Free Traffic Legal Advice

By way of update, the appeal for this was yesterday.

The appeal was UPHELD
here is the response 
The Appellant appeared by video link and was represented by Mr Morgan The Council was
represented by its officer Mr Whitlock.
The PCN was issued on the basis that by turning right at this junction the Appellant had failed to
comply with the requirement to drive in the direction indicated by the sign. However the blue "ahead
only" arrows to diagram 606 Traffic Sign Regulations and General Directions 2016 mounted on the
traffic signals had been covered up as a result of road works, and had been replaced not with a
similar sign but with a temporary rectangular sign to diagram 652 TSRGD, the sign used to indicate a
one-way street ("one-way traffic"). In the absence of a replacement sign to Diagram 606 ("vehicular
traffic must proceed in the direction indicated by the arrow") the requirement to proceed ahead only
was not correctly indicated and the Appeal must be allowed.
Edward Houghton
Adjudicator
18th March 2026
2250375866

Thank you kindly

Thank you for your response. It is much appreciated.

I have spoken to the Lido and they unfortunately stated that the car park is nothing to do with them, so cannot cancel the ticket.

Based on the previous entries to Gemini I wonder if you could comment on whether the following is a suitable response.

I am the keeper of the vehicle and I dispute your 'parking charge' on two points. I deny any liability or contractual agreement and I will be making a complaint about your predatory conduct to your client landowner.

1.   As your Notice to Keeper (NtK) does not fully comply with ALL the requirements of PoFA 2012, you are unable to hold the keeper of the vehicle liable for the charge. Partial or even substantial compliance is not sufficient. There will be no admission as to who was driving and no inference or assumptions can be drawn. Gemini has relied on contract law allegations of breach against the driver only. The registered keeper cannot be presumed or inferred to have been the driver, nor pursued under a poor interpretation of the law of agency. Your NtK can only hold the driver liable. Gemini will not be successful in any litigation, so are  urged to save time and cancel the PCN.

2.   Secondly, the driver relies on the doctrine of Frustration of Contract in their defence. The contract was formed between the Claimant and the driver, in which the Claimant granted the consideration of free parking for 120 minutes, in return for a promise to leave within 120 minutes on the part of the driver. There was, in this case, a change in circumstances which was not the fault of either party, and which rendered it impossible for the driver to perform the contract. Specifically, the driver was blocked by another driver from exiting the car park and sought to find said driver without success (in the nearby facilities).

Where a contract is found to be frustrated, each party is discharged from future obligations under the contract and neither party may sue for breach. The allocation of loss is decided by the Law Reform (Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943, but in this case there was no loss to the Claimant at the time the contract was breached, and so they have no valid claim for £100 or any amount at all. The case of Nicholl and Knight v Ashton, Eldridge & Co [1901] 2 KB 126 provides authority for this.

I am sure people have seen this already but in case anyone hasn’t. The recent overturning of illegal traffic restrictions by Lambeth council means that motorists who received and paid PCNs, specifically those issued in relation to the Street Improvement Scheme in West Dulwich, for driving through the traffic filters at Ardlui Road, Carson Road, Chatsworth Way, Eastmearn Road and Tulsemere Road, can apply for their refund on the council’s website – https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/wdhnrefund. It was a fairly easy and quick process so worth doing.

Hi All

Appealed this on the basis of 1. procedural impropriety - Breach of Schedule 1 Paragraph 5 2. Lack of Adequate Signage or Road Markings 3. Traffic Chaos and Obstruction at Time of Alleged Contravention. The appeal was rejected and the letter is attached.


https://imgur.com/a/02SfoBa


I also looked on the site this morning and there is a threat to increase the fee to £240 if I didn't pay - screen shot attached.

Any advice as to whether I just pay this or take it to London tribunals.

Thank you for any advice

Hi Hippocrates - would you you elaborate please and point me in the direction of some working. Thank you very much

Thank you. Will wait to see if Hippo has anything more.

Yes it is a discounted fee of £65