Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: moola123 on August 08, 2025, 10:38:07 am
-
The PCN was cancelled. I wish to recognise and thank Hippocrate - most definitely a ''hero Member'' - for his invaluable knowledge and support. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji120.png)
-
My pleasure.
-
I make this formal representation:
Signage
1.The video does not support the alleged contravention as it is impossible to read what is contained on the signs, in particular the one on the left.
2. This was missed due to its excessive height. Both the TSRGD and TSM Chapter Three are specific with the required height of signs and I therefore put you to strict proof that these are compliant with these sources.
The PCN
I make this collateral challenge against its validity:
The PCN is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £140 may be payable." adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods by the use of the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
WOW! I am so grateful. I will submit and come back here to let you know the outcome. Thank you VERY much!
-
I make this formal representation:
Signage
1.The video does not support the alleged contravention as it is impossible to read what is contained on the signs, in particular the one on the left.
2. This was missed due to its excessive height. Both the TSRGD and TSM Chapter Three are specific with the required height of signs and I therefore put you to strict proof that these are compliant with these sources.
The PCN
I make this collateral challenge against its validity:
The PCN is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £140 may be payable." adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods by the use of the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
-
I'll do a draft tomorrow. It will be substantial.
Thank you!! :)
-
I'll do a draft tomorrow. It will be substantial.
-
Are you able to go there and measure it though?
possibly, yes. However, it's very clear that it's above 1500mm - not sure where the burden of proof resides, with them or with me? Most poignant is the the argument that the signs aren't visible in the videos that alleges an offence
-
Are you able to go there and measure it though?
-
The traffic signs are outrageously high. Are there no limits on this, other than the 'adequacy' duty in Regulation 18, LATOR ?
TSRGD and/or TSM Chapter Three?
Good point! TSM Chapter 3 states ''1.9 Mounting of upright signs 1.9.1. The normal mounting height measured to the lower edge of a sign or backing board (or any supplementary plate) is between 900 mm and 1500 mm above the adjacent carriageway.''
-
The traffic signs are outrageously high. Are there no limits on this, other than the 'adequacy' duty in Regulation 18, LATOR ?
TSRGD and/or TSM Chapter Three?
-
The traffic signs are outrageously high. Are there no limits on this, other than the 'adequacy' duty in Regulation 18, LATOR ?
-
I make this formal representation:
The video does not support the alleged contravention as it is impossible to read what is contained on the signs, in particular the one on the left. Please cancel.
-
Hello,
I drove through a width restriction — the far left lane in the image below — which, it turns out, is not for cars or motorbikes. I did not see the sign 12ft up a pole and behind a tree!
It’s also worth mentioning that this road layout is relatively new (within the last 1–2 years). I also note that the ''in (place)'' section of the attached PCN appears incoherent/has many spelling mistakes.
Could I please get some advice on whether I should realistically challenge this, and on what grounds? I’m a bit lost as to whether I actually have a winnable case, even though I feel I do.
Thank you in advance.
[attachimg=1][attachimg=2]