Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: tuffpro on February 12, 2026, 12:17:22 pm
-
this appears to be standard wording in their letters
What letters? You lost the PCN and so the only other correspondence you have is their NoR.
Anyway, what I quoted comes from here..
Duties of an enforcement authority to which representations are made under regulation 5
6.—(1) This regulation applies where an enforcement authority receives representations from a recipient under regulation 5.
(2) The enforcement authority may disregard any representations which it receives after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the relevant enforcement notice is served.
(3) If the representations are—
(a)made in accordance with regulation 5(2), and
(b)not disregarded by the enforcement authority under paragraph (2),
the authority must, within the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which it receives the representations (“the 56-day period”), comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (4).
(4) The requirements mentioned in paragraph (3) are that enforcement authority must—
(a)consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the recipient provides, and
(b)serve on the recipient a notice of its decision (a “decision notice”) which states whether or not it accepts the representations made by the recipient.
(5) If the enforcement authority accepts the representations—
(a)it must cancel the relevant enforcement notice,
(b)its decision notice must state that the enforcement notice has been cancelled, and
(c)when it serves the decision notice, it must refund any sum paid in relation to the relevant enforcement notice.
(6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice—
I'm struggling to find anywhere where the time periods commence after service, but if you have any as regards the TMA General or Appeals regs, pl show.
-
I take your point, and thank you for your knowledge on this case.
At this stage, I’m just a little concerned that if my case were to rely mainly on the wording “within 28 days”, this appears to be standard wording in their letters. That makes me wonder whether there would already be many cases where PCNs have been cancelled on that basis. I assume I cannot be the first person to raise this issue, but I’m not seeing many examples where people have taken this to London Tribunals and been successful on that point alone.
At the same time, may I ask why the faded red lines argument would not be considered particularly strong? When I revisited the location, the line appears to be extremely worn and, at the time of the alleged contravention, the clearer section of the marking was largely obscured by the vehicle in front of mine.
Also, would it be acceptable to raise both arguments when appealing to London Tribunals — namely the issue of the faded road markings and the wording regarding “within 28 days of the date of service”?
Any guidance would be much appreciated.
If this was your personal PCN, would you fold and pay at this point or take this to London Tribunals?
-
You can argue the point about the lines, but IMO you would probably lose.
IMO, better prospects arise from their repeated and uncorrected use of the term 'within 28 days of the date of service'. It's improper because it's not mandated by the regs which instead state '28 days beginning on the date of service'.
IMO, courts have held that 'within' excludes the base or reference date, therefore in this case extending periods by 1 day.
-
Hi...The full NoR has been uploaded
https://imgpile.com/p/M37Qlhq
They have also sent me the appeal to the London Tribunals information
For evidence (Viewing the images online) TFL have two pictures of my vehicle at the location. https://imgpile.com/p/XUACjJQ
There are no pictures of my vehicle entering the space where the red route is, clearly showing the Red lines prior to parking.
The only evidence I've received about the Red route at the location is from the NoR which contains FOI about the Red route and images from Google maps which clearly show the red route
https://imgpile.com/p/EfEbxxN
If you look at the clear image of the Red route here https://imgpile.com/p/EfEbxxN
You see the two toned brick work in the road. When I parked vehicles were parked up to the brick work on ether side of the Red route, over the adjacent bays.
Leaving me just the faded section of the Red route https://imgpile.com/m/iRi6rn6.
Regards
Paul
-
Pl post the complete NOR, I can see only one page - it's a TMA road traffic contravention therefore notices' procedural correctness is important.
IMO, we also need to see their evidence, which is all the adjudicator would see, to evaluate whether your 'they were too faded to be clear to an attentive driver' argument has legs.
-
Here is the NoR received from TFL
https://imgpile.com/p/M37Qlhq
I no longer have the original PCN from TfL. I did seek some advice on this forum earlier, and the general view seemed to be that there was not much obvious evidence as to why I would have been permitted to park on the red route.
Following that, it was suggested that I could submit an appeal anyway just to see what TfL said. I used ChatGPT to draft a representation, which I submitted, but that appeal has now been rejected.
After submitting that representation, I revisited the location. I originally relied on the TfL images and Google Maps, which show a clear red route line. However, when I went back to the location, I found that the red line on the road is now extremely faded.
In addition, looking again at TfL’s evidence photo, the vehicle in front of my Blue Tesla appears to cover the more prominent section of the red line. https://imgpile.com/p/6uSmPaR The road surface there is a two-tone brick surface, and the Other vehicle blocks the clearer portion of the marking. At the time (and at night), the only visible marking would have been a very small section of what appears to be a heavily faded red line.
Unfortunately, I did not raise this point in my original representation because I assumed the contravention was clear.
Given this, do I have any grounds to raise this argument now? Would the correct next step be to appeal to London Tribunals even though it wasn’t included in my original representation?
Also, am I still able to view the actual CCTV footage at this stage while the PCN is effectively paused so I can properly review the evidence and gather photographs of the location?
-
As far as I can see, the reply is not a NoR, it's a response to a FoI request.
Do you have a NoR?
Otherwise, we've not seen:
The PCN;
The video;
Your reps;
A NoR.
Not a lot for us to go on.
-
You have the absolute right in law to take them to London Tribunals, but have to risk the full PCN penalty of you do so; no discount option. So it's your decision, fold and pay, or stand your ground.
-
Hi
Advice please, TFL have rejected my appeal...
See attached letter https://imgpile.com/p/EfEbxxN
I note the previous comments above regarding my case not being strong ...
My argument is that when I parked there the only section of Red lines that were visible were the extremely faded red lines.
https://imgpile.com/p/A8Ocdal
TFL say that the CCTV clearly shows the marking, are these faded red line clear? I think not.
Other vehicles were parked up to the two toned section of the raised road, so I could not even see that there were bays adjacent the the faded red lines....
Thanks in advance for your advice and guidance
-
It is worht trying, but I try to make sure people realise how venal and rapaciouis councils are nowadays so the disappointment of a rejection is not felt too hard.
Yes, I would go for the faded red lines. As they need no sign, it is doubly important they are in good condition.
-
This incident was captured on CCTV and the PCN sent to my home address..
So any further correspondence will be sent to me..
I'm the owner and driver...
I sent a online appeal in accordance with the instructions on the PNC..
Can I send TFL this additional evidence "Faded red lines"....As an amendment to the appeal I've already submitted..?
I take onboard what you say about not this being in my favour. but surely its worth trying..
-
Not in your favour is the presence of two clearly marked bays with signs regulating them, thus indicating to an aexperienced motorist that there could be a restriction on the gap between the bays.
Frankly, I don't think you have a strong case to take to London Tribunals, the only place where you'll get an unbiased judgment.
YOu say you've already appealed, but I assume this was an informal challenge to the PCN found on your car. Post their response when you get it. Next stage is the Notice to Owner. Are you the owner and is your V5C Registration Certificate up-to-date for address, as that is where the NtO is sent ?
-
I originally accepted that I didn’t really have strong grounds to appeal this PCN. I submitted an appeal anyway to see whether there was any possibility of success. Since then, I’ve revisited the location where the alleged contravention occurred and noticed that the red route lines are extremely faded. At the time of parking, I genuinely did not see any clear red lines, which is why I believed it was permitted to stop there.
My questions are:
As I have already submitted an appeal, am I still allowed to provide additional photographic evidence showing the faded road markings?
Based on similar cases, do faded or poorly maintained red route lines give me any realistic chance of a successful appeal?
Any advice from people with experience of red route PCNs or tribunal outcomes would be appreciated.
See picture attached of the actual location compared to the image from street view
https://imgpile.com/p/A8Ocdal
Also at the time of the alleged offence there was another vehicle parked on the section of red line that was more prominent...
So I could only see the faded part of the red line. not the slightly more prominent parts of the red lines
https://imgpile.com/p/6uSmPaR
-
I'm the driver / owner....
I agree with you about the signage....
Wasn't the best decision to park there...
Exploring any way of not giving 80 quid to the mafia
Well, sorry to say it, but at the moment I see no robust appeal argument. Of course that doesn't stop you submitting representations based on what you have told us, so do so, and post up their response when you get it; they may shoot themselves in the foot, who knows ! They will re-offer the discount when they reject them.
-
I'm the driver / owner....
I agree with you about the signage....
Wasn't the best decision to park there...
Exploring any way of not giving 80 quid to the mafia
-
The problem you have with this argument is that there are clearly marked out parking bays with signs, the tops of which have the words "Red Route" on them. Opposite where he parked are also double-red lines, so it's not as if there is no hint of the street being a Red Route.
Were you the driver ? Or are you the owner of the vehicle. Under the legislation, the owner has legal responsibility for payment or appealing a PCN.
-
The driver of the vehicle stopped on a Red route.
The Red lines were not noticed at the time of the alleged offence, the Red route is approximately one car length, situated between unrestricted parking space, making it difficult to see during the hours of darkness.
In daylight hours the Red route is clear to see.
The PNC letter has been misplaced, the registered keeper has been provided with the PNC ref by TFL so details can be reviewed online.
The PNC was dispatched by TFL on the 3rd Feb.
A replacement PNC letter has been requested
Pictures online show the vehicle parked but the Red route can't be seen.
No challenge submitted yet.
No request to view CCTV requested
Street view
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jBLYFWto7D8m1pdw6
Picture from PNC
https://imgpile.com/p/6uSmPaR
Thanks in advance for your advice