Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Pauldon3576 on December 31, 2025, 08:52:05 pm
-
I'm afraid this is how they ruthlessly game the system. However worth mentioning to the adjudicator.
I would have been available on the day but was on taxi duties. I would have argued that, as they did not address the issue in the NOR which, after all, is the very important document which determines whether one is going to appeal or not, is somewhat disingenuous and clearly prejudicial to my case.
I won an appeal with the greatly missed John Lane some years ago where the council adduced an undated image in the NOR and then a more contemporaneous one in their pack. He noted this point in his decision. What a great guy. So personable. After the cases we would talk about Frank Sinatra.
-
Hi All,
No witness statement from RBK, but I did attend over the phone.
Many Thanks
P
What I meant was: a Witness Statement pertaining to the camera! Could you send me the verification code please? As this will be very useful to see exactly what play they did write.
-
Hi All,
No witness statement from RBK, but I did attend over the phone.
Many Thanks
P
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CA92zQQ2KuAmFeiBXVcu1p58hUDpys4y/view).
-
Brilliant and you had one of the best adjudicators too. 2260070912.
Did they provide a witness statement?
-
Hi All,
The appeal has been successful!
A big thank you to Hippocrates for his solid steer in the right direction with regard to signage and all advice.
Your time was very much appreciated, as I was apprehensive about challenging this PCN.
A big thumbs up to all at FTLA who assist and contribute.
Factors regarding the bus stop position after a sharp bend, the length of bay, inadequate signage, pedestrians in play and lighting were all acknowledged.
Ultimately the signage and markings in place were not substantially compliant, clear and adequate for the site.
And despite 2 requests for them to supply the information, RBK deliberately did not send me the camera evidence
(which they did indeed have and subsequently provided to the tribunal). I voiced strong views about this behaviour.
Regards
P
-
E mail me.
-
Hi All,
I could do with some help in drafting my appeal comments in light of the above information!
With RBK referring just back to the 2004 act, does that mean that all of my other queries about correct sign, visible signs and length of bus stop are not valid? Or just being ignored.
Regards
P
-
I'm afraid this is how they ruthlessly game the system. However worth mentioning to the adjudicator.
-
Hi All,
I have decided to appeal to London tribunals and also asked RBK for the 2nd time to strict proof that the camera has a valid certificate.
They have replied in writing and simply said "please note that the CCTV cameras are installed and operated by council and therefore certified".
Now that my appeal date is set, they have since provided the evidence of said camera to the tribunal!
If they had provided this to me in the first instance I may well have decided not to appeal!
Am I likely to get any recognition of this from the appeal tribunal? As my appeal grounds are now very thin.
I could do with some help in drafting my appeal in light of the above information.
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/NukiCFe_md.png
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/stopping-at-bus-stop-pcn-victoria-road-surbiton/msg56673/#msg56673
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qexr8OS0A75Tlc1XX_Oz_4UdhyYJQjLB/view
The reference to a moving traffic contravention is, of course, a blunder but not probably enough to convince an adjudicator to allow the appeal.
The strongest points are the failure to consider the camera issue and not provide proof of such. The "unable to cancel" could be argued to fetter their discretion. And, the inadequate grounds issue on the website.
If you want to meet up, I am speaking at this meeting re the infamous Kingston Road box junction this coming Thursday. The Press will be there.
https://www.ftla.uk/news-press-articles/that-kingston-box-junction/msg105997/#msg105997
-
Thanks Hippocrates.
They did ignore the cctv proof request and made no comment on the single sign and lack of visibility at night.
I also notice that they replied stating a "moving" traffic violation. Is this correct?
Do I presume the signage they have is correct and lawful?
Regards
Paul
-
They have not considered the certificate issue. I'll balance the issues. I lost a case the other day (may ask for a review) in which the council provided a valid certificate but not a witness statement. This is different and you had raised the issue. There is always the grounds issue too. Life is getting tougher at the moment with some adjudicators.
-
Hi Hippocrates,
I have received a reply today in the post rejecting the representation, please see below and let me know what you think!
Regards
Paul
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/PRwAtoh_md.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0Bpl1U2_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/sO58mCQ_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/4uxVq9A_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ZQDDlBR_xl.jpg
-
I almost went there! Got as far as Waitrose Surbiton. Didn't fancy the bus.
-
Thanks Hippocrates, it's not the best weather for a night venture!
I'll make the representation now.
-
As I said. I'll take a picture in the evening.
Sorry for lateness but it is freezing! May be tonight. But do not miss deadline. It's not that the urgent - the photo.
-
There may be a charge for this. One Leffe at the near hostelry from which I am yet to be barred. 8)
-
Ok, Thank you. I'll sit tight until then.
-
As I said. I'll take a picture in the evening.
-
Hi Again Hippocrates & Stamfordman,
I've made a trip today to get some photos of the signs and location.....on foot this time!
Please let me know your thoughts on the signs & if I should proceed.
The long shot of the bus top also shows just the one streetlight which made any sign visibility at night poor, but unsure if this is arguable evidence.
Many Thanks in advance.
P
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/M6Y1WLr_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Oe2Y0eW_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/3wJB3Ek_xl.jpg
-
Hi Hippocrates, you are tempting fate there!
It's interesting on google maps, the age difference with pictures....
see here...all from google...
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/r6UgR1L_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/HTw46kx_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/cs1l0zF_xl.jpg
Are you referring to the no loading sign that does not have the XX?
I will make a trip later and get some pictures, in the meanwhile i will hold off sending the respresentation
-
Hi Hippocrates, should I hold off with my representation? I can take a trip and go and take pictures if need be?
|If you wish and can. I did go into 3 yellow box junctions too in the hope they may send me a PCN!
-
Hi Hippocrates, should I hold off with my representation? I can take a trip and go and take pictures if need be?
-
Hippo did you get a pic of the sign?
Nope as I drove past it twice. I may take a picture tonight. But the XX is not there. It fits at least 3 buses I reckon.
The camera issue must be considered. The last two cases I did they referred to a bus lane.
-
It's a parking not a moving traffic contravention.
I don't think the length of the stop is a goer.
Hippo did you get a pic of the sign?
-
Thank you Sir, I will prepare my response and launch it back to RBK. Will keep you posted on the outcome!
-
Should i add this too into my representation? Or save it for later...?
The latter.
-
In was only dissing their manager the other day with a councillor! Yet another council who love to hate me. ::)
-
Should i add this too into my representation? Or save it for later...?
-
PCN served under the TMA 2004, so statutory grounds 'procedural impropriety' is missing.
-
Those grounds are
wrong incomplete rather, so screenshot them for future use. I have taken a screenshot myself.
*******
Choose did not occur and put all the info. into a pdf. You can add the lack of visibility too which is nit the same as their camera evidence.
-
Thanks again Hippocrates, I shall await your reply! Also, should I add ALL the information to my representation that you supplied above?
Regards
P
-
I need to check the page as those are the five grounds for moving traffic contraventions.
-
Hi Hippocrates,
You are indeed a gentleman. I was wondering about visibility!
I am about to make representation online but I need enter the grounds for representation. I cannot get past this screen without selecting something. Would I be correct in choosing "The contravention did not occur" ? Or would you advise otherwise?
Please see link below.
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/a2PcsWv_xl.jpg
Best Regards
P
-
I checked the sign today and is missing the red XX on the roundel. So, try this:
Signage is inadequate and does not comply with the law.
· The upright sign at the location does not include the prescribed "no stopping" roundel symbol, and its background was white instead of yellow. This contravenes the requirements as clearly specified in Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD):
· Part 1, Prescription of signs, Regulation 3 (1) states: A traffic sign for conveying a warning, information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description specified in these Regulations is of a prescribed size, colour and type if it complies with all applicable requirements provided for in these Regulations.
· Schedule 3, Part 2, Item 4, Diagram 642 prescribes the signage content for Bus Stop Clearways, specifically the inclusion of the no stopping roundel.
· Schedule 4, Part 2, paragraph 2 states: "The sign must have a yellow background and black border as shown in blank diagram 1 in Part 1." TSRGD provides that a traffic sign is only of a prescribed type if it meets all applicable requirements, including size, colour and symbol. The yellow background is an essential legal component of a sign that includes a symbol from Schedule 4, Part 3, such as the no stopping roundel. White background signs are prescribed for a completely different set of uses under Part 4 (e.g., parking or loading bays) and convey a different regulatory meaning. Furthermore, under TSRGD Schedule 7, Part 6, paragraph 1(2)(b) an upright sign for a bus stop clearway must include the "stopping prohibited" symbol.
· Any deviation from the prescribed sign design including the omission of a symbol or substitution of colour must be expressly authorised by the Secretary of State under Section 64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. No such authorisation has been provided. These are not minor defects. The law does not permit informal substitutions or approximations for prescribed signs. A sign that does not conform to TSRGD cannot lawfully convey a restriction. Accordingly, no contravention occurred.
Length of the bay
The bus stop clearway is of considerable length, yet contains only one upright sign. This fails to meet visibility and placement requirements under the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) and TSRGD.
TSM Chapter 1, paragraph 5.4.4 advises: Regulatory signs must be placed as near as practicable to the start of a restriction.
TSM Chapter 3, paragraph 13.24.9 specifically addresses longer bus bays: Where the bus stop marking has been extended to accommodate two or more buses, it might be preferable to mount the sign close to the beginning of the bay. In these circumstances an additional sign, mounted parallel to the kerb, might be required near the centre of the bay.
Height and orientation and visibility
The sign is not clearly visible even from 510 metres away, and its placement fails to convey a clear restriction as required by statutory guidance.
TSM Chapter 3, 13.24.9: Upright signs that indicate a prohibition of stopping normally face oncoming traffic as it is an offence to stop to read the sign. This sign is angled away from the line of approach and cannot be read safely or clearly by a driver. It therefore fails to comply with TSM guidance and does not serve its intended purpose.
TSM Chapter 3, section 1.8.2, Table 1-1 Minimum clear visibility distances: For roads with speeds up to 20 mph, the minimum clear visibility distance in a 20mph zone is 45 metres. This sign is not visible from even 5 to 10 metres away, let alone 45 metres. This directly contradicts the visibility standards set out in TSM and severely limits the signs ability to provide timely notice of a restriction to drivers. This failure renders the restriction inadequately conveyed and, consequently, unenforceable in law.
Cases in support
Matthew Mathai (2240426053): Appeal allowed due to length of bus stop clearway, only one sign and signage not clearly visible. The importance of adequately visible signage in bus stop clearway was emphasised in Sean Hurley v London Borough of Camden (2210017951, 16 November 2020) to which I have had regard.
The single sign is placed towards the very end of the clearway, from the perspective of a motorist approaching it. There is a very considerable distance from the start of the clearway to the sign itself. The sign would barely be visible, if at all, from there. The guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual has not been heeded. Based on the evidence in this case and with that guidance in mind, I do not find, on the balance of probabilities, that the signage was adequate.
Sean Hurley (2210017951): Appeal allowed due to inadequate signage not in the correct position and visible. Its visibility is even more important where the prohibition is simply on stopping and where the motorist will therefore have very little time to see it, let alone look for it
Rafiuddin Syed (2240376545): First, the Appellant's representative has drawn my attention to the decision of Adjudicator Walsh, case (2240426053) I find that this case is applicable to the one I am deciding now, the Adjudicator recorded as follows when citing from Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual at 13.2.9, which states that: The sign should normally be located near the centre of the bay or mounted on the post that supports the bus stop sign to diagram 970, 973.2 or 973.3 (S11-2-76 and 77). Where the bus stop marking has been extended to accommodate two or more buses, it might be preferable to mount the sign close to the beginning of the bay. In these circumstances an additional sign, mounted parallel to the kerb, might be required near the centre of the bay." this bus stop clearway is notably long at 150ft in length. In those circumstances, the Traffic Signs Manual (Chapter 3, para 13.24.9), suggests a sign in the middle of the clearway or two signs, to ensure that the sign can readily be seen by a motorist. In this case, I find on the balance of probabilities that the single sign is placed towards the very end of the clearway, from the perspective of a motorist approaching it. There is a very considerable distance from the start of the clearway to the sign itself. The sign would barely be visible, if at all, from there. The guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual has not been heeded. Based on the evidence in this case and with that guidance in mind, I do not find, on the balance of probabilities, that the signage was adequate. In those circumstances the contravention is not proved. Thirdly, the bus stop in this case is 138ft and the sign plate is at the far end.
Considering the above , please cancel the PCN forthwith.
Finally, I put you to strict proof that the camera used had a valid certificate.
-
Wait until tomorrow. I will do you a draft.
-
Oh dear, and excuse my poor spell checking, just seen it! Should know better as I was born there too!! End the year on a high....!!
-
Many Thanks Hippo & A Happy New Year To You & All.
The broad yellow line which should have alerted me is one I was not aware of but will be now!
I'm still not happy that I would have never seen the sign in the poor lighting there at night.
And my son said he was going to take the train but I offered (as any Dad would!) to take him!
-
I will take a look tomorrow to see if the No Stopping sign is correct. Nice trip to the Kings Tun indeed.
-
You're fine on yellow lines as alighting/boarding is an exemption and it's a no waiting not a no stopping restriction. But watch out for red routes.
The broad yellow line in the bus stop puts you on notice it's a no stopping clearway but it must also have a no stopping plate. Almost all London bus stops are so marked and many major ones have CCTV.
Hippo is around so wait for him to check paperwork etc.
We had another case here but presumably it was paid.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-47j-stopped-on-restricted-bus-stop/
-
Ok, not good. No chance I would have seen that pulling over!
There's me thinking I shouldn't stop on the double yellows to let them out!
Should I await some news from Hippo?
-
Totally bang to rights if the no stopping sign is there as it was.
Our member Hippo may have something on other matters.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/54usS26sbaw7E7m7A
(https://i.ibb.co/LX7bY63c/k-ezgif-com-optimize.gif)
-
Hi Good Evening & A Happy New Year To All!
Royal Borough of Kingston very kindly sent me a Christmas present when I dropped my son and his girlfriend off the other night to their Christmas party - a £140 PCN!.
At approximately 22.22pm I pulled in to a bus stop on Clarence street (which I have done in the past to the exact same bus stop) to let them out, was there for 15 seconds and then returned home.
It was poorly lit there despite what the night vision camera shows and I had no chance of seeing any of the signage.
And I was not expecting to receive a PCN.
Is this PCN something I can and should challenge?
I have uploaded, all of the forms, pictures, and street view link below, and would appreciate some help and advice.
PCN
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/rGCtv52_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/uB58d9t_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/OFKxrH1_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tvJcBKF_xl.jpg
https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/17BXykV_xl.jpg
Streetview (although this does appear to be out of date, as no scaffolding is there anymore)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1SVFiaweSmPPwmrx5