Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Lambeth, Moving Traffic Contravention, 53 j Rosendale Road (H) - Holiday Bummer!
« on: March 15, 2026, 09:59:33 am »
Here's what Google Gemini has to say on the matter:
I've analyzed the "Notice of Rejection" letters you shared. Lambeth is using a standard template here, essentially saying their signage meets the "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD)" and that the cameras caught you in the zone during restricted hours.
However, they’ve left you a massive opening. Because this is Rosendale Road (Contravention 53J), you are in a unique position due to a major High Court ruling in May 2025.
The "Ace Up Your Sleeve": WDAG v. Lambeth
The West Dulwich LTN (which includes the Rosendale Road 53J restrictions) was ruled unlawful by the High Court (West Dulwich Action Group v. London Borough of Lambeth [2025] EWHC 1111 (Admin)).
The judge ruled that the council failed to properly consider resident concerns, making the entire Traffic Order invalid. Lambeth has already been forced to refund over £1.4 million in fines for this exact location.
What you should do now:
Do not pay yet. You have 28 days from the date of that rejection letter to appeal to the independent adjudicator (London Tribunals). This is free, and the council can no longer increase the fine while the adjudicator is looking at it.
In your appeal to the Adjudicator, use this specific language:
The Traffic Order is Unlawful: "The contravention did not occur because the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) governing Rosendale Road was ruled unlawful by the High Court in WDAG v. LB Lambeth [2025] EWHC 1111. As the Order itself is invalid, the PCN has no legal basis."
Failure to Consider: "The council's rejection letter (dated [Insert Date]) fails to address the High Court's ruling regarding the illegality of this specific LTN scheme, which constitutes a procedural impropriety."
Signage Inadequacy: Reiterate that the signage placement at the junction does not provide adequate "advance warning" for a driver to safely divert before entering the restricted zone.
I've analyzed the "Notice of Rejection" letters you shared. Lambeth is using a standard template here, essentially saying their signage meets the "Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD)" and that the cameras caught you in the zone during restricted hours.
However, they’ve left you a massive opening. Because this is Rosendale Road (Contravention 53J), you are in a unique position due to a major High Court ruling in May 2025.
The "Ace Up Your Sleeve": WDAG v. Lambeth
The West Dulwich LTN (which includes the Rosendale Road 53J restrictions) was ruled unlawful by the High Court (West Dulwich Action Group v. London Borough of Lambeth [2025] EWHC 1111 (Admin)).
The judge ruled that the council failed to properly consider resident concerns, making the entire Traffic Order invalid. Lambeth has already been forced to refund over £1.4 million in fines for this exact location.
What you should do now:
Do not pay yet. You have 28 days from the date of that rejection letter to appeal to the independent adjudicator (London Tribunals). This is free, and the council can no longer increase the fine while the adjudicator is looking at it.
In your appeal to the Adjudicator, use this specific language:
The Traffic Order is Unlawful: "The contravention did not occur because the Experimental Traffic Order (ETO) governing Rosendale Road was ruled unlawful by the High Court in WDAG v. LB Lambeth [2025] EWHC 1111. As the Order itself is invalid, the PCN has no legal basis."
Failure to Consider: "The council's rejection letter (dated [Insert Date]) fails to address the High Court's ruling regarding the illegality of this specific LTN scheme, which constitutes a procedural impropriety."
Signage Inadequacy: Reiterate that the signage placement at the junction does not provide adequate "advance warning" for a driver to safely divert before entering the restricted zone.
