Hi

Hope you are well.  My Father has just received the ticket below which looks very similar to this one -

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-code-47j-stopped-on-a-restricted-bus-stop-clayhall-avenue/

Please can you advise if this is worth appealing.  My Father (who is a disabled badge holder) only stopped for a few seconds.

Thanks

Thanks Hippocrates, so is this okay to submit:

Dear Sir or Madam

Re: Enforcement Notice – PCN GX33149185
Vehicle Registration: TRL1P

I make these formal representations against the Enforcement Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur and that there has been a procedural impropriety.

Firstly, I ask that my initial challenge against the Penalty Charge Notice be treated as incorporated into these formal representations. I rely upon all of the points raised therein. TfL's rejection letter does not properly address the procedural improprieties identified, but merely asserts that the signage complies with the relevant legislation.

The alleged contravention did not occur

TfL has failed to produce evidence that my vehicle passed the prescribed bus lane entry sign (diagram 958 or 959).

The rejection letter merely states that the signage complies with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. That is simply an assertion and is not evidence.

Having reviewed the CCTV footage, it does not show my vehicle passing either a diagram 958 or diagram 959 bus lane entry sign before the alleged contravention. Likewise, the still photographs contained within the Penalty Charge Notice do not show any such signage.

I therefore put TfL to strict proof that the prescribed bus lane entry sign was present, lawful, clearly visible and actually passed by my vehicle before the alleged contravention occurred.

Procedural impropriety

I continue to rely upon the procedural improprieties identified in my original challenge, including in particular:

• the statement that an Enforcement Notice will "automatically" be issued, which fetters the authority's discretion where the legislation provides that an Enforcement Notice may be issued;
• the misleading wording concerning correspondence before the Enforcement Notice and the right of appeal; and
• the failure to properly consider the matters raised in my initial challenge.
  

CCTV evidence

Although I requested the CCTV evidence promptly, it was supplied only on DVD.

In 2026, it is unreasonable to expect a motorist to possess or obtain DVD playback equipment simply to examine the evidence relied upon by the enforcement authority. This unnecessarily hindered my ability to review the evidence and prepare my case. TfL could easily have provided the footage via an online viewing portal or downloadable electronic

For the reasons set out above, TfL has failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged contravention.

Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Enforcement Notice and the underlying Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Yours faithfully

Thanks, whilst I check with the finance company is it possible to pay the £80 and continue to appeal/take it to tribunal?  I am just trying to avoid paying the finance company an admin charge.  Thanks

Thanks and I agree.  I am happy to take this further but we are not the registered keeper (the finance company is) and I suspect if they receive the NtO then they may be pay it and then charge us for it + admin fee

Hi,

Hope you are well.  As expected rejection received from Redbridge - please review and advise.  thanks

Thanks, I will submit and I agree with you it will probably get rejected but would it be worth taking all the way to the adjudicator?

Hi,  Please see below my draft appeal, kindly advise before I submit. 

Thanks

PCN No: AF15382445 — Vehicle: BK72LWD — Challenge

I am challenging this PCN, issued on 03/07/2026 on Atherton Road for contravention 62(2).

There are signs (TSRGD diagram 667B) indicating that footway parking is permitted on both sides of this stretch of Atherton Road: one on my side of the road positioned ahead of where my vehicle was parked, and one on the opposite side positioned level with my vehicle.

Under the Traffic Signs Regulations, where a sign indicates the point at which a restriction, requirement, or prohibition begins or ends, it must be placed "as near as practicable" to that point — not necessarily at the exact point itself. This means the physical position of a sign is not conclusive evidence of precisely where the permitted footway parking area begins or ends; sign placement is frequently constrained by practical factors such as existing lamp columns.

In this case, the sign on the opposite side of the road indicates that footway parking relief applies level with my vehicle's position. If that sign is correctly placed, my vehicle was within the permitted area and no contravention occurred. Only the council's resolution made under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 can determine the actual extent of the permitted and prohibited footway parking areas on this road — the signs themselves are not determinative of that boundary.

I therefore request that, before responding to this challenge, the council refers to the relevant s.15(4) resolution/order for this location and confirms the precise extent of the permitted footway parking area, together with an explanation of why the signage on the two sides of the road appears to indicate different start points for that relief.

I also request disclosure of the Civil Enforcement Officer's photographs taken at the time.

In light of the above, I request that this PCN be cancelled.