Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: ILoveCats123 on January 20, 2026, 12:43:30 am
-
And just as I say that, I've received a Congestion Charge PCN because I forgot to pay :)
New thread incoming
As the saying goes, "my cup runneth over"
-
And just as I say that, I've received a Congestion Charge PCN because I forgot to pay :)
New thread incoming
-
@MrChips @Incandescent
I have decided to bite the bullet on this one, a decision against the questions you had asked, time/effort against the strength of the case, etc.
Thank you both for your time and help, sincerely
No doubt I'll be back sooner or later ;D
-
OP, if you want certainty of success at London Tribunals, then this is never possible to advise on.
-
It's very hard for me to answer that. I don't have a similar case as a precedent.
If the location was clearly wrong (i.e. it's referring to a junction in a completely different place), or too vague then I'd say the odds are clearly in your favour.
This one is in the vicinity but does seem to refer to the wrong road to me.
Ultimately a PCN must state the grounds on which TFL believe a penalty charge is due. Are you confident arguing yours does not do so?
-
@MrChips I don't have long left for the discount period.
Given the fact they didn't attempt to even address the location issue, do you think it could be a strong point?
-
I can afford to risk the extra £80, but it's giving them the money that's the problem for me! be it a penny.
I'm thinking about the fact they didn't even attempt to bring up the location issue, does this imply they know it's wrong and therefore couldn't refute it?
-
I think it depends on your attitude to risk. This doesn't seem to be a case where we can have close to 100% confidence of success - might be closer to 50:50 and depend on which adjudicator you get and what mood they are in!
I think there's definitely a reasonable chance of winning (there's also a chance TFL may not even contest) - but I don't know how much you can afford to risk the additional £80, or how much time/energy you are willing to spend on it.
-
So now the question is, is it worth taking them to tribunal?
I currently have a tribunal date for a southwark pcn, for which i still need to put an evidence pack together, and I have a bus lane pcn for which I am waiting the enforcement notice, and I presume that will also be going to tribunal, so, I mean.
-
All TFL NORs seem to now include a paragraph at the start summarising the representations. I'm fairly convinced that bit is drafted by AI to allow them to rebut any accusations that they did not fulfill their duty to consider reps.
Except they don't consider them. The rest of the text doesn't attempt to rebut the representations, being just a load of boiler-plate text giving chapter and verse on yellow box junctions.
-
All TFL NORs seem to now include a paragraph at the start summarising the representations. I'm fairly convinced that bit is drafted by AI to allow them to rebut any accusations that they did not fulfill their duty to consider reps.
-
It's the usual Fob-Off letter, most of it boiler-plate text, and whilst stating your reps, then just ignores them.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/yF4PYcvg/ybjpcnrej1.png) (https://ibb.co/whcgwFGp)
(https://i.ibb.co/TBcLfxQS/ybjpcnrej2.png) (https://ibb.co/99ntDkxL)
(https://i.ibb.co/JRc5pNKm/ybjpcnrej3.png) (https://ibb.co/ynNWkDXd)
(https://i.ibb.co/dJs9HFcK/ybjpcnrej4.png) (https://ibb.co/gFb1cN7g)
Seems like they conveniently ignored the location issue despite acknowledging that it was brought up, lol
-
TfL responded within a day, but it went to my mother's junk folder for some reason.
I'll post the response tomorrow as I need to sleep soon and simply do not posess the energy to faff around with uploading docs, but just thought I'd post this update anyway
-
Correct, she is the owner and registered keeper of the vehicle.
Now, we wait
-
Was your mum whom the original PCN was addressed to? If so that will be fine.
-
I've submitted it now as I didn't want to wait any longer.
I just submitted as if it was the driver (my mum) and not on behalf.
That is fine, right?
-
So I've just swapped points 1 and 2.
Does it look OK
------
I wish to submit representations against this PCN on the basis that the contravention did not occur.
1) The box junction markings at the junction of Kennington Lane and South Lambeth Place which my vehicle stopped within extend well beyond the road junction itself; I estimate by at least 5 metres. As the requirements are for the markings to be placed at a junction between two or more roads, I contend that the markings are not compliant, and indeed are not even substantially compliant with this requirement. From the video footage, my vehicle stops with approximately the rear half only within the box junction. If the box junction markings were sited only adjacent to the junction between these two roads, my vehicle would have been clear.
Please also find attached separate pictures which evidence this point.
2) Notwithstanding the point above, under the TSRGD 2016, a box junction (of this type) must be situated at a junction between two or more roads. The PCN concerns an alleged box junction contravention at "Kennington Lane / Albert Embankment". Having consulted Google Maps, I cannot locate a box junction at the intersection of the two roads stated on the PCN. The box junction concerned in this case is several metres beyond the point where Albert Embankment meets Kennington Lane, and is actually sited at the junction of Kennington Lane and South Lambeth Place. As such the contravention alleged on the PCN inherently did not occur.
3) Some of the wording in the PCN does not appear to be compliant with the specific requirements of the LLA 2003. Specifically the law states:
"A penalty charge notice under this section must state ...
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;"
This PCN states "If you fail to pay the penalty charge ... before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, a Charge Certificate may be issued to you increasing the penalty charge payable to £240.00..."
The date of service is different to the date of the notice and thus the mandated wording in part (v) is not included.
For these reasons, please cancel the PCN.
-------
-
I would go with Mr Chips suggested reps. I would think the excessive size of the YBJ is the strongest point, so that needs to be first.
-
@Incandescent @RichardW
Any thoughts on the appeal?
I am concsious of time
-
I reckon it's manually done and someone has forgot to remove the on hold status ;D
-
I think that's a good sign - suggests that you are still in the first 14 days on TFL's paused clock.
-
Well the site to view the PCN is down all of a sudden
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/view-a-pcn&ved=2ahUKEwjV6-uavNeSAxWhWEEAHUqZLzgQFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0g06wbpl6jpoOHxiILuTxe
But what I remember is, it still says £80 outstanding
-
What is the level of the penalty showing online?
-
Thanks MrChips, much appreciated.
I don't mind waiting for others' input, however, I don't know what the current timeline is, because:
(https://i.ibb.co/B2r7y0BM/stillonhold.png) (https://ibb.co/WvPdkmfJ)
I am fairly concerned because what if the time is elapsing despite the status being shown as on hold.
-
Here you go. If you have time, allow others to critique. I've included a third point based on my understanding of the PCN wording requirements, but @Hippocrates is the expert on this so would be best if he can confirm or otherwise that this is a potentially winning argument.
I've also estimated the overreach of the markings to be at least 5 metres. Feel free to insert your own estimate if you disagree with this.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wish to submit representations against this PCN on the basis that the contravention did not occur.
1) Under the TSRGD 2016, a box junction (of this type) must be situated at a junction between two or more roads. The PCN concerns an alleged box junction contravention at "Kennington Lane / Albert Embankment". Having consulted Google Maps, I cannot locate a box junction at the intersection of the two roads stated on the PCN. The box junction concerned in this case is several metres beyond the point where Albert Embankment meets Kennington Lane, and is actually sited at the junction of Kennington Lane and South Lambeth Place. As such the contravention alleged on the PCN inherently did not occur.
2) Notwithstanding the point above, the box junction markings at the junction of Kennington Lane and South Lambeth Place which my vehicle stopped within extend well beyond the road junction itself; I estimate by at least 5 metres. As the requirements are for the markings to be placed at a junction between two or more roads, I contend that the markings are not compliant, and indeed are not even substantially compliant with this requirement. From the video footage, my vehicle stops with approximately the rear half only within the box junction. If the box junction markings were sited only adjacent to the junction between these two roads, my vehicle would have been clear.
Please also find attached separate pictures which evidence this point.
3) Some of the wording in the PCN does not appear to be compliant with the specific requirements of the LLA 2003. Specifically the law states:
"A penalty charge notice under this section must state ...
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;"
This PCN states "If you fail to pay the penalty charge ... before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, a Charge Certificate may be issued to you increasing the penalty charge payable to £240.00..."
The date of service is different to the date of the notice and thus the mandated wording in part (v) is not included.
For these reasons, please cancel the PCN.
-
Ah, okay, I understand now, thanks for clearing that up.
And yes please, I did draft a challenge earlier, although not sure how good it is.
-
They do operate like councils, it's the legislation relating to box junctions (and 'moving traffic' offences in general) that operates differently to your expectations (which seem to be based on the procedure for parking offences). A box junction PCN from a London Borough council would operate the same way as this TFL PCN.
TFL are not obliged to reoffer the discount, but in my experience they always do. Not all councils do however, so you are right to be wary about this.
My recommendation would be to address both issues in your representations (the box size and seemingly erroneous location).
Do you want me to draft something up for you today?
-
Okay so they don’t operate like councils, informal > formal > tribunal.
But are you re offered the discount after the first reps? Have not dealt with a TfL PCN before.
-
Your PCN is postal, so any reps would be formal. There is only one facility to submit reps, the next stage is London Tribunals.
-
If Google Maps is up to date, then Albert Embankment and Kennington Lane only meet in one place, just to the west of the railway bridge.
The box junction is not sited at the junction of those two roads. It is sited close by where Kennington Lane meets South Lambeth Place. If you stop in the box junction, you are not blocking access from Albert Embankment, you are blocking access from South Lambeth Place.
Now, there is no strict legal requirement for the PCN to specify the location to any particular detail, but it must specify the grounds on which TFL believe a PCN is due. Grounds is generally deemed to include the offence they believe you have committed (i.e. 31J - stopping in a box junction when prohibited) and also where and when this occurred.
Your PCN accuses you of stopping in a box junction at Kennington Lane/Albert Embankment. You can make representations to say you did no such thing as the video evidence they included is not of a box junction sited at a junction with Albert Embankment. That contravention inherently did not occur. You may or may not have committed a box junction offence but not the one your PCN states.
TFL will 100% not accept this argument (they may accept the other one you are making in parallel - but almost certainly not that either). So, if you decide to fight on, you will be relying on an adjudicator to accept this in your favour. Will they do so? I cannot say - certainly I've seen cases won on incorrect or overly vague location, but they could say this junction is close enough to Albert Embankment that it makes no odds. Or they could say it's simply incorrect and the contravention as stated on the PCN did not occur.
There are over 60 cases listed on London Tribunals at this location. I've been through a few of the more recent ones but cannot see anyone having brought this up before.
So we may be better off arguing with regards to the contravention, or lack thereof?
I suppose it doesn't matter too much at this point as TFL will reject whatever reps are made.
That said I would like to submit an informal challenge sooner rather than later. If you look at one of my posts above, the status of the PCN is still on hold, so I am kind of in the dark regarding the discount period at the moment.
-
If Google Maps is up to date, then Albert Embankment and Kennington Lane only meet in one place, just to the west of the railway bridge.
The box junction is not sited at the junction of those two roads. It is sited close by where Kennington Lane meets South Lambeth Place. If you stop in the box junction, you are not blocking access from Albert Embankment, you are blocking access from South Lambeth Place.
Now, there is no strict legal requirement for the PCN to specify the location to any particular detail, but it must specify the grounds on which TFL believe a PCN is due. Grounds is generally deemed to include the offence they believe you have committed (i.e. 31J - stopping in a box junction when prohibited) and also where and when this occurred.
Your PCN accuses you of stopping in a box junction at Kennington Lane/Albert Embankment. You can make representations to say you did no such thing as the video evidence they included is not of a box junction sited at a junction with Albert Embankment. That contravention inherently did not occur. You may or may not have committed a box junction offence but not the one your PCN states.
TFL will 100% not accept this argument (they may accept the other one you are making in parallel - but almost certainly not that either). So, if you decide to fight on, you will be relying on an adjudicator to accept this in your favour. Will they do so? I cannot say - certainly I've seen cases won on incorrect or overly vague location, but they could say this junction is close enough to Albert Embankment that it makes no odds. Or they could say it's simply incorrect and the contravention as stated on the PCN did not occur.
There are over 60 cases listed on London Tribunals at this location. I've been through a few of the more recent ones but cannot see anyone having brought this up before.
-
Sorry, not had a chance to get back involved with this one.
Is there a reason you aren't raising the location issue? I could draft a paragraph on this if you will use it.
Well, here is what I am thinking.
Is there another YBJ at the junction of Kennington Lane/Albert Embankment? (I can check this)
If yes, then that must either use a different location name, or this one has been sent with the wrong location name.
If no, then I think that "Kennington Lane/Albert Embankment" is the name that is used for this YBJ, and therefore technically the correct location has been identified but it's just not named correctly?
I guess what I am trying to say is, does the ACTUAL location being wrong matter, or is it about them identifying the incorrect YBJ whose name would be the identifier for a different one?
That said, I will use it, but does it make sense to argue on the basis of location and the alleged contravention at the same time?
-
As I recall, the box junction location on the PCN is stated as Kennington Lane / Albert Embankment.
However the video evidence shows a box junction at the junction of Kennington Lane and South Lambeth Place.
-
Sorry, not had a chance to get back involved with this one.
Is there a reason you aren't raising the location issue? I could draft a paragraph on this if you will use it.
Please join in ! Remind me what the issue is with location.
-
Sorry, not had a chance to get back involved with this one.
Is there a reason you aren't raising the location issue? I could draft a paragraph on this if you will use it.
-
Yes, that is true, but it shows how overprovision is made to cater for infrequent events. So I would go for the excessive size, that if it had kept to the definition in the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. would have meant your car wasn't in contravention.
See Schedule 9 Diagram 1045 and the section on box junctions in Part 7 para 11
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made
-
I’m fairly certain that the vehicle would have cleared the YBJ had it only covered the bus exit.
Does the fact no buses exited in that whole 5 minutes really matter?
Isn’t it like claiming that it doesn’t matter that I parked on double yellow as no vehicles used that road therefore there was no danger?
-
I wish you well.
I tried to take some measurements in GSV, but the viaduct obscures half of the YBJ unfortunately. Have you worked out if your car would have been in the clear if the YBJ only covered the bus exit, assuming the other side remained unchanged ? I captured your view from GSV, then put it into Paint and drew a line across from where I think the box should start at the bus lane exit, to the existing point where it ends on the other side, and it does look as if your car would have exited the box.
Interesting I think that no buses came out of that street the whole five minutes of the video.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/HpLJ6HmY/IMG-9933.jpg) (https://ibb.co/M5yXrCqp)
(https://i.ibb.co/VWJ6mN6L/IMG-9937.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8DNkcBkm)
Here's a better look, the attachment i mentioned in the draft that i'll also submit
-
Looking at the video, I reckon the rear 1/3rd of your car is in the box for 16 seconds. This could be considered de minimis, but you'd need a sympathetic adjudicator, I think, (they do exist !!). Your comment on the excessive size of the box is valid in my opinion, because it extends well beyond the bus exit, which is its only reason for being there. This GSV view shows, I think the extent of the excessive size of the YBJ :-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/A2FJyb3A3pLh1N6W7
Needless to say, TfL will reject your reps; they want your money, so you'd have to take them to London Tribunals. If you're happy to do that, then go ahead on the basis of de minimis, and excessive size of the YBJ.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/B2r7y0BM/stillonhold.png) (https://ibb.co/WvPdkmfJ)
Any reason why it's stil showing on hold? Anything to be concerned about?
-
@Incandescent @MrChips thoughts?
-
Challenge draft:
There was no contravention of a prescribed order or failure to comply with an indication given by a sign.
-----------
The contravention of entering and stopping in a junction box when prohibited did not occur because the junction box is extended far beyond the point at which a vehicle partially being stationary in it would cause traffic to become impeded, which was the case as can be seen in the video footage that has been provided.
Please also find attached separate pictures which show that the junction box is extended far beyond the point at which a vehicle being stationary in it would cause traffic to become impeded, in this case, buses exiting from the bus station.
Therefore, please cancel the PCN.
----------
Unsure wrt to the location being incorrect at this moment in time.
-
[/quote]
Edit
Wrong Location.
Yes, if location on the PCN is incorrect, this can be used as an appeal argument. But again, TfL will just refuse the reps, and you'd have to take them to London Tribunals, and forego the discount option.
[/quote]
Okay then, let's see what we can put together
-
I see. Thank you for explaining.
This reminds me of the video I saw from the Yellow Box Guru about the YBJ situated right outside a Nottingham Council Office, (iirc) which has been placed illegally because it's on a gyratory that's not controlled by traffic lights, which the TSRGD says it must be a traffic light controlled gyratory for a YBJ to be placed
-
The purpose of a YBJ is to aid traffic flow, correct? So what I'm trying to say is, that this box doesn't actually do that in any meaningful way, so it shouldn't matter if a vehicle is stationary in it.
Surely not being able to raise the point about the purpose of a YBJ doesn't mean that a YBJ can be placed in any random place and motorists be subject to enforcement.
Councils have the right to install these traffic devices, and the legal assumption is that all the legal duties they are mandated to follow have been followed. What can be queried is the actual installation itself; does it follow the requirements defined in The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 ? Appeals have been won on this aspect, but the councils just carry on enforcing because there is no overseeing body checking on them. This is the dark heart of the whole setup.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made
Edit
Wrong Location.
Yes, if location on the PCN is incorrect, this can be used as an appeal argument. But again, TfL will just refuse the reps, and you'd have to take them to London Tribunals, and forego the discount option.
-
Yeah that was my initial thought when I saw the picture, can definitely be used as part of the appeal?
wrt to the location, I was going beserk trying to find the junction based off the location TfL provided. I only realised which junction it was because of the road markings that can vaguely be seen in the pictures provided, and now obviously, the video has confirmed that.
Can the fact that the location is incorrect be used in the appeal at all?
-
That's quite a harsh PCN. You were less than half in the box and the bit you stopped in is beyond the junction with the side road.
The location stated on the PCN doesn't seem right to me. There is no box junction situated at the junction of Kennington Lane and Albert Embankment. Your box junction is at the junction of Kennington Lane and South Lambeth Place.
-
The purpose of a YBJ is to aid traffic flow, correct? So what I'm trying to say is, that this box doesn't actually do that in any meaningful way, so it shouldn't matter if a vehicle is stationary in it.
Surely not being able to raise the point about the purpose of a YBJ doesn't mean that a YBJ can be placed in any random place and motorists be subject to enforcement.
-
You cannot query the purpose of the box, only the actual implementation of the box, like is it excessively large or long, (beyond the actual road junction).
-
The footage has confirmed that the GSV link I initially posted, is correct.
Now I have a few queries:
Is it correct that because the driver entered while their exit wasn't clear, it makes anything after that harder to challenge? i.e a very small part of the rear of the vehicle was in the junction box
Secondly, what purpose is this box actually serving? Even if the box is kept clear, it doesn't make it any easier for buses exiting the bus station because their exit wouldn't be clear anyway.
Thirdly, the parameters of the box seem a bit excessive, continuing further than is actually necessary.
-
Okay well it didn't work apparently... it's still viewable though
-
Never tried imbedding a gif before so hope this works!
(https://i.ibb.co/bgz0QrV2/ezgif-5e5be7106bc02398.gif) (https://ibb.co/6RgMr4S1)
https://youtu.be/MI88fkS9TQ8
Link to full footage if it's required
-
I think even London Tribunals are getting fed up with TfL still being in the dark ages ! Hopefully they'll start to refuse DVDs as evidence at adjudications.
I wrote to their CEO at the end of 2024. To no avail and I discussed it with the C.A. in February.
-
I think even London Tribunals are getting fed up with TfL still being in the dark ages ! Hopefully they'll start to refuse DVDs as evidence at adjudications.
-
DVD Arrived but now need to find a way to extract the footage.
Back soon.
-
Footage of the alleged contravention has been requested, thankfully it was a lot easier than I originally aniticpated.
I've confirmed the status of the PCN has been placed on hold while the request is being processed
-
(https://i.ibb.co/VcFK0fWM/IMG-9877.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0R0wpHjY)
(https://i.ibb.co/Y4dBGMYZ/IMG-9878.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WNzv1wqt)
(https://i.ibb.co/BVyqjG8L/IMG-9879.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6RHgb86Y)
(https://i.ibb.co/RptMLWrH/IMG-9880.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GvG1gjYP)
(https://i.ibb.co/hxtpDnb7/IMG-9881.jpg) (https://ibb.co/DPS356hV)
-
We might be in 2026, but TFL is still in 1996 🤣
I think they just got rid of the quill pens and ink stands last week. But of course the more obstructive they are, the more money they make.
-
We might be in 2026, but TFL is still in 1996 🤣
-
. . ..
TFL also have not provided any video footage.
. . .
You (the keeper) have to telephone TfL and ask for the video to be sent and the PCN to be placed on hold whilst it is being sent(on a DVD).
I thought we were in 2026 but okay, I’ll ask the keeper to do this.
-
. . ..
TFL also have not provided any video footage.
. . .
You (the keeper) have to telephone TfL and ask for the video to be sent and the PCN to be placed on hold whilst it is being sent(on a DVD).
----
EDIT:
N.B. TfL normally re-offer the discount in rejecting reps submitted within the discount period, so keep an eye on time passing.
Please also post remaining pages of PCN.
-
The video has to be requested from TFL - which they will send snail mail on a DVD....
You need to see the video to confirm if a contravention took place - but moving traffic conventions may be open to technical appeal, especially TFL ones. Get the video and see what it shows first.
-
Based off the location "Kennington Lane / Albert Embankment", this can only be referring to one specific box junction and no other? If the one I have linked in question is the correct one, then 80% of that box serves no reasonable purpose of preventing traffic impedence.
TFL also have not provided any video footage.
Is there a way I can 100% link the location on the PCN to a specific junction box?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/GfRThcxH/IMG-9872.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hxVfqD7Y)
-
Hi All,
I can't stay away from here apparently.
Will it be challengeable based on the fact only a small amount of the vehicle was in the markings, if not on any technical grounds?
PCN No. GX32403739
VRM CU18HND
PCN:
<a href="https://ibb.co/hxVfqD7Y"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/GfRThcxH/IMG-9872.jpg" alt="IMG-9872" border="0" /></a>
I am dealing with this on behalf of someone else as they would not be able to deal with these matters by themself unfortunately. However any information required is readily available with me.
I do believe this was the junction based off the location given on the PCN, and the vague road markings that can be seen in one of the stills provided by TFL, but I can't be 100% certain.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jciiYL9mFpzDk45a9