Free Traffic Legal Advice

I cannot see much of a reputation here as there was no evidence of the 100's of cases won but lots of very unprofessional replies which do not bode well for forum that should be providing independent advice which should be balanced and objective.  No chance of that here, totally unprofessional personally attacking anyone who disagrees with your views and including information that is clearly inaccurate in your responses including responses which could amount to breaches of personal data.  In the final analysis the adjudicator was not in the car at the time,  I was.  I have seen the video footage which does not support your position that the car has not turned as it is only the last segment of the video. 

This isn't about money, the ticket has been paid. It's about the council ripping  drivers off by poor signposting and the fact that virtually every appeal goes before the traffic tribunal is rejected. An appeal process that in my view is biased and did take into account objective evidence that shows the Council and the adjudicator where wrong.

There is a reply that from one member that point to high success rates of appeals that they have appeared in. It would be helpful if they could share the appeal numbers for those cases so that others can learn from them and and I can take a view on whether to retain your services.  Please let me know whether or not you are legally qualified.

The next stage in the process will be to raise this with my MP.  It would be helpful to hear from others who have been given penalty notices in this area which they feel were unjustified they should get in contact as this will strengthen the judicial review application and also any submission that my MP may make.

I appealed (Unsuccessfully an adjudicator's decision about a ticket I received for the road that was not signposted.  Here is my appeal. Any idea's what next, it not it I hope this is of help to others.  It went to the senior adjudicator who said the other adjudicator has made their decision and they are not changing it.   I was concerned to look a the list of cases before London Traffic Tribunal to see that virtually no appeals have been unheld over the last two weeks which suggests a lack of independence.


Grounds for Appeal

I am writing to formally appeal the decision made by the Adjudicator on 16th December 2024 regarding the alleged traffic contravention at the Goldsmith Road junction with Meeting House Lane on 27th June 2024.
The basis of my appeal includes the following key statutory grounds:

1. The Alleged Contravention Did Not Occur

The adjudicator’s decision relies heavily on CCTV evidence, which purportedly shows my vehicle driving straight along Goldsmith Road. However, as I submitted during the original hearing, my vehicle turned left from Pennethorne Road onto Goldsmith Road and did not approach the restriction signs head-on. This specific route was not sufficiently addressed in the decision.
The OpenAI analysis (file reference: Open AI Response to Position of Car) confirms that vehicles turning left from Pennethorne Road are almost immediately confronted with the "No Entry" signs, which may not be visible or apparent due to their positioning close to the junction. In fact the signs were not visible.  The analysis highlights the confusion caused by this layout. This directly contradicts the adjudicator’s assertion that the signs were clearly visible.

2. There Was Procedural Impropriety on the Part of the Enforcement Authority
The adjudicator’s interpretation of the CCTV evidence is questionable. There was inconsistent findings based on CCTV evidence.  The decision concludes that my vehicle approached the signage head-on, despite my explicit statement to the contrary. The Open AI analysis of the scheme shows (attached) that the position of the car was consistent with it having turned left from Pennethorne Road.  The position of car in the centre of the road was in that position to avoid the two large wooden boxes placed on either side of the road.  The adjudicator’s conclusion disregards my right to challenge the interpretation of evidence and undermines the procedural fairness of the adjudication process.   Furthermore, the adjudicator failed to account for my assertion that I had not been given adequate opportunity to view the full CCTV footage prior to the hearing, as required by procedural fairness.   I could not obtain the CCTV footage as Southwark Council Parking did not answer their phone when I called; in-person viewing is impossible as I live in Nottingham.

3. The Traffic Order Which Is Alleged to Have Been Contravened Is Invalid

The Department for Transport’s Traffic Signs Manual mandates that signs must be placed to provide clear, unambiguous guidance to drivers. The restriction signage at this junction is positioned unusually high, and the approach angle for vehicles turning left further obscures visibility. These deficiencies render the signage inadequate to enforce the alleged contravention. Media reports (references: Council Rakes in Almost £300,000 and Over £278,000 in Fines on One Road) confirm that this location has resulted in an exceptionally high number of fines, further suggesting systemic issues with the signage.  There was a failure to consider this contextual evidence.
As I illustrated with photographic evidence during the hearing (reference: Appeal from Adjudicator), drivers turning left are at a disadvantage compared to those approaching head-on. The adjudicator failed to account for the impact of these factors on visibility and driver compliance.
This strongly suggests systemic issues with the clarity of the signage rather than isolated driver error. The adjudicator’s decision does not consider these reports, which support my assertion that the signage is misleading and confusing.

4. Mitigating Circumstances

As stated in my testimony, I was relying on a SatNav system, which guided me onto Goldsmith Road. The restricted nature of this road was not made apparent so corrective action could not be taken. The OpenAI analysis (reference: Perplexity High Number of Tickets Issued As Sign Not Clear) acknowledges the inadequacies of the signage and the confusion it causes.   There was confusion caused by the SatNav guidance.
 

Request for Reconsideration
Given the issues outlined above, I respectfully request that the tribunal reconsider my case. Specifically, I ask for:
1.   A review of the CCTV evidence, taking into account the possibility that my vehicle turned left from Pennethorne Road.
2.   Consideration of the contextual evidence indicating systemic problems with signage clarity at this location.
3.   Acknowledgment of the specific challenges posed by the height, positioning, and proximity of the signs to the junction.
I firmly believe that the contravention did not occur as alleged and that the penalty is unjust in light of the evidence provided.

Supporting Documents
1.   Photographs of the junction and signage.
2.   OpenAI analysis documents.
3.   Media articles highlighting the high number of fines issued at this location.
4.   Appeal from Adjudicator document.

Thank you for considering my appeal. I am available for a hearing or further discussions should the tribunal require additional information.



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]