Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: DavidHenrick on January 08, 2025, 10:24:56 am
-
Many thanks Incandescent, PCN cancelled.
Wow, they folded quickly. Well done !
-
Many thanks Incandescent, PCN cancelled.
-
Yes, looks OK to me.
-
Great here is my new appeal, and I guess I will select reason A?
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me, as I believe it is not lawful for the reasons outlined below.
1. Inadequate Signage
The signage at the location in question fails to meet the required standards for clarity and compliance. According to the relevant regulations and guidance for road signage:
There should be two bus lane signs, one on each side of the narrowed section of the road, to clearly indicate the restriction.
Additionally, there should be an advance warning sign to inform drivers of the upcoming bus lane restriction.
The lack of adequate signage creates confusion for motorists. For example, a driver who parks nearby and later exits the area may inadvertently drive through the restricted section without realizing it is a Bus Gate. This lack of clear and sufficient signage fails to meet the legal requirements for traffic regulation orders and enforcement.
2. Failure to Include Statutory Information on the PCN
The PCN issued by North Somerset Council fails to comply with the mandatory requirements set out in The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. Specifically:
Section 3(2)(b) of the Regulations requires that an enforcement notice must include the nature of the representations which may be made under regulation 5.
Section 5(4) of the Regulations specifies the statutory grounds for representations, two of which are missing from the PCN I received:
5(4)(f): There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
5(4)(g): The order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies, is invalid.
The omission of these statutory grounds renders the PCN non-compliant with the legal requirements, and as such, it is invalid.
3. Procedural Impropriety in the Online Appeal Process
During the formal appeal process online, the form uses a radio button system, which only allows me to select one representation reason. However, under the law, I am entitled to select more than one representation reason if applicable. This limitation in the appeal system constitutes a procedural impropriety, as it restricts my ability to make a full and proper appeal.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled. The PCN is invalid due to its failure to comply with statutory requirements under The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, the signage at the location is inadequate to provide proper notice to motorists, and the online appeal process is procedurally improper.
I look forward to your response and resolution of this matter.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
-
Yes.
-
Pick A and also F. If they only allow you to pick one, then this is a further procedural impropriety !
Yep they only let you pick one, would you add that to the appeal?
-
Pick A and also F. If they only allow you to pick one, then this is a further procedural impropriety !
-
Reason to swap over is that the PCN is for a moving traffic offence indicated by signs that are inadequate, so this is the first reason, then, as a "by the way", the PCN is also unlawful. You don't have to follow what I suggest, of course.
If you take them to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal it would be with the full PCN penalty in play. Fear of losing the discount is why >95% of people just cough-up and confirm councils in their gaming of the system.
My view is that if the motorist is expected to obey the law, then the council is too.
Yep I agree, I'll gamble the discount.
Which reason would it be (they have the procedural impropriety here):
(https://i.imgur.com/4DbNOrB.png)
And I don't think I need to upload any evidence like my scan of the invalid PCN. And the signs are shown in the photos they have, GSV is outdated from when it was bollards and no camera.
-
Reason to swap over is that the PCN is for a moving traffic offence indicated by signs that are inadequate, so this is the first reason, then, as a "by the way", the PCN is also unlawful. You don't have to follow what I suggest, of course.
If you take them to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal it would be with the full PCN penalty in play. Fear of losing the discount is why >95% of people just cough-up and confirm councils in their gaming of the system.
My view is that if the motorist is expected to obey the law, then the council is too.
-
IMHO you should swap over 1 & 2, but OK
Don't expect them to accept the reps. Councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise income, so reject almost all representations no matter how valid. You must be prepared to take them to adjudication if you want a fair hearing.
So the signage is the more important factor than the statutory information?
I see, so do I risk paying the non-discounted rate if I take them to adjudication?
-
IMHO you should swap over 1 & 2, but OK
Don't expect them to accept the reps. Councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise income, so reject almost all representations no matter how valid. You must be prepared to take them to adjudication if you want a fair hearing.
-
With a little help from ChatGPT... (does this read fine?):
Subject: Formal Appeal Against Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) Issued by North Somerset Council
PCN Reference Number: [Insert PCN Number]
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me, as I believe it is not lawful for the reasons outlined below.
1. Failure to Include Statutory Information on the PCN
The PCN issued by North Somerset Council fails to comply with the mandatory requirements set out in The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. Specifically:
Section 3(2)(b) of the Regulations requires that an enforcement notice must include the nature of the representations which may be made under regulation 5.
Section 5(4) of the Regulations specifies the statutory grounds for representations, two of which are missing from the PCN I received:
5(4)(f): There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
5(4)(g): The order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies, is invalid.
The omission of these statutory grounds renders the PCN non-compliant with the legal requirements, and as such, it is invalid.
2. Inadequate Signage
The signage at the location in question fails to meet the required standards for clarity and compliance. According to the relevant regulations and guidance for road signage:
There should be two bus lane signs, one on each side of the narrowed section of the road, to clearly indicate the restriction.
Additionally, there should be an advance warning sign to inform drivers of the upcoming bus lane restriction.
The lack of adequate signage creates confusion for motorists. For example, a driver who parks nearby and later exits the area may inadvertently drive through the restricted section without realizing it is a Bus Gate. This lack of clear and sufficient signage fails to meet the legal requirements for traffic regulation orders and enforcement.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled. The PCN is invalid due to its failure to comply with statutory requirements under The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, and the signage at the location is inadequate to provide proper notice to motorists.
I look forward to your response and resolution of this matter.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
-
Thanks - attached the PCN.
The PCN is not lawful because it omits two of the statutory conditions for cancellation of the PCN. It seems that despite putting the applicable regulations at the top of the PCN, they didn't actually go and read it. So here is the regulation: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/contents
See Regulations 3 and 5.
Can you point me to the relevant paragraph and line please? I'm reading it but being a layman failing to see what you were referring to :-[
see 3(2)(b)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/regulation/3
then see 5(4), which are the statutory grounds. Any missing on your PCN ?
Are these two the missing ones on the PCN:
(f)there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority;
(g)the order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies, is invalid;
Correct
We've seen this before where dozy councils convert to bus ane enforcement under the TMA 2004, instead of the 2007 Act, and fail to update their PCNs correctly. This should win at adjudication on its own, but I'd also make a point about the sign too.
-
Thanks - attached the PCN.
The PCN is not lawful because it omits two of the statutory conditions for cancellation of the PCN. It seems that despite putting the applicable regulations at the top of the PCN, they didn't actually go and read it. So here is the regulation: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/contents
See Regulations 3 and 5.
Can you point me to the relevant paragraph and line please? I'm reading it but being a layman failing to see what you were referring to :-[
see 3(2)(b)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/regulation/3
then see 5(4), which are the statutory grounds. Any missing on your PCN ?
Are these two the missing ones on the PCN:
(f)there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority;
(g)the order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies, is invalid;
-
Thanks - attached the PCN.
The PCN is not lawful because it omits two of the statutory conditions for cancellation of the PCN. It seems that despite putting the applicable regulations at the top of the PCN, they didn't actually go and read it. So here is the regulation: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/contents
See Regulations 3 and 5.
Can you point me to the relevant paragraph and line please? I'm reading it but being a layman failing to see what you were referring to :-[
see 3(2)(b)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/regulation/3
then see 5(4), which are the statutory grounds. Any missing on your PCN ?
-
Thanks - attached the PCN.
The PCN is not lawful because it omits two of the statutory conditions for cancellation of the PCN. It seems that despite putting the applicable regulations at the top of the PCN, they didn't actually go and read it. So here is the regulation: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/contents
See Regulations 3 and 5.
Can you point me to the relevant paragraph and line please? I'm reading it but being a layman failing to see what you were referring to :-[
-
Interesting, thats what happened, I came out of Mcdonalds and didn't notice the bus lane signs etc.
-
Thanks - attached the PCN.
The PCN is not lawful because it omits two of the statutory conditions for cancellation of the PCN. It seems that despite putting the applicable regulations at the top of the PCN, they didn't actually go and read it. So here is the regulation: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/contents
See Regulations 3 and 5.
Hmm thanks, so I can challenge it on that basis?
Yes, but also on the positioning of the sign. There really should be two, one each side of the narrowed section, plus an advance warning sign. One could go and park and go to the shops, then back-out and drive through the narrowed section and not realise it was a Bus Gate.
They've done a typical council cobble; GSV 2015 (the latest view) shows the same sign, but there are rising bollards at the narrow section. All they've done is remove these and put a camera up, so they now make shedloads of money and have no bollard repair and maintenance needs. Bingo !
-
Thanks - attached the PCN.
The PCN is not lawful because it omits two of the statutory conditions for cancellation of the PCN. It seems that despite putting the applicable regulations at the top of the PCN, they didn't actually go and read it. So here is the regulation: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/contents
See Regulations 3 and 5.
Hmm thanks, so I can challenge it on that basis?
-
Thanks - attached the PCN.
The PCN is not lawful because it omits two of the statutory conditions for cancellation of the PCN. It seems that despite putting the applicable regulations at the top of the PCN, they didn't actually go and read it. So here is the regulation: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/contents
See Regulations 3 and 5.
-
Thanks - attached the PCN.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please to post up all sides of the PCN, redacting only yr name & address.
-
I received a bus lane penalty for accidentally driving through a bus lane.
Before I go ahead and pay it at the reduced rate, is there any viable challenge:
(https://i.imgur.com/ErwH2wL.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/87Ul0Gv.jpeg)
This is the location of the bus lane: https://maps.app.goo.gl/oHXJSagAh6NiA9MLA