Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for your reply. It really does feel as though the council’s sole focus is securing the money, with no regard for individual circumstances. They seem to issue a blanket response knowing full well that most people can’t afford to risk challenging them further, and with no real consequence for acting however they choose. It feels incredibly unfair. My family has been through very difficult times this year, and it’s disheartening to see how little compassion they’re willing to show.

I’d like to fight them further, but the risk of losing the discounted amount puts me in a tough position. What I’m unsure about is how one actually proves that the council failed to follow the statutory guidance.

Would be interested to hear what others think about this angle and whether it’s worth pursuing.

UPDATE: I have just received this response from Redbridge Council, though the envelope's return address is in Northampton.

Rejection Letter - Page 1


Rejection Letter - Page 2


Rejection Letter - Envelope with Northampton return address


Is there anything I can do or should I pay up before the amount increases?

Ok, thank you, so do you think I should just pay it?

@Incandescent - Thank you.

@Hippocrates - Thank you ever so much. What do you need me to do?

Hi @Hippocrates,

This is the text, is it ok?...


Dear London Borough of Havering,

I challenge PCN HG61566067 on the grounds of procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority for the following reasons:

1. The restriction is not clearly signed or marked. The restriction sign on Salisbury Road faces parallel to Brentwood Road, making it impossible to see when approaching. There is a shop on the approaching corner which has large vans parked on the pavement, further concealing the sign. By the time the sign is clearly visible and legible, a driver would have already turned into Salisbury Road, and to rectify the mistake would have to brake suddenly and reverse onto a busy main road which would be extremely unsafe.

2. There is a sign before the Salisbury Road junction which states “Cycle and pedestrian zone at school start and finish times in term time”. This sign is not an advance warning sign authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, it does not forewarn you of the exact operating days and times and uses “term time” which is not a permitted variant and thus proscribed. Additionally, the sign is very plain so draws little attention, it is set back from the road, there is a junction just before it, an overhanging tree which partially covers it upon approach and it is placed near a pedestrian crossing. So, a driver’s focus will naturally be on potential hazards from the junction and pedestrian crossing, not the unauthorised sign. Even if seen, a driver may reasonably assume the school end time is 15:30, as is the case with most schools in the borough.

3. The signs and markings are inconsistent with each other and/or Traffic Management Order or legislation as the supposed advance warning sign does not specify any days or times of operation which does not therefore match the TMO or the pedestrian zone sign, and this inconsistency creates confusion.

4. The Penalty Charge Notice is not compliant with regards to the grounds for making original representations to the Enforcement Authority as the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 1(4) in Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

5. Your website further confuses matters as it lists different grounds for making representations when compared to the PCN, fetters discretion and limits to one ground of representation which flies in the face of the law and the PCN.

To illustrate the aforementioned points, you can view the following evidence by visiting this webpage: https://imgur.com/a/EKGmOMF.

1. PCN Letter
2. Havering Council’s online grounds for representations options
3. “So-called” warning sign 1
4. “So-called” warning sign 2
5. Shop with Van 1 obscuring restriction sign
6. Shop with Van 2 obscuring restriction sign
7. Shop with Vans 2 and 3 obscuring restriction sign
8. Video of everything

Additionally, there is substantial precedent supporting my case, please refer to the London Tribunal ETA Register of Appeals case numbers 2210317671 and 2240327073 in which both appeal decisions were allowed against the London Borough of Havering which was instructed to cancel the Penalty Charge Notices. Further support can be found in cases 2240078999 and 224043551A pertaining to signage.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

Is this draft for making representations, ok?



Dear London Borough of Havering,

I challenge PCN HG61566067 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur because:

1.   The restriction is not clearly signed or marked. The restriction sign on Salisbury Road faces parallel to Brentwood Road, making it impossible to see when approaching. There is a shop on the approaching corner which has large vans parked on the pavement, further concealing the sign. By the time the sign is clearly visible and legible, a driver would have already turned into Salisbury Road, and to rectify the mistake would have to brake suddenly and reverse onto a busy main road which would be extremely unsafe.

2.   There is a sign before the Salisbury Road junction which states “Cycle and pedestrian zone at school start and finish times in term time”. This sign is not an advance warning sign authorised by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, it does not forewarn you of the exact operating days and times and uses “term time” which is not a permitted variant and thus proscribed. Additionally, the sign is very plain so draws little attention, it is set back from the road, there is a junction just before it, an overhanging tree which partially covers it upon approach and it is placed near a pedestrian crossing. So, a driver’s focus will naturally be on potential hazards from the junction and pedestrian crossing, not the unauthorised sign. Even if seen, a driver may reasonably assume the school end time is 15:30 as is the case with most schools in the borough.

3.   The signs and markings are inconsistent with each other and/or Traffic Order or legislation as the supposed advance warning sign does not specify any days or times of operation which does not therefore match the TMO or the pedestrian zone sign, and this inconsistency creates confusion.

4.   The Penalty Charge Notice is not compliant with regards to the grounds for making original representations to the Enforcement Authority as the wording on the Penalty Charge Notice does not comply with the strict requirements of Paragraph 11(1) in Part 7 of Schedule 9 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

5.   Your website further confuses matters as it lists different grounds for making representations, fetters discretion and limits to one ground of representation which flies in the face of the law and the PCN thereby causing confusion.

To illustrate the aforementioned points, you can view my evidence by clicking on this link: EVIDENCE.

Additionally, please refer to the London Tribunal ETA Register of Appeals case numbers 2210317671 and 2240327073 in which both appeal decisions were allowed against the London Borough of Havering which was instructed to cancel the Penalty Charge Notices. Further support can be found in cases 2240078999 and 224043551A pertaining to signage.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Yours faithfully,

Which option should I choose?

Thank you for your messages and help.

In light of the above, how should I proceed?