Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Skorenberg on December 15, 2025, 04:04:54 pm

Title: Re: Give Way Violation PCN at Salter’s Hill
Post by: Hippocrates on December 16, 2025, 05:49:07 pm
I would keep an eye on their website for the time being, crucially 14 days from the date of the PCN. Don't do anything at all at present re making a representation.
Title: Re: Give Way Violation PCN at Salter’s Hill
Post by: Skorenberg on December 16, 2025, 01:54:18 pm
Thank you so much for the help mate. That seems like good news. Here's the entire PCN I received as requested: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1272N96xnngyGvXuwWHUJuwtF8oZY5ZhI/view?usp=drivesdk
Title: Re: Give Way Violation PCN at Salter’s Hill
Post by: Hippocrates on December 16, 2025, 11:45:57 am
@Skorenberg Please: the whole PCN before I do a draft.


For starters:

First seen at Sun, 30 Nov 2025 11:21

Issued at Sun, 30 Nov 2025 11:21

Served by Post

The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00. Please pay £80.00 now.

Also:

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;
Title: Re: Give Way Violation PCN at Salter’s Hill
Post by: stamfordman on December 15, 2025, 10:03:21 pm
The contravention is bang to right so Hippo is your hope.
Title: Re: Give Way Violation PCN at Salter’s Hill
Post by: Hippocrates on December 15, 2025, 08:23:37 pm
Website issues. Payment details/dates all wrong and threatening.
Title: Re: Give Way Violation PCN at Salter’s Hill
Post by: Southpaw82 on December 15, 2025, 08:13:25 pm
Rule 8 (https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/house-rules/) folks. Follow the rules or play elsewhere.
Title: Re: Give Way Violation PCN at Salter’s Hill
Post by: Skorenberg on December 15, 2025, 04:47:26 pm
Fair point on the driving definetly not one of my finest moments should've held back to see if the coast was clear and taken the narrow section a little slower.

I'm mostly going off what I've seen off other threads on this specific give way camera when I mention the blind summit and the signage lacking the required detail I'm basing it off points made by other members of the forum. Such as this: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lambeth-salters-hill-failing-to-give-way-37-j-280424/msg22309/#msg22309

Title: Re: Give Way Violation PCN at Salter’s Hill
Post by: 666 on December 15, 2025, 04:27:30 pm
Sightlines: What "blind summit"? And if the white van was hampering visibility, perhaps you were too close?

Signage: No, it applies to the give-way line.
Title: Give Way Violation PCN at Salter’s Hill
Post by: Skorenberg on December 15, 2025, 04:04:54 pm
Good Afternoon All,

I've recently received a PCN for "Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles" at Salters Hill and was wondering if it some of the experts here would mind weighing in as I believe I am not at fault. I have provided details of the PCN below.

I was travelling in a convoy behind a silver car and a large white van. The van blocked the view through the tunnel. By the time it cleared, I was already committed to the narrow sectio and it was too late to brake. I clear the section just as the car opposite arrives causing minimal slow down and the car opposite does not even have to stop.

Based of other posts I have seen on this forum for this junction I've decided to fight the PCN with these arguments and would greatly appreciate the opinons of the experts:

Sightlines: The "blind summit" combined with the white van meant the oncoming car was invisible at the decision point and I only became aware of its presence once I was committed.

Signage: The "Give Priority" sign lacks a distance plate, so I am arguing the restriction applies only to the arch itself (which I cleared).

Camera Distortion: The CCTV uses a telephoto lens, compressing the depth of field and making the oncoming car look much closer/more "imminent" than it actually was.

 Procedural Impropriety: The PCN wording conflates the statutory periods. It states the 28-day period for the increased charge begins with the "date of notice" and in small print on the other side it states date of service.

I have attatched a copy of the PCN, a link to the video of the incident and the PCN number below.

VIDEO LINK: https://pcnevidence.lambeth.gov.uk/pcnonline/videocache/fb298ff1-371c-47f5-8e9b-96c15c502f09.mp4
MIRROR IN CASE INACCESSIBLE: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13lCO50tJ6h7zuHQTHfEw2JHR1LeGxFi-/view?usp=sharing
SCAN OF LETTER: https://drive.google.com/file/d/19BUqfMbZljiV7ZeBS3RW8ibfZ1Mj1uX_/view?usp=drivesdk
PCN NUMBER:
MY PLATE: BD19 HMV

Many Thanks,

Sam