Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: TheParkingmeister on November 13, 2025, 03:09:12 pm
-
Well done and also for seeing it through to the TPT
Thanks! I am now using this decision to get a refund for a previous PCN from back in May at the same location and same situation 8)
-
Well done and also for seeing it through to the TPT
-
The Traffic Penalty Tribunal accepted the appeal.
Decision:
There is nothing to pay and the authority will cancel the penalty charge
This is because the alleged bus lane contravention did not occur.
Adjudicator's reasons:
1. Mr [Redacted], on behalf of [Redacted] Ltd, appeals a Penalty Charge Notice (“PCN”) issued for driving in the Corporation Street bus gate in Lancaster on 29/10/2025 at 17:37.
2. The vehicle in question is a 16m long, 44 tonne articulated lorry. The driver had been diverted from the M6 where traffic was at a standstill.
3. I have read Mr [Redacted] detailed submissions and the Council’s response. The Council have not responded to the Traffic Regulation Order exemption point raised by Mr [Redacted] and have not said that the vehicle would have passed other advance warning signage over and above the sign referred to by Mr [Redacted].
4. I am satisfied that:
a. The vehicle was lawfully using Corporation Street prior to its entry into the bus gate. There are no weight or height restrictions on that section of highway.
b. The vehicle’s use of Corporation was unusual and unexpected. The driver could not have been expected to have pre-planned this route into Corporation Street.
c. The only bus gate advance warning sign the vehicle passed before entering the bus gate was a sign approximately 20m before the entry point advising vehicles to take a sharp left turn to avoid the bus gate into Marsh Lane.
d. Marsh Lane is narrow and there is a central island just before its entrance. The lorry would not have been able to access Marsh Lane without mounting the central island and possibly damaging adjacent buildings.
e. There was no alternative for the lorry other than to continue into the bus gate. If it had not done so I agree that an accident was likely to have occurred.
5. In light of the above findings, Article 8(a) of the Traffic Regulation Order applies, namely;
"8. Exemptions
Nothing in Article 6 of this Order shall render it unlawful to cause or permit any Vehicle to travel along any part of the lengths of road referred to therein for so long as may be necessary to enable:
a) the Vehicle to avoid an accident;"
6. Therefore, I allow the appeal.
-
If someone could give my Traffic Penalty Tribunal draft a quick read that would be much appreciated, gone over it myself many times now, just want to know that there is no big mistakes, that it reads okay, and that there isn't anything I'm missing and should include. Many thanks!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cyptoX4UqRB2D6YkD1TeU1f3fCUWnIo1/view?usp=drivesdk
-
I take it you are the co sec as the PCN is addressed to them and only they can deal with it or they could give you written permission
Something like that. Not actually even sure what my job title is anymore tbh, but I haven't had an issue doing London Tribunal appeals for the company so I take it this won't be much different.
-
I take it you are the co sec as the PCN is addressed to them and only they can deal with it or they could give you written permission
-
My view is that it would be worth risking the additional amount (£35), because the council are bluffing their way. They say you should have planned your route to avoid the area, but unless they put a weight restriction in place, such planning is impossible. The plain fact of the matter is that they have failed to consider access for HGVs.
My thoughts exactly.
This is the appeal draft I have written:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZPplw06R8Ll_6myyw3zXXa65glidjXMF/view?usp=drivesdk
Is there anything I should add or change do you think?
I have sent it to the driver as it is ultimately upto them to decide. They can pay the £35 or take the risk of appealing it to TPT and paying £70 if it is rejected and £0 if it is successful. I told him what I would do, that I would appeal it to TPT. And I am half tempted to say i'll risk the other £35 personally, if he decides not to, even though I wasn't the drievr. Just because I have faith it would be accepted and I'm a risk taker lol. I don't like the idea of the driver paying £35 out of fear of it becoming £70. I'd rather no one pay anything when there is a clear signage/road layout issue that was not the drivers fault. Plus I'd rather get a decision against the council so I can back up a complaint and get them to fix the signage. Which helps me in future as this is the second PCN at this spot, and probably won't be the last if I don't do anything about it.
-
My view is that it would be worth risking the additional amount (£35), because the council are bluffing their way. They say you should have planned your route to avoid the area, but unless they put a weight restriction in place, such planning is impossible. The plain fact of the matter is that they have failed to consider access for HGVs.
-
Any have any advice? Is it worth appealing to Traffic Penalty Tribunals?
-
A PCN from Lancashire County Council for a contravention 34J - Being in a bus lane on Corporation Street
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wPdXMDA4zHgGoQ4u9?g_st=ac
The only advance signage of the bus gate ahead is the sign you can see on Google Maps Street View. The sign is just past the Edward Street junction. It indicates no right turn ahead, a bus gate straight ahead and all other traffic to the next left. However, a 44 tonne articulated lorry cannot make that left turn, despite it being lawful to drive an artic on Corporation Street
The PCN:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XTyKJYTbMe0YgGW-Hg5p2Qz7Rhre0Uwl/view?usp=drivesdk
My appeal:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-50vMV59Ys_stDyn-PaKokTr6jU82ket/view?usp=drivesdk
Council response:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RqEU7fUs67oIftCCYH_WGb5ICO7cJnsD/view?usp=drivesdk
But they’ve not properly engaged with the key argument: that the restriction was impossible to comply with once the vehicle reached that point due to physical layout and the unsuitability of the diversion for large articulated vehicles. They explicitly acknowledges that due to the size of the vehicle it was not possible to use an alternative road after passing the advanced signage.