Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Pipsi on May 07, 2025, 01:43:39 pm
-
I was driving a company vehicle at the time
Therefore YOU cannot be the appellant, so where did 'I have been sent an invite to do a teams call with the 'Parking Adjudicator' next week and got the councils prosecution bundle.' come from???
You appear to have been correct when you posted: 'I am not overly knowledgeable'.
I'm being pointed because time is short.
So far I see the possible defences as being:
Your are not the 'owner' therefore YOU have no liability;
Your company is not the 'owner' because perhaps the vehicle is being leased and is not owned by them, therefore the default position is that the leasing company is to be considered the 'owner';
Even if the lease company has sought to transfer liability, this has been done improperly because they have asserted that they are a vehicle-hire company and that the vehicle was hired but in fact it's on a lease for a term greater than 6 months which means that the 'vehicle-hire' defence is not available to them but 'not the keeper' is. (See page 13: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Report%202022%20-%202023.pdf )
I appreciate that most of the above will go over your head, so why not post the evidence and let's look at all avenues.
-
The appellant will be on the public register of tribunal decisions.
-
I think you'll find existing signage can be left in place until replaced under routine maintenance or easily converted.
Strange that the sign in the opposite side of the road is as shown, but the one in the direction I was following was Imp only!?! Even shown in their evidence pack.
-
I was driving a company vehicle at the time and so the charge is addressed to my employer, so posting that info may be a 'career limiting factor'.
The only defense i can see is that the sign posted is not correctly as clearly shown in the legislation as i mentioned, both signs do exist in earlier pre amended SI's, but each sign has a different meaning e.g. It is 'prohibited to enter' and then if followed you cannot keep left anyway as your vehicle wouldn't fit, noted also that if you attempted to squeeze thru they have a charge code for damaging the road junction also in the TMO, seems nicely stitched up process.
Thank you for the advice.
-
+1.
OP, as you have a copy of the TSRGD to hand, try Regulation 14, Transitional and Savings Provisions.
The most common example of these is probably the No Waiting 'At all times' traffic signs which are superfluous (i.e. not prescribed) but still commonplace.
Anyway, rather than put all your eggs in one basket why not post the council's evidence pack. You never know, a winning argument could be lurking somewhere!
-
I think you'll find existing signage can be left in place until replaced under routine maintenance or easily converted.
-
(https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/made (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/12/made)) Part 20, item 34 shows the only one that is permitted to be fitted is the dual metric/imp sign.
I will report back on what the Adjudicator states.
-
We can't advise on your case unless you read this and act on it:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
But these width restrictions are very hard to contest as they are often not restrictions as such but controlled by a proxy keep left sign, and directional instruction arrows are what they say on the tin.
Some are signed in metric and imperial so that is an interesting point if imperial only but probably not a get out for disobeying an arrow.
-
Hello, I am not overly knowledgeable on TMO's (Traffic Management Orders) and need some pointers.
I received a ticket for not keeping left, where the council have reduced the width down to a narrow lane for cars and kept a larger single lane one for buses/HGV's, my vehicle could not possibly fit in that lane without damaging it (Land cruiser). So, sign reads according to the traffic signs regs as 'prohibited entry if over size' from top to bottom, then 'keep left'. IIRC according to the Highway code as i driver i must deal with the signage in the order they appear, so width, then keep left, right?
I have a HGV licence, so I read more signage than most. The offence on their charge is 'Not keeping left'.
The thing that I have found is that the width limit was in IMPERIAL only, so I stopped momentarily as I couldn't work out what that meant in METRIC. My understanding was that the Gov told councils to change all the signage to DUAL measurements back in 2015, despite accepting Metric back in 1965! So, the signage is old/wrong/confusing.
I have been sent an invite to do a teams call with the 'Parking Adjudicator' next week and got the councils prosecution bundle. I think that the TMO is their proof that they can prosecute for offences, and reading the date of issue and amendment, was the day before the 'offence' not sure if that is significant, but it seems that they can change this document at anytime they please and yet it doesn't appear on any publicly accessible site from searching google.
Any advice would be greatly appriciated.