Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: almep13 on October 17, 2025, 12:29:18 am
-
Hi Incandescent,
Thank you for your comments. I am well aware of the subjective matter of which the Adjudicator may sway either way. Unfortunately, there's no other way to find out other than go all the way to London Tribunal. A risky move as I may end up paying double the price and that's why such laws and regulations are stacked up against the common person.
I am incensed of how councils like LBHF introduce such schemes mainly to raise revenue rather than having the well being of its residents as their primary objective. This is the same council who for years wouldn't even allow installation of zebra crossing 100m away from the pedestrian and cycle zone to allow the school children to pass the road safely to go to school.
Thank you for your views, I appreciate them.
Have a nice evening.
Kind regards,
Almep13
-
Like so much of English law using words like "reasonable", "adequate" etc is they are subjective and depend on the opinion of the person assessing whether something is "reasonable", or "adequate". Your 'inadequate' will be the councils 'adequate, and only an adjudicator, presented with arguments from both sides can decide one way or the other.
But carry on anyway !!
-
Hi H C Andersen,
Thank you for your comments, I appreciate your efforts. I'll draft my response and place it here for comments before I submit it to London Tribunals.
Have a nice evening,
Almpe13
-
The test for signage is 'adequacy'. It's not just one sign or set of signs, it's the adequacy of the total signage which brings a lawful restriction to a diligent motorist's attention in the proper manner.
Warning sign;
Gateway sign;
Zone end sign.
Each is deficient you would argue.
In total = your argument is that it does not meet the test of adequacy.
-
This is what an 'end of zone' sign looks like. It is not the blank backside of a gateway 'in' sign.
Items 3 and 4 in the Part 2 table: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8
If neither of these is present then the zone has been improperly signed - again- because the entry signs convey a prohibition which must be correctly terminated.
Good morning H C Andersen,
I hope you had a nice week-end.
It seems clear that LBHF hasn't complied with end zone signs. However, an old manual from 2008, Traffic Signs Manual, seems to suggest that it's "not a requirement to have the end zone" (p.94, point 11.13 as per link below). I wonder if the Adjudicator may sympathise with the fact that LBHF hasn't complied with the Schedule 8, Part 2 regarding the end zone, but still uphold the alleged contravention of entering the pedestrian and cycle zone during the restricted time period indicated in the signs.
http://www.pedestriansafety.org.uk/files/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03-2.pdf - pls see p.94, point 11.13
Nearby, two side roads along South Parade in Turnham Green, W4, part of Ealing Borough, were literally covered with black plastic bin bags a week ago and I presume either for amending the time restrictions and/or adding the end zones. Two neighboroughing boroughs having two different approaches to end zone signs for similar pedestrian and cycle zones. I attach some pictures for comparison. However, I wonder if showing these signs will sway the Adjudicator to consider the signs used by LBHF invalid or insufficient to prevent the contraventions from taking place.
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/acoPTy5_xl.jpg - The Orchard W4 - Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/yiosBJ0_xl.jpg - The Orchard W4 - Zone Ends
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/rjoagOI_xl.jpg - Newton Grove W4 - Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/F0SDBv7_xl.jpg - Newton Grove W4 - Zone Ends
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/o8FsFCR_xl.jpg - Bedford Rd W4 - Pedestrian and Cycle Zone Signs
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ayxUnCk_xl.jpg - Bedford Rd W4 - Zone Ends
I attach below copies of the TMO that LBHF provided me.
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/lZtcMc1_xl.jpg - TMO Cobbold Rd - p.1
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/bwnXlWt_xl.jpg - TMO Cobbold Rd - p.2
What's your view on potential position that the Adjudicator may take that despite LBHF having failed to provide signs relating to end zones, the contravention did occur regardless and as such rejects the appeal?
Thank you and regards,
Almep13
-
Hi Incandescent,
thank you for your view and explanation. Probably a tough case to make to persuade the Adjudicator on this point (unfairness).
Have a nice week-end.
Kind regards,
Almep13
-
My three points below would be the main arguments to present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of alleged contravention.
Good morning Incandescent,
the time limit I was referring to was the time it took LBHF to respond to my appeal i.e. I submitted my appeal on the evening of 08 July and LBHF rejected it on 08 Oct serving it to me initially via email and then through a postal letter so that they could include the appeal form to London Tribunals.
Is there such a 3 months time limit for councils to respond to motorists' appeals for moving traffic PCNs or am I misunderstanding and misinterpreting?
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
Your PCN was issued under the LLA and TfL Act 2003. There is no time limit in this Act for responding to representations against a PCN. However, 3 months is getting into unfairness territory. Adjudicators in London Tribunals usually consider a response beyond 3 months as unfair as it prejuices the appellant who may have problems remembering tehe circumstances and also evidence becomes more difficult to obtain.
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, there is a limit of 56 days to respond to formal representations.
With 3 months just barely passing on the date of response by LBHF, it's hard to judge how the Adjudicator is going to lean on such point. What's your view, does it have any small chance of success? Obviously, this is a call for me to make and risk to take of paying double the price, but I would appreciate your frank view on this.
The other point to raise is that such "unfairness" is not listed under the grounds of appeal and I wonder if it needs to be aligned to "contravention did not occur".
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
To win on the delay in their response of nearly 3 months, you would need to show some prejudice was caused to your ability to assess whether to take the matter to adjudication; can you do this ? This would be what is called a "collateral" appeal, and would come under the statutory grounds of "the penalty exceeded......in the circmstances of the case".
-
This is what an 'end of zone' sign looks like. It is not the blank backside of a gateway 'in' sign.
Items 3 and 4 in the Part 2 table: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8
If neither of these is present then the zone has been improperly signed - again- because the entry signs convey a prohibition which must be correctly terminated.
Hi H C Andersen,
here is the TMO for Cobbold Rd. LBHF were kind enough to email it to me quickly.
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/lZtcMc1_xl.jpg - TMO Cobbold Rd - p.1
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/bwnXlWt_xl.jpg - TMO Cobbold Rd - p.2
I'm starting to feel optimistic again.
Thank you to both of you including Incandescent for your time and comments, I appreciate them.
Have a nice week-end both.
Kind Regards,
Almep13
-
This is what an 'end of zone' sign looks like. It is not the blank backside of a gateway 'in' sign.
Items 3 and 4 in the Part 2 table: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/8
If neither of these is present then the zone has been improperly signed - again- because the entry signs convey a prohibition which must be correctly terminated.
-
Hi H C Andersen,
here are the links to pictures requested and thank you once again to you and other forum members for their time and views.
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/wryjtMD_xl.jpg - End zone 1 - westbound exit-jnct Cobbold Rd-Lefroy Rd-Hartswood Rd
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/WDfxstR_xl.jpg - End zone 2 - full view - eastbound exit - Cobbold Rd-Gayford Rd-Becklow Rd (CCTV on background top left)
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/P3DLC17_xl.jpg - End zone 2 - eastbound exit - Cobbold Rd-Gayford Rd-Becklow Rd
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/4PqHWFb_xl.jpg - Warning Sign 4 - Hartswood Rd northbound (
obscured by the tree same as the one on westbound Cobbold Rd that the driver was supposed to see before entering the restricted area)
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/PYT6T0b_xl.jpg - Sign 4 - eastbound - jnct Cobbold Rd-Lefroy Rd-Hartswood Rd
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/PkbOLFS_xl.jpg - Warning Sign 3 - Lefroy Rd southbound
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ER8OmFQ_xl.jpg - Restrictions signs on the left - Lefroy Rd southbound
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/N8wQuup_xl.jpg - Restrictions signs on the right - Hartswood Rd northbound
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/pk7Wils_xl.jpg - Sign 5 - Stronsa Rd southbound
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/4SdDwZf_xl.jpg - Warning Sign 2 - Cobbold Rd eastbound
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
-
It is NOT a Pedestrian Zone or any of its derivatives, it's simply a restriction on vehicles entering a length of street.
The contravention is wrong because the signs are improper as they are not underpinned by a traffic order.
And Sept-July is improper in the upper panel whose contents, mandatory and optional, are prescribed under the regs.
Where is the 'zone end' sign photo pl?
-
My three points below would be the main arguments to present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of alleged contravention.
Good morning Incandescent,
the time limit I was referring to was the time it took LBHF to respond to my appeal i.e. I submitted my appeal on the evening of 08 July and LBHF rejected it on 08 Oct serving it to me initially via email and then through a postal letter so that they could include the appeal form to London Tribunals.
Is there such a 3 months time limit for councils to respond to motorists' appeals for moving traffic PCNs or am I misunderstanding and misinterpreting?
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
Your PCN was issued under the LLA and TfL Act 2003. There is no time limit in this Act for responding to representations against a PCN. However, 3 months is getting into unfairness territory. Adjudicators in London Tribunals usually consider a response beyond 3 months as unfair as it prejuices the appellant who may have problems remembering tehe circumstances and also evidence becomes more difficult to obtain.
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, there is a limit of 56 days to respond to formal representations.
With 3 months just barely passing on the date of response by LBHF, it's hard to judge how the Adjudicator is going to lean on such point. What's your view, does it have any small chance of success? Obviously, this is a call for me to make and risk to take of paying double the price, but I would appreciate your frank view on this.
The other point to raise is that such "unfairness" is not listed under the grounds of appeal and I wonder if it needs to be aligned to "contravention did not occur".
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
-
My three points below would be the main arguments to present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of alleged contravention.
Good morning Incandescent,
the time limit I was referring to was the time it took LBHF to respond to my appeal i.e. I submitted my appeal on the evening of 08 July and LBHF rejected it on 08 Oct serving it to me initially via email and then through a postal letter so that they could include the appeal form to London Tribunals.
Is there such a 3 months time limit for councils to respond to motorists' appeals for moving traffic PCNs or am I misunderstanding and misinterpreting?
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
Your PCN was issued under the LLA and TfL Act 2003. There is no time limit in this Act for responding to representations against a PCN. However, 3 months is getting into unfairness territory. Adjudicators in London Tribunals usually consider a response beyond 3 months as unfair as it prejuices the appellant who may have problems remembering tehe circumstances and also evidence becomes more difficult to obtain.
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, there is a limit of 56 days to respond to formal representations.
-
The signs are not prescribed under the regulations. Therefore IMO unless the council could produce an authorisation from the Secretary of State to use this form then it's not a lawful sign.
One of the problems with using ones own sign, apart from the obvious, is that the scaling of lettering hasn't been considered in the overall context of the sign, something VITALLY important for moving traffic restrictions, therefore bringing into question even whether a driver could be expected to see and digest the meaning having regard to the fact that they wouldn't be expecting to see anything.
And IMO it's not a Ped and Cycle area.
Do you have access to the TMO?
Thank you H C Andersen. I don't have access to TMO and the only info I have found so far is the link below.
https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/traffic-and-roads/66b345ead6075b1a09263043
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
-
The signs are not prescribed under the regulations. Therefore IMO unless the council could produce an authorisation from the Secretary of State to use this form then it's not a lawful sign.
One of the problems with using ones own sign, apart from the obvious, is that the scaling of lettering hasn't been considered in the overall context of the sign, something VITALLY important for moving traffic restrictions, therefore bringing into question even whether a driver could be expected to see and digest the meaning having regard to the fact that they wouldn't be expecting to see anything.
And IMO it's not a Ped and Cycle area.
Do you have access to the TMO?
-
My three points below would be the main arguments to present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of alleged contravention.
Good morning Incandescent,
the time limit I was referring to was the time it took LBHF to respond to my appeal i.e. I submitted my appeal on the evening of 08 July and LBHF rejected it on 08 Oct serving it to me initially via email and then through a postal letter so that they could include the appeal form to London Tribunals.
Is there such a 3 months time limit for councils to respond to motorists' appeals for moving traffic PCNs or am I misunderstanding and misinterpreting?
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
-
Good morning H C Andersen,
Thank you for your comments and explanations, I appreciate them. The restrictions has been introduced via ANPR (apparently the trial period had traffic wardens stopping/ allowing motorists to get through such zone) to restrict the traffic flow during start and end of school day periods.
The driver was driving westbound on Cobbold Rd with Gayford Rd and Becklow Rd being on the left and right respectively before entering the restricted area (immediately after the junction of these roads). There is 20m or so from this junction to the Stronsa Rd, school's wall that it is within the restricted zone, but the Stronsa Rd to the right heading north then left to Kinnear Rd heading west and then left heading south down Lefroy Rd (basically around the school's wall perimeter bar Cobbold Rd side) is outside the restricted zone.
In the picture "Street map view - Restricted zone in Cobbold Rd W12" I have shown:
-in light blue where the restrictions signs are placed;
-in green the roads leading to the restrictions zone;
-in red the restricted part of the Cobbold Rd.
We don't tend to drive down this road at all due to the road bumpers and use a couple of roads south to pass from Askew Rd to Valetta Rd and surroundings, but the disabled driver was on its own and wasn't aware of such restrictions. We used to pass by when our kids went to school there, but this was many happy moons in the past.
Here are the pictures that I have from the time before I submitted the appeal to LBHF, who refused to take into consideration any of the justifications we gave.
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/QnWZj57_xl.jpg - Sign 1 - L-h side westbound - Cobbold Rd-Gayford Rd
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/2C0SpcE_xl.jpg - Sign 2 - R-h side westbound - Cobbold Rd-Backlow Rd
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/srr1lLO_xl.jpg - Sign 3 - L-h side north bound from Gayford Rd in jnct with Cobbold Rd
For some reason imgpile doesn't allow me to post a picture of the street map with the indications I had made.
Thank you and regards,
Almep13
-
My three points below would be the main arguments to present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
Alleged contravention date - 25th June 2025, PCN date - 7th July. The time limit to serve a PCN is 28 days from date of alleged contravention.
-
See Schedules 4, 8 and 18.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/4
IMO, there is NO legal basis for restricting the restriction to 'Sept - July'. This is known as a TIME PERIOD and as such may NOT be included in the upper panel, as here. All permissible variations are set out individually and in detail against the sign in Schedule 8.
By contrast, if you look at Schedule 4, which deals with no waiting signs, you'll see that 'time periods' are permitted as integral parts of the sign.
Schedule 18 gives details on what may be included in a 'time period' e.g. 1 Apr - 31 Oct (as found in my area where on-street waiting doesn't apply during winter months).
In short:
They've tried to introduce 'in term time only' restrictions when not permitted.
And IMO, it's not a P&C zone, it's simply 'No motor vehicles' restriction. They are not synonymous. On this point, pl get photos of the signs themselves and the 'end zone' signs.
-
Thank you Incandescent.
Please see the links below.
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/i2Fc13E_xl.jpg - PCN - p.1
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/DH7ED9Q_xl.jpg - PCN - p.2
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0v8bb7v_xl.jpg - PCN - p.3
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Oue5qNY_xl.jpg - Notice of Rejection - p.1
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tRBIyDm_xl.jpg - Notice of Rejection - p.2
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/qA1prqt_xl.jpg - Notice of Rejection - p.3
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/BjvjTEm_xl.jpg - Notice of Rejection - p.4
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tCBltAh_xl.jpg - Notice of Rejection - p.5
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Hs4ICfU_xl.jpg - London Tribunals - Appeal form p.1
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/hvXfLSG_xl.jpg - London Tribunals - Appeal form p.4 incl Verification code
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/6SObs2k_xl.jpg - Warning sign
My three points below would be the main arguments to present to London Tribunals with the correction that time limit on traffic moving PCNs is 3 months. Is such time limit valid?
Another point to make is that LBHF's wording on exemptions for entering the zone, particularly for blue badge holders, seemed ambiguous to me, but I'm probably bias on such point and probably LBHF are also bias in their interpretation of such exemptions.
Thank you in advance for your time and comments.
Kind regards, Almep13
-
You've not given us any useful information, so please read this and update your thread accordingly: -
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/
I can however tell you that your points (i) to (iii) are totally irrelevant. But all will be revealed when you have updated your thread.
-
Hello Forum members,
My appeal on entering a restricted zone in Cobbold Road near Wendell Park School was rejected by LBHF.
Some details below:
i) The driver is a Blue Badge holder and nearby resident, but not living within restricted zone.
ii) The car in question is registered with DVLA for road tax exemption and TfL for exemption on CC/ ULEZ/ Tunnel charges due to BB mentioned above and the driver genuinely believed to be exempt from such restrictions within the LBHF borough.
iii) The appeal was submitted in late evening of 8 July and received rejection initially by email on 08 October just before midday with the postal letter and appeal form arriving a day or two later. Is there a time limit restriction on Councils to respond within 60 days on Moving Traffic PCNs?
I'm late in posting this notice as I was fighting another battle on a private PCN which I won at County Court yesterday, but I would appreciate your views if it has any chance of succeeding at London Tribunals.
Thank you and regards,
Almep13