started up and manoeuvred out, nor my vehicle subsequently parking in the vacated bay. I formally request disclosure of the full, unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341 covering the period from at least two minutes before to two minutes after the alleged contravention. I am advised that the footage the Council holds does show the other vehicle's driver entering their vehicle and closing the door before driving away, which corroborates the account above.
Proportionality
7. Even if, which is not admitted, a technical contravention is made out, a stop of approximately twenty seconds in the course of taking up an adjacent parking bay, with no bus present or impeded, is de minimis. Enforcement in these circumstances serves no traffic management purpose, and I invite the Council to exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN in any event, as your own Notice indicates you will do where there are suitable mitigating circumstances.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled. If the Council rejects these representations, please provide with the Notice of Rejection: (i) the full unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341; (ii) site photographs of all signs and markings at the Clayhall Avenue bus stop; and (iii) confirmation of the operative hours and legal basis of the restriction, so that the matter may be pursued before the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators at London Tribunals, where an application for costs will be considered if the Council's conduct is found to have been wholly unreasonable.
Far too long and admitting and threatening. Just this: I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed. If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN.
Your draft gives them too many opportunities and also provides them with answers. A killer question is short and to the point. If they do not reply to all of them the Halton High Court kicks in.
-
The GSV link posted by the OP shows that the No Stopping sign is present, it's just not in view. It's on the lamp column at the beginning of the marked area
So wnat?
-
Here is a draft of my appeal, Please let me know if there is any feedback.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am the registered keeper of the above vehicle and I make the following formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the statutory ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. I do not admit the contravention and, without prejudice to that position, I also rely on the further matters set out below.
Background – the circumstances of the stop
1. The vehicle was in the process of parking. The driver had identified a vehicle in a marked parking bay immediately ahead whose occupant had already entered that vehicle and closed the door, such that it was evident the bay was about to become vacant. The driver drew up behind that vehicle and waited, for approximately twenty seconds, while the vehicle ahead started its engine and manoeuvred out of the bay into the carriageway. The moment the bay was vacated, the driver parked in it and the vehicle was clear of the bus stop area.
2. While the vehicle ahead was pulling out of the bay and into the live carriageway, it would have been unsafe and impracticable for the driver to proceed: the vehicle ahead was moving across the driver's path, and overtaking a vehicle mid-manoeuvre on its offside into oncoming traffic would have created an obvious risk of collision. In those moments the vehicle was, in substance, prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver's control. I refer the Council to Schedule 7, Part 6, paragraph 4(2)(b) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which expressly excepts “a vehicle which is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond the driver’s control or which has to be stopped in order to avoid injury or damage to persons or property”.
3. The stop was momentary and incidental to a lawful parking manoeuvre. The vehicle was not parked, was not left unattended, the driver remained at the controls throughout, and the vehicle moved off and into the bay as soon as the bay was clear. No bus was present at, approaching, or in any way impeded from using the stop during this brief period.
Signage and marking of the alleged restriction
4. There is no upright “no stopping” sign (diagram 974 or similar) at or serving this bus stop on Clayhall Avenue. The Council is put to strict proof that a bus stop clearway restriction was lawfully in force and properly indicated at the material time, and in particular to confirm:
(a) whether the restriction relied upon is a 24-hour bus stop clearway or one operative only during specified times. If the restriction is time-limited, an upright sign indicating the operational times is required for the restriction to be adequately conveyed to drivers, and none is present;
(b) that the road marking relied upon conformed in all respects to diagram 1025.1 of the TSRGD 2016 (including the required broad continuous yellow line) and was complete, unobscured and in a good state of repair at the material time. The Council is requested to provide contemporaneous photographs of the markings and any signage, together with details of the last site inspection;
(c) the legal basis of the restriction (statutory provision and, if applicable, any order) under which contravention 47j is enforced at this location.
5. I further refer the Council to paragraph 13.24.9 of the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3 (Regulatory Signs), which contemplates that upright signing accompanies bus stop clearway markings and states, in terms, that where a time period applies “it will be helpful to drivers if the sign does face oncoming traffic”. In the absence of any upright plate whatsoever, a driver momentarily halted in the course of a parking manoeuvre had no adequate indication of the extent or operative hours of any restriction.
The CCTV evidence
6. The still images served with the PCN show only a short excerpt and do not capture the full sequence of events, in particular the period during which the occupant of the vehicle in the parking bay entered that vehicle, closed the door, started up and manoeuvred out, nor my vehicle subsequently parking in the vacated bay. I formally request disclosure of the full, unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341 covering the period from at least two minutes before to two minutes after the alleged contravention. I am advised that the footage the Council holds does show the other vehicle's driver entering their vehicle and closing the door before driving away, which corroborates the account above.
Proportionality
7. Even if, which is not admitted, a technical contravention is made out, a stop of approximately twenty seconds in the course of taking up an adjacent parking bay, with no bus present or impeded, is de minimis. Enforcement in these circumstances serves no traffic management purpose, and I invite the Council to exercise its discretion to cancel the PCN in any event, as your own Notice indicates you will do where there are suitable mitigating circumstances.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN should be cancelled. If the Council rejects these representations, please provide with the Notice of Rejection: (i) the full unedited CCTV footage from camera 3341; (ii) site photographs of all signs and markings at the Clayhall Avenue bus stop; and (iii) confirmation of the operative hours and legal basis of the restriction, so that the matter may be pursued before the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators at London Tribunals, where an application for costs will be considered if the Council's conduct is found to have been wholly unreasonable.
-
The GSV link posted by the OP shows that the No Stopping sign is present, it's just not in view. It's on the lamp column at the beginning of the marked area
-
There MUST be a yellow no stopping plate. There isn't.
-
Can any of the arguments in this case be used ?
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-47j-stopped-on-a-restricted-bus-stop-or-stand-high-st-e11/msg122207/#msg122207
-
The first thing to say is that Redbridge will reject your reps, as the video shows a contravention, and they like to have the money as well, even if just the discount amount. So you'd have to take them to London Tribunals, and I have to say I don't think the odds are good, but wait and see what the others say.
Of course the PCN, and also the relevant Redbridge web pages may show serious errors which could be used for a technical appeal on the basis of a procedural impropriety, as the PCN is under the Traffic Managment Act 2004, where this is a statutory appeal ground. Such appeals have no connection to the actual contravention.
-
Waiting for a space to clear for that length of time won't win I think.
We can check the PCN.
----------
Case reference 2250627073
Appellant Clare McCartney
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM BB13 MAC
PCN Details
PCN AF58339812
Contravention date 12 Oct 2025
Contravention time 12:08:00
Contravention location George Lane
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Stopped on a restricted bus stop or stand
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Apr 2026
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Ms McCartney was scheduled for a personal hearing by video link today, but she has not attended and so the appeal is being decided on the evidence presented.
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being stopped in a restricted bus stop.
I have looked at the CCTV footage and the library images submitted by the Council. The footage lasts a matter of seconds. It shows Ms McCartney’s car stopping, the reverse lights being engaged and the vehicle then starting to reverse. The footage clearly supports Ms McCartney’s evidence that she was reversing into the vacant loading bay and I accept her evidence. It is unclear as to why the Council stopped the footage without showing the completion of the manoeuvre. In my judgement, a vehicle engaged in a manoeuvre cannot be regarded as being “stopped” for the purposes of a no stopping contravention. I would take an entirely different view if the vehicle was stopped waiting for a parking place to clear but this was stopping as part of the manoeuvre.
-
I'd appreciate some advice on whether this is worth contesting.
The driver saw a vehicle in a nearby parking bay whose occupant had already entered the vehicle and closed the door, so it was obvious they were about to leave. The driver therefore queued behind that vehicle for approximately 20 seconds while it started up and pulled out, then immediately parked in the now-vacant bay.
During that time, the passenger exited the vehicle safely. The driver remained in the vehicle throughout and never left it.
The CCTV footage does show the other driver getting into their vehicle and closing the door before driving away, which supports the explanation that the vehicle was simply waiting for the parking space to become available. However, the CCTV does not show the full 20-second sequence before the space became free, so it does not provide the complete context.
My questions are:
- Does the fact that the CCTV does not show the full sequence of events provide any grounds for challenge?
- Is there any argument that the vehicle was only momentarily stationary while waiting for an imminently available parking space, rather than stopping for the purposes of the bus stop restriction?
- or any technical/PCN wording mistake related grounds to contest this ?
I'd be grateful for any opinions before deciding whether to pay at the discounted rate or make formal representations.
PCN
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/CfdSwO8_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/TAceUEx_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/RPvbusz_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ybxY0Ig_xl.jpeg)
Council evidence
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Th3cUO2_xl.jpeg)
Council Video
https://youtu.be/W5Njdy-QUuw (https://youtu.be/W5Njdy-QUuw)
Google Street View
https://maps.app.goo.gl/pWo9QrRE5fAiTt9dA