Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: FiveStarSAMz on June 30, 2026, 11:30:28 pm
-
I don't know what an adjudicator would make of the evidence, I know that Uber-speak is not my first language and I'm certain it won't be theirs. If you decide to appeal, then don't presume knowledge, try to make it absolutely clear, as you did in your last post.
IMO, IF an adjudicator accepts that there was a pre-booked pick-up at the time, then your father's next hurdle is why did they stay in the bay when there was no-one on the kerb. Again, he'd need to explain the difference between hailing a cab, where the ride is at the kerbside, and Uber where the rider is given an approximate time. I'd try to personalise matters e.g. you're certain that the adjudicator would have booked a taxi for, say, a journey to an airport and would not have stood at the kerbside outside their house until the taxi arrived: this is not the order of events i.e. taxi arrives, passenger(s) appear from behind closed doors then load and go.
IMO, the bay is for the 'purpose' of picking up/setting down. Sometimes things don't go to plan, although in this case I would refer to the person who approaches the bay because how would your father know this was not his fare until that person got into the car in front. It's not a taxi rank(which has precedence protocols).
IMO, there are also procedural issues with the NOR, but for me fundamentally the issue is convincing an adjudicator that a pick-up had been arranged.
-
Sorry, but your father is not helping himself.
Nowhere in the thread is it made clear that a pick-up did not occur, this only became evident from the video, your previous post and the NOR. As regards the NOR, 'the evidence you have provided [of a pre-booked pick-up etc.] is for a different location.'
I don't know what to make of this.
Does your father have evidence of a pre-booked pick-up at this time from the location in question? If so, pl post so we can assess its prospective evidential value at adjudication.
I believe it is reasonable for my father to not remember exactly what happened as an Uber driver, since he has many jobs a day; it may be difficult to remember. He only remembered some aspects of this specific job after watching the video.
I can understand why you would think so. I think showing the missing Uber evidence would help (btw the uber screenshot was sent to TFL on the appeal).
(https://i.ibb.co/TDdSsDB4/Uber-Trip-1.jpg)
As you can see, the address is Harleyford Road, Oval, Lambeth. This is literally the road next to South Lambeth Road. Cobalt Square is on the corner of Harleyford Road and South Lambeth Road junction.
Sometimes uber does not show the pinpoint the exact place as where the passenger is, and will drop the pin to a typical pickup point, especially a busy place like the Vauxhall station. Or the passenger might sometimes just book without looking where the pinpoint is, and especially when they are underground in the middle of a ring road, the pin point can be anywhere around the ring road where it is accessible by a car. (i hope that makes sense).
(https://i.ibb.co/m52swRHW/image.png)
Here you can see where the road is that is on the Uber evidence (Green).
You can also take an idea how close the cctv was captured (blue circle). Don't you think it is unfair to say it is a 'different location'?
-
Sorry, but your father is not helping himself.
Nowhere in the thread is it made clear that a pick-up did not occur, this only became evident from the video, your previous post and the NOR. As regards the NOR, 'the evidence you have provided [of a pre-booked pick-up etc.] is for a different location.'
I don't know what to make of this.
Does your father have evidence of a pre-booked pick-up at this time from the location in question? If so, pl post so we can assess its prospective evidential value at adjudication.
-
Your narrative is credible, so if you are prepared to risk the full PCN penalty, register an appeal at London Tribunals. Make sure you keep some collateral to back it up, like record of the hire. The test for an adjudication is "on the balance of probabilities". TfL are, of course, only interested in the money.
Thank you, I will go forward with the tribunals.
Let's see their rejection pl.
(https://i.ibb.co/JWHmvc42/Lambeth-wp19-nld-tfl-PCN-Rejection-letter.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/0yZG6SPL/Lambeth-wp19-nld-tfl-PCN-Rejection-letter-1.jpg)
-
Let's see their rejection pl.
-
Your narrative is credible, so if you are prepared to risk the full PCN penalty, register an appeal at London Tribunals. Make sure you keep some collateral to back it up, like record of the hire. The test for an adjudication is "on the balance of probabilities". TfL are, of course, only interested in the money.
-
Okay so the appeal was rejected. I will get a picture of the response a bit later. But to sum it up they said that no pickup or drop-off was seen in the footage. Even though it is true, there is a valid reason. The Uber driver's map showed that location to be where to pick up the customer; however, when he pulled over and checked his phone, the passenger said they were coming out the station from the other side (of the block/ring road) so my dad moved to pick them up from there. He was only at the spot for about a minute, if even that. Of course, my dad cannot check the messages while he is driving so he had to stop to check. My dad wants to take it to tribunals. I have never done tribunals yet so I am learning as we go. Any advice?
Here is the link to the video sent by TFL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xzwUSY27M2QK6hjgq7PcjYIhZ1yHJk0A/view?usp=sharing
-
Let's hope there isn't one.
Anyway, all he can do is wait for their response to the substantive issue of contravention did not occur.
-
The more defence points, the merrier?
Clearly not, your father has muddied the waters, created unnecessary confusion and caused himself alarm.
If you read the letter, it is absolutely clear:
'Please note, this[the FoI request] is dealt with as an entirely different matter to that of the PCN.'
So, his reps have set at least 2 hares running, maybe more, when all he's really interested in is the PCN hare's progress.
I will keep this in mind for next time :/
-
Where were your reps (Reply#7 above) sent?
What is the online status of your PCN? It should show as being on hold.
So it was appealed on TFL website as a "Challenge PCN" and I got an automatic reply from TFLEnforcement when i did it.
Here is what is on the PCN history:
(https://i.ibb.co/zVcLDKrd/image.png)
-
The more defence points, the merrier?
Clearly not, your father has muddied the waters, created unnecessary confusion and caused himself alarm.
If you read the letter, it is absolutely clear:
'Please note, this[the FoI request] is dealt with as an entirely different matter to that of the PCN.'
So, his reps have set at least 2 hares running, maybe more, when all he's really interested in is the PCN hare's progress.
-
Where were your reps (Reply#7 above) sent?
What is the online status of your PCN? It should show as being on hold.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/N2rwRD3N/image.png)
Hello guys. The RK recieved this form TFL. I am a bit confused... did they reject the appeal? Or am I still waiting for them to respond to the appeal?
-
If this is just a case of the driver being authorised to stop, why not just make this case? How does debating the signage, which would seem to be subjective, bear on this?
The more defence points, the merrier?
-
If this is just a case of the driver being authorised to stop, why not just make this case? How does debating the signage, which would seem to be subjective, bear on this?
-
Ok, ram it in !
-
Ok, so you shouldn't have any problem getting this PCN cancelled, (hopefully !!). The relevant information on the sticker should be quoted, plus include a photo of the sticker.
Opinions on this draft?
Re: Penalty Charge Notice GX36837978
Vehicle Registration: WP19 NLD
I make these representations on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.
At the time of the alleged contravention, I was working as a Transport for London licensed Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) driver, undertaking a genuine pre-booked Uber journey. I had accepted a booking to collect a passenger at this location at approximately 07:35 on 7 June 2026. A copy of the Uber trip details is enclosed in support of these representations.
The vehicle concerned is a TfL-licensed Private Hire Vehicle, and I was the licensed private hire driver operating it at the time. The vehicle displays the official TfL PHV licence discs/stickers that were issued and affixed as part of the TfL licensing and inspection process. These are fitted to the inside of the front and rear windows, as required by TfL. However, due to the stickers being mounted behind the glass and the vehicle having tinted rear windows, they may not be readily visible from a remotely positioned CCTV enforcement camera. To avoid any doubt, I enclose copies of the vehicle's PHV licence, my TfL Private Hire Driver Licence, and photographs showing the official TfL licence stickers displayed on the vehicle.
The CCTV evidence shows my vehicle stopped for only around 34 seconds, with the brake lights illuminated throughout. This is entirely consistent with a driver stopping briefly for the purpose of collecting a passenger. The vehicle was not parked, unattended or left for any prolonged period.
The location is a marked white bay with a sign stating "Red Route – 2 mins – Pick up or Set down only." The sole purpose of my stop was to collect my pre-booked passenger, which is exactly the activity the bay is intended to facilitate.
Furthermore, the road markings at this location do not adequately convey the restriction. There are no visible double red lines within the white bay where my vehicle stopped. A reasonable motorist would understand a marked white bay, together with a sign expressly permitting stopping for passenger pick-up or set-down, to be a permitted stopping place. If TfL intends to impose additional restrictions within that bay, those restrictions must be clearly indicated by the prescribed road markings.
The courts have confirmed that traffic restrictions must be adequately conveyed to motorists. In Herron v Sunderland City Council [2011] UKSC 2, the Supreme Court held that road signs and markings must substantially comply with the statutory requirements so that a reasonably diligent motorist is properly informed of the restriction. In this case, the absence of visible double red lines within the bay means the restriction was not adequately communicated.
The CCTV evidence also fails to demonstrate that any contravention occurred. The still images merely show a vehicle stopped for approximately 34 seconds within a designated pick-up/set-down bay. They do not establish that the stop exceeded the permitted period, that the vehicle was parked, or that it was being used for any purpose other than collecting a passenger in connection with a pre-booked private hire journey.
In light of the evidence provided, namely:
- the Uber booking confirming a genuine pre-booked passenger collection;
- confirmation that the vehicle and driver were both licensed by Transport for London as a Private Hire Vehicle and Private Hire Driver;
- the very short duration of the stop;
- the vehicle being positioned within the designated pick-up/set-down bay;
- the absence of visible double red route markings within the bay; and
- the failure of the evidence to establish that the restriction was adequately conveyed or that any applicable exemption did not apply,
I respectfully request that Transport for London cancel this Penalty Charge Notice.
Should TfL decide not to cancel the notice, please provide:
- A copy of the full CCTV recording relied upon, rather than still photographs.
- A copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order governing this bay.
- Confirmation of the exemption(s) considered during your assessment.
- An explanation of why the evidence of a genuine pre-booked passenger collection by a licensed TfL Private Hire Vehicle has been rejected.
I trust that, upon reviewing the enclosed evidence, you will conclude that no contravention occurred and that this Penalty Charge Notice should be cancelled.
-
Ok, so you shouldn't have any problem getting this PCN cancelled, (hopefully !!). The relevant information on the sticker should be quoted, plus include a photo of the sticker.
-
Example: (https://m.atcdn.co.uk/a/media/w1024/4b093152b99541c4bd2b159648577786.jpg)
-
So why no PHV licence plate on the back of the vehicle ? AFAIK, this is a legal requirement.
You have highlighted the part that says
You can pick up and drop off passengers on most red routes as long as you display your private hire vehicle (PHV) license. It will tell police, CCTV operators and other road users that you're allowed to do this. It also means that you'll avoid receiving a penalty charge.
Maybe that's a clue, especially from the photo.
So for TFL, they stopped issuing the "Exterior" sticker since like 4-5 years ago, and the interior sticker is sufficient. There is a sticker on the car back window which is stuck from the inside, and because of the tinted window, it is not easy to see... but according to TFL that is sufficient. TFL are very strict with these PHV drivers and vehicles. The website I highlighted is pretty old (TFL cannot be asked to update it), but the fact that PHV drivers can still stop on double red lines is still relevant. The handbook is the most up to date (still about a couple of years old).
If you look at the example below, the small sticker on the top passenger side corner is the new sticker distributed by TFL. The same sticker goes on the back tailgate window, from the inside... it's already difficult to see without tints, so having tinted windows makes it more difficult.
Date of notice is 17/06/2026 so I don't have long left for the 21 days discount period to finish.
The 21-day period ends on 9 July. So you have plenty of time to look at the basics.
To whom is the PCN addressed, you or your father and is the vehicle owned or possibly hired?
Which of you holds the PHV licence?
Why wasn't it displayed?
The PCN is addressed to my Father. He is the driver, owner, and registered keeper. He also holds the PHV licence. I am just helping him with the appeal. I am also a PHV licence holder, but I have my own car and have nothing to do with this one. PHV was displayed, just difficult to see.
-
Date of notice is 17/06/2026 so I don't have long left for the 21 days discount period to finish.
The 21-day period ends on 9 July. So you have plenty of time to look at the basics.
To whom is the PCN addressed, you or your father and is the vehicle owned or possibly hired?
Which of you holds the PHV licence?
Why wasn't it displayed?
-
So why no PHV licence plate on the back of the vehicle ? AFAIK, this is a legal requirement.
-
You have highlighted the part that says
You can pick up and drop off passengers on most red routes as long as you display your private hire vehicle (PHV) license. It will tell police, CCTV operators and other road users that you're allowed to do this. It also means that you'll avoid receiving a penalty charge.
Maybe that's a clue, especially from the photo.
-
Hello guys, I seek your advice on the PCN my dad received from TFL.
Contravention: "46:Stopped where prohibited (on a red route or clearway." at location: OPP COBALT SQUARE SOUTH LAMBETH ROAD SW8 on 07/06/2026.
Dad had a job with Uber picking up at that location; I have a screenshot of the job. The job was on 07/06/2026 at 07:35. According to TFL website, private hire drivers are exempt from stopping on double red lines for picking up and dropping off passengers.
See: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/exemptions#:~:text=You%20can%20pick%20up%20and%20drop%20off%20passengers%20on%20most%20red%20routes%20as%20long%20as%20you%20display%20your%20private%20hire%20vehicle%20(PHV)%20license.
Also see page 26 on the PHV (Private hire vehicle) handbook provided by TFL: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/phv-driver-handbook-v1.pdf
Evidence from TFL:
1. (https://i.ibb.co/spb4Z7ZM/WP19-NLD-TFL-PCN-LAMBETH-road-3.jpg)
2. (https://i.ibb.co/RT9Z5rkJ/WP19-NLD-TFL-PCN-LAMBETH-road-2.jpg)
3. (https://i.ibb.co/XxVp1Z1X/WP19-NLD-TFL-PCN-LAMBETH-road.jpg)
The first picture in the evidence taken was at time 07:36:34.5 BST and the third picture was taken on 07:37:08.7 BST. The car can be seen with brake lights on inside the white bay. No double red lines appear to be within the lines.
I have checked on Google Maps with the Street View image of August 2025, and it seems as though the double red lines within the bays is almost non-existent. There is also a board next to the bay that has the parking "P" icon and on the sign it says "Red Route" and "2 mins" and "Pick up or Set down only". as far as my dad remember, he was waiting for the passenger and moved off.
Can you help me with an appeal to send to TFL?
The car reg is WP19 NLD.
The PCN number is GX36837978.
Date of notice is 17/06/2026 so I don't have long left for the 21 days discount period to finish.
(https://i.ibb.co/ksGCd7TB/Lambeth-wp19-nld-tfl-PCN.jpg)