Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Nitewalker38 on May 30, 2025, 06:48:48 pm
-
Dear Sir or Madam
Please may I have responses to the following:
How long has this junction been marked according to your plan?
How much revenue has been accrued in the same period?
How many cases have been accepted before going to the Tribunal in the same period?
How many cases have been rejected and not reached the Tribunal in the same period?
How many cases have been allowed at the Tribunal in the same period?
How many cases have been refused at the Tribunal in the same period?
How many cases have not been contested by the council in the same period?
How many costs decisions have been awarded to either party in the same period?
-
Good job you didn't pay as they employ eKashu which was dissolved in 2000.
Dear Anonymous Parking Officer
I am sitting in the smallest room of my house.
Currently, your letter is in front of me.
In a moment it will be behind me.
Which is just as well because I do not take too kindly to the extrapolation of the urine.
Yesterday from @mrmustard:
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 2250264719
Appellant *********
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM LL74UXG
PCN Details
PCN QT10607452
Contravention date 22 Apr 2025
Contravention time 16:28:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Aug 2025
Adjudicator Darminder Lehal
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
1. This is a personal appeal against a penalty charge notice issued by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames .
2. The Appellant states he stopped to let the vehicle join from the left hand side of the adjoining road. The Appellant asserts he did not stop due to the presence of a stationary vehicle. The appellant also raised the point that the box junction is marked beyond as required under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and are therefore unenforceable.
3. The Enforcement Authority submit that the Appellant’s vehicle was observed entering and stopping in the yellow box junction on the date in question. The Authority have provided CCTV of the alleged contravention and photographs. They assert that the Appellant’s vehicle enters the box junction when the exit lane was not clear. The Authority say it is the motorists responsibility to assess the road situation ahead and only enter the box junction if they can be sure of crossing it without stopping.
4. There are 3 elements to this this contravention, firstly that the driver causes the vehicle to enter the junction. Secondly that it is stopped in the box junction. Thirdly that the vehicle has to stop due to the presence of stationary vehicles. I do not find that the third element has been satisfied.
5. This box junction is not only marked at the junction between these two roads but also in advance and beyond that junction. It is not therefore marked in compliance with The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 this penalty charge thus being unenforceable.
6. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.
-
Someone must be listening as the letter advising the cancellation has just come through the post box.
Cancelled due to a processing error.
https://imgur.com/a/X11sXV4
-
Tell them this guy wants to know or else. Sorry my head is rather large at present. It's not about me, actually, it's about getting more people to fight their tickets. 8) My interviewer is rather good and will not stand for any nonsense from them. They have lost quite a lot of cases recently (19 since January) and @mrmustard has a costs decision looming in October which I will observe as, sadly, no more Tribunal hearings in person!
https://www.itv.com/news/london/2025-08-19/council-refunds-485000-for-wrongly-fining-drivers-in-the-bus-lane
I might go down there sometime with my blow torch and a paint brush to make it smaller. Not far from me.
-
I will ask them but doubt I’ll get a response. My last phone call the girl put the phone down on me
-
Great. Did they say why though? I would ask them please as I wish to include this as part of my interview.
-
This has now been cancelled finally!
https://imgur.com/a/lVqhtH8
-
@Nitewalker38 I am doing a Radio Jackie interview on this YBJ shortly so would really appreciate an update as soon as possible please. ;D PM sent.
-
Like I said: they are intellectually challenged and so is their system.
Antediluvian
Prehistoric
Crummy
Obnoxious
Abysmal
Do you want their complaints address or not?
-
Ok, so we just wait for a response
-
yes i made representation as was advised, that can be seen on the 2nd screenshot 19/6/2025 14:2611 On Hold Represenation received, they again acknowledged it on the 25th June as can be seen in the screenshot but this time also confirmed receipt via an automated email response too.
https://imgur.com/a/7wQNk2d
-
Did you make representations in response to the 19 June 2025 PCN ? (as was advised, make reps or pay).
-
So having not heard a word from Kingston I thought I would check on the status of the PCN.
Please see image
https://imgur.com/a/tErG92B
it’s comical that the status is now NTO/Enforcement Notice Sent and the fee has gone up despite no contact from them at all and the history of the claim as seen below says on hold.
https://imgur.com/a/GkQkTaJ
My patience with them is running very thin.
-
Accepted, but as costs under adjudication procedures cannot arise until a NOR has been received, then submitting reps is the next step. To me the grounds are objective: there is no provision for this PCN which they are therefore obliged to cancel for procedural reasons.
If they don't, then take it from there,
-
my two-pronged approach with RBK has always worked -and even resulted in costs when the Adjudicator read what they wrote in response to my complaint. It is essential to have a detailed timeline of events and conversations.
-
OP, do what it says on the PCN i.e. pay or make reps.
Assuming you opt for the latter, then the grounds are as I explained.
Do NOT refer to anything other than the PCN you have, it would be a distraction and for your purposes unnecessary.
And sorry to take the contra view to Hippocrates, we don't need complaints - these are extra-procedural and can come later- deal procedurally with what you have i.e. a PCN.
-
This outfit is well-known. If you would like me to write a stiff complaint to them and get this sorted, PM me.
Sorry as in Kos at present, supposedly holidaying. So, I tend to shoot from the hip at RBK.
-
Sorry to sound stupid but what am I to do now based on your response?
Do I use the web portal to appeal and state the existing plus the fact they are outside of the 28 day notice for issuing the pcn or just ignore and await them to respond to the email proof of the cancelled pcn?
Thanks again for your help it’s honestly really appreciated.
-
Apart from you submitting representations beyond the 28-day period provided, what's posted rehearses what's clear from the thread.
You submitted reps late - why, I don't know, because they could disregard without any obligation to respond when procedurally you should have waited for the OfR.
Anyway, IMO this matter will be resolved procedurally and not by you contacting the council.
You MUST make reps.
Penalty exceeded....circumstances of case.
The PCN has been served out of time. They had 28 days but they've taken 2 months. None of the exceptions to the 28-day rule applies because a previous PCN (which existed because they served a CC) was not cancelled by TEC and you are the same addressee as in the first PCN, therefore it's not a fresh notice.
IMO, forget about the contravention(include in your reps if you must, but make this secondary), websites, unconfirmed telephone conversations etc. and get back to procedure.
-
Ok for clarity
- PCN they claimed was issued 24th April for an incident that took place on 17th April at 8:05pm
- PCN never received
- Charge Certificate received 30th May (£240)
- contacted RBK (David) who advised their was an error and the PCN can be ignored however due to their threat of county court action within 14days I submitted an appeal as their web portal allowed me to.
- submission as follows
Dear Sir / Madam The first i was aware of this PCN was when i received the Charge Certificate on Friday 30th May. I have never received the letter you claim was issued on 24th April 2025. I have just spoken with one of your colleagues (David) at 11:30am this morning who has advised me this PCN is part of a bacth of PCNs that were issued in error and that i am to await an update but as the Charge certificate states you will proceed with County Court within 14 days of letter issue i feel i have to respond. Having reviewed the evidence provided by yourselves my view is as follows: 1. There was no contravention as per the law. 2. The locus is vague as there are several junctions. 3. The box is too big as already ruled by one adjudicator whose decision you have not appealed. Considering the above, please cancel. Should you not agree to do so, I am prepared to take the matter to the Tribunal and, if successful, make a claim for costs in addition.
- 11th June the RBK PCN portal showed the ticket had been cancelled and no further action was required as per the picture in last post.
- Today I received a new PCN with the same reference for the same incident advising I had 14 days to pay £80 fee or appeal
https://imgur.com/a/Z7arQfW
- I contacted RBK to ascertain what was going on as the portal showed it canceled to which they insisted it wasn’t and that having reviewed the footage it’s been issued correctly. I referred to my previous challenge to which the lady advised wouldn’t be valid and would have to submit again. She also wanted proof via email that the web portal showed the ticket as cancelled as they didn’t believe me. This evidence was submitted to rbk.enquiries@apcoa.com and below is a picture of the email response.
https://imgur.com/a/BZ3uaQr
I no longer have a copy of the charge notice they issued previously as I destroyed on the basis the portal said the ticket had been cancelled.
Kind regards
-
+1, the OP must follow forum procedures pl.
Talking of procedures...Let's stay within those for road traffic contraventions pl.
OP, you say you were served with a CC (we haven't seen it) in respect of a PCN which you did not receive. Procedurally, you were simply required to wait until an Order for Recovery was issued following which you could submit an in-time Statutory Declaration (under the grounds 'Did not receive the PCN/NTO in question')which would have the effect of revoking the OfR and the CC and leaving the authority with the option to reissue the PCN or not. Their choice, nothing to do with you at this stage.
But instead you contacted the authority, did not make any written submissions that we're aware of, reported that the PCN had been cancelled and now said you've been served with another, which we've yet to see.
Let's see what this PCN reveals.
-
No sensible expert will advise on what he cannot see. Please show us the latest document.
-
Tell them politely where to go.
-
So the saga continues.
Today I have received a PCN with exactly the same reference for the same incident but with a charge of £80 subject to appeal.
They have no record that it was cancelled despite the portal showing it did (email sent to them as proof).
https://imgur.com/a/YbW19Oe
They are now stating I need to challenge it again as the previous challenge will not be accepted despite the fact they can see it on the system.
-
The PCN didn't make it to the tribunal I think Hippocrates
-
I would apply for costs actually.
-
Update
I checked the status of the PCN last night and it now shows that the ticket has been cancelled and no further action is required.
Thanks for your help
-
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mSn6mb9avMPpd6jIzOEjFWDGHx4s3igH
-
If you wish, I can represent you now as RBK and I, shall we say, have a relationship.
-
In which case ask for a copy of the recording. It is your right to make a Subject Access Request for it. You will have to prove your identity and address
https://www.kingston.gov.uk/council-democracy/subject-access-requests
I would add a note saying that if they confirm by return that the pcn is cancelled they can file your request unaswered.
-
I have just spoken with David at RBK.
Ask him to be so kind as to take the trouble to confirm his advice by e-mail....
I asked this to which he refused and advised that the call is being recorded so it can be used as evidence to support this.
-
I have just spoken with David at RBK.
Ask him to be so kind as to take the trouble to confirm his advice by e-mail....
-
I have just spoken with David at RBK. He advises this PCN is part of a batch that have an error and not to do anything until i hear from the appeals team regarding this despite the fact i have received a charge certificate.
This all makes me quite nervous as i can see this just ending up at county court judgement level as outlines in the the charge certificate notice.
-
Hi
You are right what i have received is a charge certificate.
As mentioned in my first post they claim they sent a letter to me on the 24th April however this was never received, they are unable to provide any proof it was delivered but stated on the phone "that's not their issue they have proof it was posted".
If i go on the website it gives me an option to appeal the PCN still but not sure whether this is too late or not.
Any advice appreciated.
-
With respect to fellow posters, the OP's account is unclear and potentially worrying.
We have not seen the PCN.
Hi, I have received a PCN from Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames for 31J: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement). I would like to add today 30th May is the first letter received however they claim one was originally issued on the 24th April to which i haven't responded.
So, OP post what you have received. The only procedural notice which fits your description is a Charge Certificate which means that at present you do NOT have any route to make representations or appeal. We need to get you back on track.
So, post what you have received and confirm that it's addressed to you.
-
You should definitely take them to London Tribunals as suggested by sfm. The council are behaving disgracefully, (par the course with this council !). The description "immoral charlatans" comes to mind.
+1. Please don't get me started on their parking manager(s)! I called publicly for the previous one's resignation. She moved to Croydon.
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/tommy-poirot-to-expose-all-london-councils'-bus-lane-enforcement/msg3970/#msg3970
@mrmustard Please can you remind us of the said case re the size of box?
-
It's not a contravention as you didn't have to stop in the box owing to stationary vehicles.
Kingston has form in issuing ridiculous yellow box PCNs and if they insist on taking you to the tribunal you have a good shout for costs, as the cases below show.
RBK would do better if they sent that video to the Police re the motorcyclist who overtook you. I cannot stand these idiots and have successfully got the council (via threats re a JR and Health and Safety) to change the camera position in Eden Street contraflow bus lane to now capture their VRMs too!
-
Dear RBK
1. There was no contravention as per the law.
2. The locus is vague as there are several junctions.
3. The box is too big as already ruled by one adjudicator whose decision you have not appealed.
Considering the above, please cancel. Should you not agree to do so, I am prepared to take the matter to the Tribunal and, if successful, make a claim for costs in addition.
***
I achieved costs against them for a different in Nina Sabbagh v Kingston. Case reference 2230339804. This was one where I also complained to the council and their response dug themselves an even bigger hole.
*****
ETA Register of Appeals
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable
Case Details
Case reference 2230339804
Appellant Nina Sabbagh
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM PJ11 HZZ
Decision Cost award allowed
PCN Details
PCN QT07663375
Contravention date 23 May 2023
Contravention time 08:27:00
Contravention location KINGSTON ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date
Decision Date 15 Aug 2023
Adjudicator By Order of the Chief Adjudicator
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction EA to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice
Reasons The Enforcement Authority has informed me that they will not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) mentioned above.
The Chief Adjudicator has therefore allowed your appeal without considering your evidence or any details of the case. You are not liable for any further charge(s) and, where appropriate, any amounts already paid will be refunded by the Enforcement Authority.
Authority Response
Cost Details
Application by Appellant
Decision date 25 Sep 2023
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Decision Cost award allowed
Direction -
Reasons
The Appellant has attended for her costs application and is represented by Mr P Morgan.
Under the Regulations it is provided that an Adjudicator shall not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses but may, subject to hearing representations from a party, make such an order against the other party if he is of the opinion that the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously or that their conduct in making and pursuing this appeal was wholly unreasonable.
The Regulations restricts any award to "the costs and expenses incurred by that other party in connection with the proceedings". "The proceedings" commence at the point when a Notice of Rejection has been served and the recipient of the Notice submits a Notice of Appeal. It does not include compensation for loss of wages or injury to feeling or embarrassment.
I have considered the evidence in this case as produced by the Appellant, her written and oral submissions and the response to the costs application, which is contained in a letter dated 20 September 2023 from the Authority's Service Director.
The contravention allegedly occurred on 23 May 2023, the Appellant made informal representations which were rejected on 8 June 2023. The Appellant decided to appeal and this allowed the Authority another opportunity to review the issuing of the PCN and the second officer took an opposing view to that of the initial reviewer
I have decided, on a balance of probabilities, to accept the Appellant's claim, and I find that the conduct of the Authority has been wholly unreasonable.
The reason for this is that whilst the second officer who took the opposing view of the Appellant's case was correct, I find that the initial officer's view that her vehicle '...had slowed down in order to allow others to enter the road as opposed to those vehicles entering the road & stopping you from proceeding.' should have resulted in the PCN being cancelled at the first stage. I find it wholly unreasonable that this case had to proceed to a second stage and the Appellant required to take time to prepare for an appeal before the Tribunal.
Quite simply if the Appellant's vehicle '...had slowed down in order to allow others to enter the road..' that would mean that the Appellant's vehicle would not have been stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles.
The Regulations cited do not contain any provisions as to the rate to be awarded when an order for costs is made. However, Adjudicators take as their guidance the Civil Procedure Rules as applied to Small Claims in the County Court. These allow for an award of £19.00 per hour for a litigant in person (i.e. one not represented by a lawyer) in respect of preparation for and attendance at any hearing, together with reasonable expenses actually incurred. I therefore apply that rate to the Appellant's claim.
The Appellant has requested costs in the sum of £57.00 for 3 hours preparation, which I do find unreasonable in the circumstances of this case.
Accordingly, I direct the Authority to pay to the Appellant the above sum of £57.00, forthwith.
-
Various issues. This is extrapolation of he urine. Vague locus and Mr Harman has said the box is too big. I know it well, just south of Kendalls. Will draft something tomorrow. Today even.
-
You should definitely take them to London Tribunals as suggested by sfm. The council are behaving disgracefully, (par the course with this council !). The description "immoral charlatans" comes to mind.
-
It's not a contravention as you didn't have to stop in the box owing to stationary vehicles.
Kingston has form in issuing ridiculous yellow box PCNs and if they insist on taking you to the tribunal you have a good shout for costs, as the cases below show.
(https://i.ibb.co/hxX3BC9R/w3-D7l-Of-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif)
--------------
Case reference 2240526422
Appellant xxxxxxxx
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM KK03 RJK
PCN Details
PCN QT09944524
Contravention date 12 Oct 2024
Contravention time 13:12:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Although the vehicle is seen to be briefly stationary within the box junction this of itself is not a contravention. The Council is required to prove that the vehicle had to stop in the junction as a result of the presence of a stationary vehicle. Neither criterion is met in the present case. The vehicle did not have to stop but clearly chose to do so in order to give priority to the - moving – vehicles coming from the right. The Appellant had right of way and could have continued.
The vehicle was clearly not in contravention and the PCN should never have been issued.
-------------
Case reference 225014083A
Appellant xxxxxxxx
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM GJ70JRU
PCN Details
PCN QT10349776
Contravention date 28 Jan 2025
Contravention time 08:15:00
Contravention location Kingston Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 May 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons I heard this appeal by video link.
The vehicle certainly comes to a halt within the box junction. However this of itself is not a contravention. Under the terms of the regulations (Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 Schedule 9 Part 7 Para 11) the Council is required to prove that the vehicle had to stop in the junction as a result of the presence of stationary vehicles. In this case the Appellant self-evidently did not have to stop. He had right of way, but chose to stop out of courtesy to let the vehicles turning right pass ahead of him. In addition, these were of course moving vehicles not stationary vehicles.
The PCN should never have been issued, and the Council shows a regrettable lack of understanding of the law. If similar cases occur in future the question of costs may fall to be considered.
-
Hi, I have received a PCN from Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames for 31J: Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited (camera enforcement). I would like to add today 30th May is the first letter received however they claim one was originally issued on the 24th April to which i haven't responded but can categorically state this was never received so am unsure where i stand regarding that.
I shall admit that yes I did stop in the box, for less than 6 seconds to let a motorcyclist out the side street and was not stopping the flow of traffic or anything as could have easily proceeded without letting this individual out.
Any advice as to how to proceed challenging this?
Details are linked below.
Photos: https://imgur.com/a/65trczZ
Video: https://imgur.com/a/IfVnES1
Google map location: 51.40070328023877, -0.2653368759639359
Obviously I am sore about this mainly because I think the box is massive. I also think the council should get better cameras (can't see reg on video but yes there is a photo with sensitivity turned to max ...) but don't tell them.
I would appreciate if someone can advise if this is worth pursuing. Many thanks in advance.