Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: aroopc82 on December 27, 2025, 10:59:52 pm
-
Frankly, I don't think your case re the signage is all that strong, although I would comment that there is only a single "Flying Motorbike" sign as well as all the other signs. Better if the large white arrow on blue background direction arrow was replaced with another FM sign to make it clearer. After all there is a keep left sign on the bollard.
In addition to the main restriction sign, there are advance warning signs in place; did you not notice these at all, bearing in mind you would have passed them several times.
The bottom line with representations to councils in London is that whatever you write, they reject it, because they are after the money, and if they reject all of them, they know that >95% of people then cough-up to get the discount. You'll only get a fair hearing at London Tribunals, but would have to risk the full PCN penalty. If you win, you pay nothing, if you lose you pay the £160, but there are no other costs.
-
Many apologies - I've fixed it and reposted it - hopefully it comes through okay.
Many thanks
-
Sorry, but could you please repost your photos so they are the right way up, please. It is very tedious having to copy each one, then past into 'Paint' so they can be rotated.
-
Dear FTLA
Wishing you all a PCN free 2026.
As per the thread above, I appealed these PCNs, but received a rejection of these representations. I'd be grateful for your advice or thoughts on taking it to a tribunal.
To restate the original charge: The penalty charge for the following contravention 52J; 52j; Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles( camera enforcement)
I received 4 of these in short succession, as I used this route frequently at that time.
My letter is attached, The responses are here:
Would appreciate your advice!
Many thanks
(https://i.ibb.co/YBnkdpmr/Appeal-letter.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/gLqWN4M6/IMG-0879.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/HLd1VPPm/IMG-0880.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/67V008vM/IMG-0881.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/bRbsd2SC/IMG-0882.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/676HBrDS/IMG-0883.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/S4BbWzx6/IMG-0884.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/jZBKxdrc/IMG-0885.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/sdGPQn2t/IMG-0886.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/VcLRb3sB/IMG-0887.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/MDg9BGY7/IMG-0888.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/RpvP7r8b/IMG-0889.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/7tVXM5Xc/IMG-0890.jpg)
-
I recognise the draft. ;D
-
The GSV view you posted is dated June 2025, much later than you state in your narrative. In view of this, I would submit reps pointing this out, and also the fact that there was no notices posted, nor is there an advance warning sign. You could also say you are a regular driver along this route, so in the absence of anything the last time you drove there, you didn't notice the new restriction.
-
Dear John U.K.
Apologies I thought I had everything in.
To restate the PCN: The penalty charge for the following contravention 52J; 52j; Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles( camera enforcement)
I think its misleading for two reasons:
1) the sign is only on one side of the road, . I.e. the road at one side by kingston hill, cars are prohibited, while on the other side (crossing Queens Road) there's no sign prohibiting cars. So there's no consistent signage to indicate a consistent prohibition
2) The oncoming side of the road has width barriers, i.e. suggesting that its a certain type of vehicle that is prohibited. This is confusing.
I've used this road many times over the last 25 years, this new enforcement came into place
March 24, 2025: The scheme went live, with the expansion including the Crescent Road restriction.
March 27, 2025: The expansion, including the 'No Entry' from Kingston Hill, was confirmed to start.
Images of the PCN Notices, front and back, are here:
https://ibb.co/Jw5X4jxR
(https://i.ibb.co/xtJV0qmS/IMG-0779.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Jw5X4jxR)
(https://i.ibb.co/KcJgXkcc/IMG-0781.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6ckSmxcc)
(https://i.ibb.co/YB17kM8R/IMG-0780.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gZfMTpwj)
(https://i.ibb.co/rRxH7tbD/IMG-0782.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ks4XHy3N)
2nd PCN:
(https://i.ibb.co/Qv4g1yYY/IMG-0783.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HTjSk5GG)
(https://i.ibb.co/GfwCdFz2/IMG-0786.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Q7BYJXyN)
3rd PCN:
(https://i.ibb.co/99BQdQyB/IMG-0788.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RptRJRQt)
(https://i.ibb.co/hR9Z0GQw/IMG-0790.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4ZtYkbv3)
Location is here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MdrWDM7EVzUecgZ3A
Hope this covers everything
grateful for your advice!
Best
-
Dear John U.K.
Apologies I thought I had everything in.
To restate the PCN: The penalty charge for the following contravention 52J; 52j; Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles( camera enforcement)
I think its misleading for two reasons:
1) the sign is only on one side of the road, . I.e. the road at one side by kingston hill, cars are prohibited, while on the other side (crossing Queens Road) there's no sign prohibiting cars. So there's no consistent signage to indicate a consistent prohibition
2) The oncoming side of the road has width barriers, i.e. suggesting that its a certain type of vehicle that is prohibited. This is confusing.
I've used this road many times over the last 25 years, this new enforcement came into place
March 24, 2025: The scheme went live, with the expansion including the Crescent Road restriction.
March 27, 2025: The expansion, including the 'No Entry' from Kingston Hill, was confirmed to start.
Images of the PCN Notices, front and back, are here:
EDIT: There are 3 PCNs - see next post - John U.K.
Location is here:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/MdrWDM7EVzUecgZ3A
Hope this covers everything
grateful for your advice!
Best
-
Welcome to FTLA.
For meaningful advice please to have a read of
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/
and post up here
(use
ibb.co (https://imgbb.com/) or https://imgpile.com/
for posting images.
Wherever possible, use the BBCode.)
all sides of the PCN (only redact yr name & address - leave everything else in),
any council photos/video,
and
a GSV link to the location.
-
Dear FTLA
The penalty charge for the following contravention 52J; 52j; Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles( camera enforcement)
I didn't notice the sign really.
To make matters worse (for me) I went down this road 3 times. 29/11;3/12; 9/12.
I think its misleading for two reasons:
1) the sign is only on one side of the road, . I.e. the road at one side by kingston hill, cars are prohibited, while on the other side (crossing Queens Road) there's no sign prohibiting cars. So there's no consistent signage to indicate a consistent prohibition
2) The oncoming side of the road has width barriers, i.e. suggesting that its the type of vehicle that is prohibited. This is confusing.
I've used this road many times over the last 25 years, this new enforcement came into place
March 24, 2025: The scheme went live, with the expansion including the Crescent Road restriction.
March 27, 2025: The expansion, including the 'No Entry' from Kingston Hill, was confirmed to start.
A previous poster for the same contravention was advised to appeal on the basis of:
"1. Signage
Proceeding down Crescent Road from Kingston Hill one is presented with a plurality of signs and with no warning signage at all. The keep left sign is stark and clearly takes precedence in terms of size and meaning. Indeed, there is a no right sign as one approaches from the road on the right so this begs the question of fairness in this regard.
2. Collateral challenge re the PCN
I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at
Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
Clearly, this refers to 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;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable. adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information
I rely upon the Hackney Drivers High Court case in terms of the clarity required for a PCN to be substantially complaint.
Considering the above, please cancel the PCN."
This was unsuccessful
Would be grateful for your advice
best wishes(https://imgpile.com/p/SMBjqDR#OKgo7XK)