Free Traffic Legal Advice

At least 4 car lengths, the average car being about 3.5m long.

the use of bus lane is for under 3 seconds and at the very end, I didn't go all the way, this should fall under the "de minimis"principal, too minimal to enforce.
De Minimis Incursion:Many adjudicators accept that a momentary crossing (under three seconds, one or two car-lengths) purely to turn left is too trivial to enforce. Citing the “de minimis” principle (Lambeth LBC v Parr [2013])

We need to see the video

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

can someone please advice on what to do next, should I pay or bring them to independent tribunal??thanks

Draft something and post here first.

Sir what should I do now? I attached in my previous message the reply of the council.

Probably best to submit reps against the 2nd one, stating that you have submitted reps against the two PCNs and repeat the text. We don't want the council to issue a Charge Certificate, so this will stop them.

yeah I did for both the same

There is no informal challenge stage,(informal reps), with postal PCNs, one can only submit a single formal representation, with the next stage being the adjudicators, (London Tribunals).

For me, your reps look well written and considered. However, may I suggest some small alterations: -

I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for an alleged contravention of “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham. I request the cancellation of these PCNs based on the following grounds:

1. Inadequate Signage Visibility and Placement:
The signage indicating the restriction is placed on the inner side of the pedestrian pavement, making it insufficiently visible to motorists. It is not positioned on the main carriageway where drivers would naturally expect to see such warnings. This placement does not conform to the standards of visibility and clear communication required for traffic signs under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. As a driver unfamiliar with this restriction, I had no reasonable opportunity to see or interpret the signs, which is evident from the attached photograph of the sign’s location.

In addition to this, there is no advance warning of this restriction, which occurs very shortly after the motorist would have made a turn left at a T-junction. A sign that indicate that there is a restriction after the left turn would have made it very unlikely I would have missed it. Also with no advance warning, the motorist must stop and make a U-turn which is surely a hazard in itself that the council has created by its failure adequately to sign the  restriction

2. Unreasonable Issuance of Multiple PCNs for the Same Contravention:
The two PCNs were issued for alleged contraventions that occurred within a short timeframe (on 05/11/2024 and 15/11/2024). However, I was not made aware of the first PCN until after I had committed the second alleged contravention when the PCN for the first alleged contravention arrived. It is both procedurally and substantively unfair to issue multiple PCNs for the same restriction when I was not given the opportunity to be aware of, or correct, my behavior following the first notice. The principle of fairness dictates that motorists should be afforded reasonable time to receive, understand, and adjust to an initial penalty notice before subsequent penalties are issued for the same alleged contravention.

3. Mitigating Circumstances:
At the time of the alleged contraventions, I had no prior knowledge of the pedestrian zone restriction on Stevens Road. As the first PCN had not been delivered to me before the second contravention occurred, I was denied the opportunity to rectify my actions in light of the restriction. Furthermore, the lack of clearly visible signage compounded this lack of awareness.

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. I believe the issuance of these penalties does not reflect the principles of fairness and proportionality that underpin the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations.

Should you decide not to cancel the PCNs, I kindly request that you provide:
• Evidence of compliance with TSRGD 2016 regarding the placement and visibility of the signage.
• A justification for issuing multiple PCNs within such a short timeframe without allowing the driver to receive and respond to the first notice.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,faithfully

thanks a lot Sir, I appreciate your help, one last question, shall I challenge both online separately with this same challenge?

Quote from: Sandymarton on November 26, 2024, 09:40:12 am

ok I m challenging myself guys, I can't wait that the period of 14 days expires....should I challenge informal or formal challenge?

London Borough of Havering
Parking Services

Subject: Formal Representation for PCN Number [HG61520408]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for an alleged contravention of “using a route restricted to certain vehicles - buses and cycles only” at Celtic Farm Road RM13 / Old Station Lane RM13 on 26/10/2024.

I request that the PCN be cancelled for the following reasons:
   1.   No Actual Contravention Took Place:
Upon reviewing the evidence provided, it is clear that my vehicle did not proceed through the restricted area. The footage shows my vehicle reversing into the road momentarily, crossing the demarcation line for a very short distance. This was an unintentional maneuver as I was attempting to adjust my vehicle’s position and drive away from the area. At no point did my vehicle traverse through or use the restricted road as a means of travel.
Entering the restricted area momentarily while reversing does not constitute “using” the route as defined under the Traffic Management Act 2004. The purpose of the restriction is to prevent vehicles from traveling through the road, which I did not do.
   2.   Lack of Clarity in the Evidence:
The footage does not provide sufficient context to suggest any intent to contravene the restriction. The maneuver captured in the footage was not deliberate use of the restricted road but rather an adjustment of my vehicle’s position. The minimal incursion into the restricted zone while reversing is an insignificant event that does not align with the intent or purpose of the restriction.
   3.   Mitigating Circumstances:
The maneuver was carried out due to the layout of the road, and there was no intention to misuse the restricted area. I made efforts to correct my positioning and promptly drove away without using the restricted road. Penalizing such a brief, incidental action that caused no disruption undermines the fairness of enforcement in this instance.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled. The evidence clearly shows that no contravention occurred in the spirit of the restriction, and my actions do not justify the penalty.


Thank you for your consideration of this representation. I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Contact Information]