Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Captainships on November 06, 2025, 04:03:11 pm
-
Here's a blue sign case from last week.
-------
Case reference 2250219893
Appellant Shahria Islam
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EJ62SXR
PCN Details
PCN AF30846417
Contravention date 02 Apr 2025
Contravention time 14:36:00
Contravention location Sydney Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 05 Nov 2025
Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This appeal was listed for a Teams hearing. The Appellant attended and was represented by Mr Phillip Morgan. The Enforcement Authority relied on the evidence submitted in advance.
The CCTV footage shows the Appellant’s vehicle turn right into a side road and drive past upright signs on both sides of the road. These show diagrams of a motorbike and a car on a white background in a white circle edged by a red roundel. That is a recognised sign for stating no access to motorbikes and cars. The times of restriction appear on the signs. There is an exemption for permit holders.
The appeal raises several issues. The first to come to attention is the fact that there is a blue plate that has been posted under the restriction signs. This states: School Streets Restricted Access Term-time only”. That is not a prescribed sign.
It may be the intention of the Authority to let motorists know that the restriction does not apply all year round but it is unclear how the ordinary driver would know when it is term time and when it is not. Different establishments have diff term times. This sign may cause confusion. Signage is supposed to be clear and unambiguous. That is not the case here.
-
The tribunal decisions on this tend to be made on drivers acting on info to hand that only results in trivial incursion in time.
The first case below is very generous in my view but that adjudicator really doesn't like restrictions without council clocks!
---------
Case reference 2250224565
Appellant Emily Caffyn
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM EK12FAO
PCN Details
PCN LJ3241877A
Contravention date 17 Mar 2025
Contravention time 09:26:00
Contravention location Elmcourt Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons 1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle, being of a class prohibited, was driven at a location at a time when restricted for use by pedestrians and vehicles of an excepted class only.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances and challenge as stated in the written representations..
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to an operative restriction is obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, governing Traffic Management Order provisions, together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from images showing the said vehicle passing signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority adduce further images of the signage at the location.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The restriction at the location is intermittent; the morning period of operation is from 8.15 until 9.30 a.m.
The point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice is 9.26 a.m.
The contemporaneous capture shows, by virtue of the clock counter integral to the camera, that the said vehicle passes the signage at 09:26:27.
The Appellant contends that such time may not have 'matched with her car's clock. '
5. Since the signage does not display an integral clock, motorists are obliged to accept the reliability of their own time-informing methods.
Unless signage is accompanied by a clock evidencing the time upon which the Enforcement Authority rely, variations will occur.
Indeed no evidence is adduced to establish the accuracy of the clock integral to the camera.
Evidentially I cannot be satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I Allow this Appeal.
-------
Case reference 2240414258
Appellant Jane Caro
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM NL55LVT
PCN Details
PCN BT22290647
Contravention date 10 Jun 2024
Contravention time 14:31:00
Contravention location Kempe Road J/W Chamberlayne Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons The Appellant's representative, Mr S. Caro, attended a Personal Appeal Hearing before me today, 17th October 2024, to explain the contention personally.
Mr Caro also attended in the capacity of witness as to fact since he was the driver at the relevant time.
1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle, being of a class prohibited, was driven at a location at a time when restricted for use by pedestrians and vehicles of excepted classes only.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances/challenge as stated in the written representations, which Mr Caro reiterated and comprehensively detailed at the Hearing.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to an operative restriction is obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from showing the said vehicle passing the applicable signs notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority also adduce a map/plan and images of the signage both at the location and those signs positioned in advance in the vicinity.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the representations advanced by Mr Caro.
Mr Caro indicated his familiarity with the locale and the operative periods of the traffic regimes, and the regularity with which he travelled the route; Mr Caro expressed his vehemence at ensuring he only did so before/after the restricted hours.
Mr Caro contends that he had specifically addressed the time before proceeding and the time piece consulted by the Appellant verified to him that the permissible period had not yet been reached; since Mr Caro was aware of the particular time-piece running fast he was most certain that he was travelling at the location well before the restriction commenced.
5. The pertinent restricted period is stated on the signage as commencing at 2. 30 p.m.
The point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice is 2.31 p.m.
The Enforcement Authority states in its Case Summary (which is not, of itself, evidence) that 'the time recorded....is the correct time,' and that the clock within that camera device is set 'by the Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).'
No evidence is forthcoming with regard to the method of calibration of the same, or to substantiate its accuracy.
Moreover, the calibration of a camera-clock may be subject to variance during its period of use.
Unless signage incorporates or is accompanied by a clock evidencing the time upon which the Enforcement Authority rely at the point of passing, variations will occur.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.
---------
Case reference 2240408302
Appellant Sarfraz Hassanjee
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM OY68LYC
PCN Details
PCN PN74994586
Contravention date 10 Apr 2024
Contravention time 18:59:00
Contravention location Barking Road / Wellington Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Being in a bus lane
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons The issue in this case is effectively what the time was when the Appellant entered the bus lane. Was it immediately after 7.00 as indicated by the Appellant’s mobile phone and vehicle clock; or was it 18.59.24 as shown on the CCTV footage? The answer to this question naturally depends on the accuracy of the timepieces in question. Times shown on mobile phones are usually accurate. The Council, surprisingly, has provided no evidence as to the accuracy of its recording equipment and how it is maintained and checked for accuracy. In a case where the difference is only a matter of seconds I am unable to be satisfied that the vehicle entered the bus lane during its operational hours and the Appeal is therefore allowed.
---------
Case reference 2250161578
Appellant Julian Banres
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM PJ74 KDZ
PCN Details
PCN CU69981035
Contravention date 12 Feb 2025
Contravention time 14:03:00
Contravention location Holmes Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jul 2025
Adjudicator Belinda Pearce
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons 1. The Enforcement Authority assert that the said vehicle, being of a class prohibited, was driven at a location at a time when restricted against use by vehicles of such classes.
2. The Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of the prevailing circumstances/challenge as stated in his written representations.
3. The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven/parked contrary to an operative restriction is obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion:-
The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises copy Penalty Charge Notice, governing Traffic Management Order provisions together with contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from showing the said vehicle passing the applicable signage notifying motorists of the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority adduce a further image of the signs at the location and an image of signage positioned in advance in the vicinity.
4. The evidence adduced by the Enforcement Authority was examined to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations.
The point of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice is 2.03 p.m.
The driver contends that he had specifically addressed the time before proceeding along the designated route. The time piece/s consulted by the driver in the said vehicle verified to him that the restricted period had not yet been reached.
The Enforcement Authority refers in its Case Summary to the approved device certification and camera approval including the camera's internal time-clock.
Since the signage does not display an integral clock, motorists are obliged to accept the reliability of other time-informing methods.
Unless signage is accompanied by a clock evidencing the time upon which the Enforcement Authority rely, variations will occur.
I find the variance in the present instance to be de minimis.
Evidentially I am not satisfied that the contravention occurred, accordingly I Allow this Appeal.
-
OK will remove that para and submit. Thank you all!
-
There is a good reason to keep the more technical points for appeal. The council will not accept any of your points.They will say their cameras are calibrated to the atomic clock and so are accurate. They will also completely dismiss De minimis and discretion is not something they know the meaning of. Knowing they will dismiss you do not give them an open goal by saying Yes I was in breach but only a bit so let me off, Let them give the reasons they will help at tribunal
Leave out the second paragraph of point 1
-
There is a good reason to keep the more technical points for appeal. The council will not accept any of your points.They will say their cameras are calibrated to the atomic clock and so are accurate. They will also completely dismiss De minimis and discretion is not something they know the meaning of. Knowing they will dismiss you do not give them an open goal by saying Yes I was in breach but only a bit so let me off, Let them give the reasons they will help at tribunal
-
Pastbybest is saying just say something like:
I checked my car clock and it said 7:59 (or before 8am) so was reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.
OK have amended. See below. Should I also remove the second para under no. 1? Or is it all now good to go? Many thanks.
I am writing to challenge this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Trivial Timing – De Minimis Breach
I checked my car clock and it was not yet 8am, so was reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.
I do not have independent confirmation of the accuracy of the council’s recording device time. If the council’s timing is accurate, any contravention was entirely unintentional and occurred in a very brief period (53 seconds) immediately after the restriction began.
2. Unclear “Term Time Only” Signage
Although I believed I had entered the road before the restricted time shown on the sign, I was not certain if the restriction was in force due to the accompanying sign that said "restricted access term-time only". The sign does not specify any term dates or provide a means of knowing when those terms begin and end.
Adjudicators have previously criticised such signage as ambiguous and unfair, since motorists cannot be expected to know school term dates, which vary between boroughs and regions.
Without clear dates displayed or referenced, the signage fails to convey the restriction adequately, and any enforcement based on it is therefore unreasonable.
For these reasons, I ask the PCN to be cancelled.
Best wishes,
-
To whom is the PCN addressed, you by name?
You refer to 'driver' in the third person. The procedure has nothing to do with the driver, it's the registered keeper whose details appear as addressee who must respond.
To avoid stumbling at this procedural hurdle, pl tell us who's who here?
Yes it is the registered keeper who drove and will be submitting the rep.
-
Pastbybest is saying just say something like:
I checked my car clock and it said 7:59 (or before 8am) so was reassured I was able to proceed before the restriction started.
-
To whom is the PCN addressed, you by name?
You refer to 'driver' in the third person. The procedure has nothing to do with the driver, it's the registered keeper whose details appear as addressee who must respond.
To avoid stumbling at this procedural hurdle, pl tell us who's who here?
-
OK, as per advice, I have removed point no. 3 and have amended point no. 1:
I am writing to challenge this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Trivial Timing – De Minimis Breach
According to the still images accompanying the PCN, the vehicle entered the zone at 08:00:53, only 53 seconds after the restriction came into effect at 8:00 am.
I do not have independent confirmation of the accuracy of the council’s recording device time. If the council’s timing is accurate, any contravention was entirely unintentional and occurred in a very brief period immediately after the restriction began.
Such a minimal difference clearly falls within a reasonable margin of timing variation between clocks and recording systems. Entering the zone less than a minute after the restriction began did not endanger pedestrians nor undermine the purpose of the restriction. This is plainly a de minimis case — one so minor that enforcement would be disproportionate and contrary to the spirit of fair regulation.
2. Unclear “Term Time Only” Signage
Although I believed I had entered the road before the restricted time shown on the sign, I was not certain if the restriction was in force due to the accompanying sign that said "restricted access term-time only". The sign does not specify any term dates or provide a means of knowing when those terms begin and end.
Adjudicators have previously criticised such signage as ambiguous and unfair, since motorists cannot be expected to know school term dates, which vary between boroughs and regions.
Without clear dates displayed or referenced, the signage fails to convey the restriction adequately, and any enforcement based on it is therefore unreasonable.
For these reasons, I ask the PCN to be cancelled.
Best wishes
-
I would take out all that point 3 discretion - it's unnecessary.
Our member Hippo is hot on the signage so see if he chips in.
+1
-
Is there a reason why it's better to make these arguments at tribunal rather than now? Wouldn't it better to get all the points at this stage so that there's a better chance to get it all cancelled and not go tribunal.
-
Scrap point 1 You should not admit to anything
You should go with something along the lines of your clock showing 7.59 so no contravention save the technical bit for tribunal where we can give you winning arguments re timing and the sign
-
I would take out all that point 3 discretion - it's unnecessary.
Our member Hippo is hot on the signage so see if he chips in.
-
Does this challenge work:
I am writing to challenge this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Trivial Timing – De Minimis Breach
According to the still images accompanying the PCN, the vehicle entered the zone at 08:00:53, only 53 seconds after the restriction came into effect at 8:00 am. However, the time on my car was not showing 8:00 and I had entered the road thinking that any potential restriction had not yet started.
I do not have independent confirmation of the accuracy of the council’s recording device time. If the council’s timing is accurate, any contravention was entirely unintentional and occurred in a very brief period immediately after the restriction began.
Such a minimal difference clearly falls within a reasonable margin of timing variation between clocks and recording systems. Entering the zone less than a minute after the restriction began did not endanger pedestrians nor undermine the purpose of the restriction. This is plainly a de minimis case — one so minor that enforcement would be disproportionate and contrary to the spirit of fair regulation.
2. Unclear “Term Time Only” Signage
Although I believed I had entered the road before the restricted time shown on the sign, I was not certain if the restriction was in force due to the accompanying sign that said "restricted access term-time only". The sign does not specify any term dates or provide a means of knowing when those terms begin and end.
Adjudicators have previously criticised such signage as ambiguous and unfair, since motorists cannot be expected to know school term dates, which vary between boroughs and regions.
Without clear dates displayed or referenced, the signage fails to convey the restriction adequately, and any enforcement based on it is therefore unreasonable.
3. Request for Discretion
Even if a contravention is technically made out, I respectfully ask the council to exercise discretion and cancel the PCN, taking into account that:
a) The entry occurred less than one minute after the restriction took effect; and
b) The signage was ambiguous in its “term time only” wording.
c) If the clock on the video recording device is accurate, then this was an honest and very minor mistake, not a deliberate attempt to contravene the restriction. The enforcement of such a trivial breach would be disproportionate and contrary to the public interest.
In summary:
The entry occurred only 53 seconds after the restriction start time;
The signage was unclear regarding “term time only”; and
The council should apply discretion and cancel the PCN on grounds of fairness and proportionality.
I look forward to your confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.
Best wishes
-
Could anyone help with the wording of the challenge?
-
Two things.
The closeness in time within a minute can win on its own at the tribunal.
Looks like they have the term time signs with no dates, which have also been rubbished at the tribunal.
(https://i.ibb.co/ym2Bcg5m/TFhu-Y0x-TRHFOUG5-Ve-HBtb-UUz-Ny9-KSGswd1-J6-ZVQ3e-URFSXZvbl-R6-SXNo-WDFYRTh6-OXp-VZj-NWZ2-Qr-Zkd-CO.gif)
-
Dear all,
Driver was on their way to work and thought they had entered the road before the 8am restriction. Their recollection is that the time on the car was 7:59.
The time stamps on the council images show the car entering 53 seconds after the 8am restriction.
Can this be appealed?
Here is the image of the Pcn: https://freeimage.host/i/Kt1MrT7
And here is a close up image from Google maps of the signage at the entrance of Rutland Road (the portion of the road which has the restriction): https://freeimage.host/i/Kt1hrSj