Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: l_maktari on November 25, 2025, 04:45:02 pm
-
Thanks.
-
Would there be a duty solicitor available on the day?
No. The Duty Solicitor is available only to defendants appearing for the first time to face a charge for an offence which can carry custodial sentence.
-
Good question though re SACS. Has the OP sought legal advice other than on here? Would there be a duty solicitor available on the day? Just trying to be positive.
-
I still don't understand why they didn't offer me a speed awareness course, at least for one of the penalties.
Not much help now, but did you try asking them why you weren't offered an SAC? Wouldn't have been guaranteed to make any difference, but would have stood a far better chance than telling us that you don't understand why.
-
If this is rejected, could I get even bigger fines than the original £100 per alleged contravention?
You would be sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines - almost certainly more than £100, particularly when you add on court costs and the victim surcharges.
-
do statutory penalties include additional punitive penalties for those challenging them at court? I still don't understand why they didn't offer me a speed awareness course, at least for one of the penalties.
-
Having been in similar situations in my speeding days on motorcycles - big ones - I would say I need my licence for work purposes as a starter. But the court is bound by statutory penalties of course.
-
I certainly don't have the means or knowledge to do this at the high court. So the only course of action will be to plead for clemency. If this is rejected, could I get even bigger fines than the original £100 per alleged contravention?
-
To challenge what is ostensibly a lawful Order, based on procedural impropriety, Wednesbury unreasonableness, etc., you would need to seek a Judicial Review in the High Court. The magistrates lack the supervisory jurisdiction to quash the Order, or disregard it (other than on the grounds of it having been revoked or never enacted).
-
Yes, indeed. That all makes perfect sense. I am not sure if you are able to access google drive files but this is the link that I provided earlier to the full traffic order on the RBK website.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VH0h-JkSu_5okGFuF0hcgwco-eFnkXIO/view?usp=drive_link
The traffic order is a big document but there are only a few bits of relevance - the wording of the restrictions and the maps which show the locations of the changes implemented in this order. The maps on kingston vale are on pages 55 and 56. From where it comes off the A3, the maps show that the 20mph has been added until where it meets Kingston hill when it is unmarked on the map (meaning it hasn't changed and remains 30mph), creating a very random gap on Kingston hill which is 30mph. Then the Traffic Order states that the speed limit becomes 20mph again around Coombe Ridings where there is a 20mph terminal sign which I have disputed as being not well located as it is behind a bus stop which is frequently used. As you have pointed out, this is likely to be a slim line of defence.
The map is found on page 66 of the Traffic Order and the rest of the hill is shown on page 72 of the document.
From the bottom of Kingston Vale until the camera by Eastcott Close/ Warren Road, the signage is an absolute mess. If you travel from the bottom of Kingston Vale, we enter a new 20mph speed limit with no signs to indicate this, neither as terminal signs nor any roundels. If you enter Kingston Vale from a side street (Robin Hood Lane or Derwent Avenue), there are new terminal signs indicating that the speed limit is 30mph, when it should indicate 20mph. When Kingston Vale becomes Kingston Hill, there is no new terminal sign saying that there is now a 30mph limit. At the top of the hill, where there are the cameras, there is the first correct terminal sign albeit, arguably, it is not well positioned.
Can the Traffic Order not be challenged on the grounds that the implementation of the new order is deficient? The traffic authority responsible for both signage and the traffic order itself is RBK.
-
I think you need to concentrate on your particular problem and not concern yourself with the other locations you mention.
So it seems that the TMO that PC Wilson relies on in his evidence was revoked. If you defended the charge on that basis you would not be permitted to “ambush” the prosecution with that defence. They would be given the opportunity to amend their evidence.
That means you will need to establish what TMO they do rely on to bring the charge. It seems that this would be the Order which we have not seen, but about which we only have information from the media portal.
If that Order does mean that the 20 limit begins 150 metres beyond (i.e. the London side) of Kingston Hill’s junction with Warren Road, it would seem to fit the signage.
Coming from the A3, the first “30” terminal side is near the shops in Kingston Vale. After that, there is nothing until the “20” terminal sign just after the “Galsworthy House” bus stop. Then there are “20” repeaters with camera signs, one either side of Eastcott Close with the second mounted on the same post as the camera which presumably was the one which caught you.
I do not believe a defence of insufficient signage would succeed. The terminal sign is perfectly clear (at least it is on GSV, dated June 25) as are the repeater/camera signs.
This leaves you to decide whether or not to challenge the charge on the basis of a deficient Traffic Order. We haven’t seen it so cannot be absolutely sure what it says. It seems perfectly clear to me what the signage conveys. It’s just a question of whether the limit is lawful.
-
I would like to promise no more links, but I can't.
I can...
-
Good morning. So it looks like the TMO quoted in the met police defence was revoked on 10th October 2024 when it published their kingston upon thames (moving traffic restrictions) order 2024 no. 15.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VH0h-JkSu_5okGFuF0hcgwco-eFnkXIO/view?usp=drive_link
However, my biggest issue is with the signs around kingston vale and kingston hill. Following, whilst not agreeing with, their plans to impose 20mph around these two roads, why did they actively put new 30MPH terminal signs on the entry points into Kingston Vale at Derwent Avenue and Robin Hood Lane? This was not there last year, why is it there now? And why have they put the wrong speed limit on as this is confusing? https://maps.app.goo.gl/YUnzEoQmYLsuAPPg7
-
Here's yet another link. - to the proposed siting of cameras, signs etc... (For completeness sake, to add to my collection of links).
https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/documents/s105991/Annex%201%20-%20PLAN%2020mph%20Kingston%20Hill.pdf. I would like to promise no more links, but I can't.
-
And here (https://www.cambridgechocolates.co.uk/chocolate-teapot-47-p.asp) is a link to a chocolate teapot.
My brain feels like it's turning into one.
-
And here (https://www.cambridgechocolates.co.uk/chocolate-teapot-47-p.asp) is a link to a chocolate teapot.
-
Here is the link to the RBK Moving Traffic Restrictions Order 2024 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VH0h-JkSu_5okGFuF0hcgwco-eFnkXIO/view?usp=drive_link. I've asked a friend to find the specific TMO this afternoon.
It is a very big document with all new traffic restrictions from August 2024 where everything is deeply embedded in various layers - probably in the hope that no one can find what they are looking for. However, I have found gross inaccuracies regarding Kingston Vale which is my neck of the woods.
They put a link on their website to this app which has maps of all the streets and they have indicated in red line that Kingston Vale is 20mph on that map. However, There are clearly positioned terminal signs of 30mph as you go out of the Kingston Vale estate streets onto the main Kingston Vale road. I don't know what the heck they are playing at. Is it 20mph or 30mph? Why have they recently put new 30mph signs at the junctions of Kingston Vale with Derwent Avenue and Robin Hood Lane as you exit those two roads if the speed limit is 20mph? I am seriously confused. https://streets.appyway.com/kingston-upon-thames
-
Here is a link to the planned siting of signs etc... of the TMO which was approved in 2024.
https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/documents/s105991/Annex%201%20-%20PLAN%2020mph%20Kingston%20Hill.pdf
-
Have you actually seen the TMO itself?
What you have linked to (and what I found as well) is not the TMO. It is a publication on a media portal provided for public notices.
You need to look at the TMO itself. The notice provides a link to view it but it doesn't work. I suggest you contact Kingston Council via one of the other methods shown in section 3 of the notice.
As you realise (and as I pointed out earlier) 150 metres east of Kingston Hill's junction with Warren Road is not on the highway at all and it is impossible from that description to determine where the limit actually begins. You need to know where it does so as to compare it with where the terminal "20" sign is located and where the camera that detected you is.
At its junction with Warren Road, Kingston Hill runs at a heading of almost precisely North-North-East (+/- a degree or two). I'm wondering if he actual TMO says "North East" (which would probably suffice) rather than East.
You also need to find out what happened about Kingston Hill in the earlier "blanket" TMO. What PC Wilson has provided seems to suggest it remained in the Schedule when the order was made (which, if it was, raises the question of why the second TMO was necessary).
-
There are 2 TMOs I believe. The first one, from November 2023 which the Met Police rely on in their prosecution, includes the whole of Kingston Hill. That TMO applies to 181 roads cited under that TMO, including Kingston Hill. If that TMO were the one in force, the signage is non-existent from the start of the road which is where Kingston Vale ends, just by Cedar Close. Here is the google maps reference: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1uNKNf8kcppdxbd78
For that reason, I believe it does not comply with the law which stipulates that new speed limits have to have new terminal signs right from the start of the new speed limit. There is no terminal sign for over 0.5 miles from the start of Kingston Hill to where the terminal sign is actually positioned.
However, that TMO was hotly contested and not initially approved by the neighbourhood committee because it was deemed to be badly positioned with serious potential impact on traffic flow coming straight off the A3. Eventually, the committee gave in under assurances that it would be well marked, the roads would have stamped 20mph roundels etc... as I have already stated earlier. It eventually got approved in August 2024 which is when the second TMO P336 was published. https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/traffic-and-roads/66c86597dfa4ae951ceaff5c
That is the second TMO. However, now I have looked at it, the position of the speed cameras is before the start of the new 20mph zone which, as the TMO states, is 150 meters east of the junction between Kingston Hill and Warren Road. This position is somewhere at the back of the gardens of Eastcott Close and Coombe Ridings, and not on Kingston Hill. In which case, has this TMO been correctly thought through and implemented?
-
If Mr Plod makes a statement, what has a TMO or certificates got to do with it anyway?
Because - in this case anyway - there is a possibility that the TMO, which Mr Plod relies on to show that the offence was committed, might be deficient.
-
What's your point? I just posted I would take a look.
Because, judging from your signature, I thought that was your field of expertise.
Did you take a look?
Nope. If Mr Plod makes a statement, what has a TMO or certificates got to do with it anyway? Speeding stuff is not my expertise. Signage is possibly.
-
I don’t think you will get very far with an argument about inadequate signage. As well as that, you really need to concentrate on a single aspect of your defence rather than have a “shopping basket” of deficiencies that you will be asking the court to consider.
I think you need to investigate the history behind the two Traffic Orders.
The one cited by PC Wilson in his evidence pack (The Kingston upon Thames (20 mph Speed Limit) (No. 5) Traffic Order 2023) seems to include Kingston Hill in its entirety.
However, the one I found (The Kingston upon Thames (20mph Speed Limit) No. 1) Traffic Order 2024) mentions a specific section of that road, namely “Kingston Hill between its junction with Queens Road and a point 150 metres east of its junction with Warren Road”.
It seems from “tittle tattle” that Kingston Hill was omitted from the earlier Order. According to the tittle tattle, there was debate surrounding where a 20mph limit should commence (in the direction towards Kingston town centre) and so Kingston Hill was left out of the otherwise almost blanket 20mph imposition whilst a study could be undertaken. My suspicion that Kingston Hill was left out of the earlier order may well be true because otherwise there would be no point in making the later, more specific order.
I think you should contact Kingston Council (020 8547 5000 between 9am and 5pm Mondays to Fridays, according to their website) to gain sight of both these orders.
If the earlier order excludes Kingston Hill then the evidence provided by PC Wilson does not support the charge but I would imagine that error could be rectified in court.
If so, that leaves the question of where the limit actually begins and how that ties in with the placement of the terminal signs. The difficulty with that, as I mentioned earlier, is that the point that is 150 metres east of Kingston Hill’s junction with Warren Road is not on Kingston Hill at all, but probably somewhere in the gardens towards the end of nearby Eastcotte Close.
-
Lots of irrelevant noise about optional signage, not so much noise about the TRO the police are relying on apparently being outdated (revoked).
Yes, no one has said if this could be an argument in my defence. I am really worried about the 9 points as I am also the main insured driver on our community fridge van. Going from a clean license to 9 points will push us into a different scale of insurance premiums.
-
Lots of irrelevant noise about optional signage, not so much noise about the TRO the police are relying on apparently being outdated (revoked).
-
I can see how a bus present at the stop might obstruct your view of the signs on approach to an extent, but once past the stop you've still got a decent opportunity to see them (https://maps.app.goo.gl/y9N3xcjhfiF8aucQ8 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/y9N3xcjhfiF8aucQ8)). I think it might be an uphill battle to convince a court that one could "hardly see it". There is also a 'reminder' sign just before the speed camera (https://maps.app.goo.gl/xXuH4w2njBWVkZ7w9 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/xXuH4w2njBWVkZ7w9)).
-
So because the council didn’t do something they’re not required to do by law, the police can’t enforce the criminal law? It’s not the best argument ever, is it?
-
This is a link to Google maps street view of the bus stop with the sign positioned behind it
https://maps.app.goo.gl/eynt8qrqThshdRM4A
and a little bit further along when you can still hardly see it. https://maps.app.goo.gl/JZHWxzkK8896uU6P7
Here is the position of the camera. https://maps.app.goo.gl/wzvBiCTTppe3LoeW7
If you look at the road there are no roundels, contrary to their statement that they would ensure there was adequate signage including printed 20mph roundels. "The Committee also commented on how prominent the signage would be when the speed decreased to 20mph. It was noted that there would be a 20mph roundel in the road and the need for the sign to be prominent was understood. " This is taken from the committee meeting and the minutes are linked to in the previous post.
-
The evidence provided by the prosecution (Met Police) is the older TMO issued on November 2023. This talks of the whole of kingston hill, not just the part at the top.
The other main points are that the terminal sign of the new speed limit is positioned behind a large obstruction of the driver's line of vision ( a bus stop shelter and bus stop sign). They should have positioned it where its visibility is not obscured.
They did not stamp the roundels on the road tarmac from the start of the change of speed. Whilst this is not a legal requirement, it was a minuted undertaking by the council that they would do this before the cameras were switched on. To date, they have still not done this. The minutes of the committee meeting when the speed limit change was finally approved for kingston hill are : The minutes are held on public record and are available here: https://moderngov.kingston.gov.uk/documents/g10011/Printed%20minutes%20Thursday%2011-Jul-2024%2019.30%20Kingston%20and%20North%20Kingston%20Neighbourhood%20Committee.pdf?T=1
-
What's your point? I just posted I would take a look.
Because, judging from your signature, I thought that was your field of expertise.
Did you take a look?
-
This is a bit different to a moving traffic PCN, Hippo.
The OP has dates with the Magistrates after Christmas where he will attempt to defend three criminal charges.
What's your point? I just posted I would take a look.
-
Is there anyone I can talk to about the problem we have on Kingston Hill? The speed cameras just before Warren Road are poorly located - behind a bus stop instead of infront of it where drivers could have a good chance of seeing it.
There is no requirement for a camera to be conspicuous, or for any warning signs.
Is that true? I though they needed to be clear and visible. "8.10.6. Speed enforcement should be highly visible, with drivers made fully aware of the
presence of cameras and of the prevailing speed limit. The camera and speed limit signs should
always be clearly visible to drivers, and not obscured by other street furniture or vegetation." (quote from the Traffic Signs Manual)
But the TSM is not law, simply guidance.
-
I might be getting the wrong end of the stick here, but is the camera located within the area the 20mph limit is, as defined by the TRO or outside of it? And did you pass the 20mph signs, albeit 150 yards sooner than the TRO states you should have done.
-
This is a bit different to a moving traffic PCN, Hippo.
The OP has dates with the Magistrates after Christmas where he will attempt to defend three criminal charges.
-
I may well take a look tomorrow. One of my drive in London days. ;D Though I am saving money for a trip to The Lake District in March - apparently. A kind of summit.
-
I think, reading some local press reports and Facebook posts (not good, I know, but all I can find) that Kingston Hill was eventually left out of the "blanket" 2023 imposition of 20mph limits. Hence the later order.
I think it's just a question of where, exactly on Kingston Hill that order specified the 20mph limit to begin. I cannot tell from GSV and your photos whether the sign is located "150 metres east of its junction with Warren Road" or not - particularly as that spot appears to be in somebody's back garden.
-
Well, Brian's mum said that he's a very naughty boy. Both statements carry similar weight.
-
Is there anyone I can talk to about the problem we have on Kingston Hill? The speed cameras just before Warren Road are poorly located - behind a bus stop instead of infront of it where drivers could have a good chance of seeing it.
There is no requirement for a camera to be conspicuous, or for any warning signs.
Is that true? I though they needed to be clear and visible. "8.10.6. Speed enforcement should be highly visible, with drivers made fully aware of the
presence of cameras and of the prevailing speed limit. The camera and speed limit signs should
always be clearly visible to drivers, and not obscured by other street furniture or vegetation." (quote from the Traffic Signs Manual)
-
I am new to this forum - is there a way to attach a picture or a file?
We didn’t want to make it too obvious, so we buried it in a thread called “Posting Images” in the Announcements section.
-
I received an email from the met police with the evidence they are using in the case. The way the extent of the new 20mph limit area is described is different from the one you've quoted on the RBK portal.
I am new to this forum - is there a way to attach a picture or a file? If not, here is a link to the supporting evidence which the met police sent me a few days ago. I've redacted the pdf.to remove personal info.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/16cJ-maKH5_xYC9Fzo3dEKgdezbL3-q7ZCbISOVaF0sM/edit?usp=sharing
If you can't read the link, please advise how to share it.
-
The signage on Kingston Hill doesn't start where it should start.....Instead, it is half a mile away from where the first sign should be positioned.
Is the sign half a mile before where you believe it should be, or half a mile after. How did you find out where (you believe) it should be?
UPDATE: I think I’ve found the relevant Traffic Order for the location:
https://publicnoticeportal.uk/notice/traffic-and-roads/66c86597dfa4ae951ceaff5c
“The general effect of the Order would be to impose a speed limit of 20 miles in Kingston Hill between its junction with Queens Road and a point 150 metres east of its junction with Warren Road.”
That said, looking on GSV, I seems the terminal “20” sign (heading towards Kingston) is just beyond he bus stop which is labelled “Galsworthy House”. Whether that is 150yards east of Warren Road is hard to say (leaving aside the fact that Kingston Hill runs roughly North-North-East at that location).
Where did you get your information about the limit’s extent?
-
Is there anyone I can talk to about the problem we have on Kingston Hill? The speed cameras just before Warren Road are poorly located - behind a bus stop instead of infront of it where drivers could have a good chance of seeing it.
There is no requirement for a camera to be conspicuous, or for any warning signs.
-
If your planned argument is that the 20mph limit is not adequately conveyed by the signage, it may help those looking to offer advice if you could show us photos of the signage (or lack thereof), and a Google Street View link to the location.
-
Is there anyone I can talk to about the problem we have on Kingston Hill? The speed cameras just before Warren Road are poorly located - behind a bus stop instead of infront of it where drivers could have a good chance of seeing it.
The signage on Kingston Hill doesn't start where it should start. The first sign should be where the speed limit changes as the Traffic Signs Manual indicates (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf)
Instead, it is half a mile away from where the first sign should be positioned. I am contesting 3 speeding fines I received for alleged offences in April 2025 - for driving within the old 30mph speed limit - 25, 26 and 28mph. Magistrates hearings for the three cases will be in January and February. I didn't even realise there was a change of speed limit until I received the NIPs.
I need my car for my work collecting and redistributing food for Surbiton Community Fridge and to support my disabled daughter who lives on Kingston Hill. If I get 9 points added to my license, I have no buffer zone for a genuine misdemeanour which would take me off the road for 6 months and make our van's insurance uneconomical.
Can anyone help/ advise on this matter?