Free Traffic Legal Advice

TfL essentially have said that yes. But would the London Tribunal? We know TfL don't have the greatest understanding of traffic contraventions, they reject appeals that would win at Tribunal everyday of the week except Sunday, but twice on Monday.

The road markings clearly contradict the signs on the traffic lights, had the road markings had supplementary writing saying "RIGHT TURN BUSES ONLY" I might be more accepting.

Because our head offices only sent me the NoR yesterday, the charge is already at £160. So, there is actually nothing to lose by appealing to London Tribunal.

I have this PCN for a driver at work from TfL for a 50r Performing a prohibited turn (no right turn). Going along Camden Road, there is crossroads with St Pancras Way. Now, approaching these lights in the left lane is a forward arrow. In the right of the two lanes is a forward arrow with a right arrow coming off it (as one symbol/marking) - https://maps.app.goo.gl/9vGtueZmyfYycfbT6?g_st=ac

I understand that the signs on the traffic lights indicating no right turn onto St Pancras Way are statutory directions and may take precedent over road markings, but surely the road markings should not straight up contradict the signs, that just seems wrong. I had appealed it which I have linked below and they rejected it and provide FOI requested data that I never requested. There is also just two cases on the London Tribunals register of appeals for CAMDEN ROAD NORTHBOUND JW ST PANCRAS WAY, both were from 2025 and both allowed as TfL decided to DNC. One of those appeals was from a company so I have contacted them to ask what their grounds of appeal were for the appeal.

Anyway, I'm trying to figure out if I can win this appeal. Common sense and the requirements for signage and road markings to be clear and not ambiguous tells me this isn't right.

TfL PCN - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HY17COjevhWIoleFtr0sI_vc0S5MTZEu/view?usp=drivesdk

My appeal letter - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tuYjFxawYq8U7VNbVex04HLLbRkIIwIK/view?usp=drivesdk

Notice of Rejection - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vSx6Y1F_7RTWlzU81PuDbCD68fMTni2y/view?usp=drivesdk

FOI & TRO - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hIbAhVPBucngsxZ13aNSca2NBMX7m-QY/view?usp=drivesdk

I would ask them why.

Probably not worth the time. They have no obligation to give an actual answer to that, they can just say internal deliberations, or there's no recorded information held, or Legal Advice exemption or any crap like that.

Interestingly I have had no notification from London Tribunal even that the DNC was submitted. When do they plan to notify me that I don't need to attend the Tribunal video call hearing? 

I did send a request to the Tribunal on Monday requesting that they give a reasoned decision & case summary even if the council do decide to DNC. As it would be beneficial for our (company I work for) future compliance, and to prevent the same thing happening again by putting pressure on the council to fix the defects.

Whether they will do that or if they even do that at all, I have no idea but thought I'd ask them

If they adduce no evidence by Wednesday, the Tribunal will call you the same day  and tell you not to attend as the game is over.  Personally, I would never choose a Thursday! And sit tight and do nothing.

This may interest you:

https://www.ftla.uk/news-press-articles/revealed-the-london-boroughs-that-cant-be-bothered-to-defend-thousands-of-parkin/msg104393/#msg104393

What's wrong with a Thursday? I didn't really choose the day, I just selected Monday to Friday

And yeah that was an interesting read. Some councils parking enforcement departments seem to take it very seriously in contrast. To the point where highlighting and evidencing an unlawful enforcement scheme is somehow a personal attack. I've had some good ones recently where Bexley Council believe they do not need to have signage for an overnight waiting ban zone for Heavy Goods Vehicles that covers the entire 60.5km borough, because.... they have told the registered keeper (the company I work for with over 900 drivers) previously that the restriction exists. They appear to believe this absolves them of their responsibility to signpost 

The thing that most councils hate is bad publicity so if you have a local paper send them the story or try national newspapers.

orrr to ITV, for "Tonight - Parking Problems - Part 2: Unjust Enrichment"

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/costs

"If you wish to apply for costs and expenses, you must make a written application as soon as possible after the adjudicator's decision, setting out precisely what expenses you have incurred and why you have incurred them.

Your application for costs will then be referred to the adjudicator for a decision."

Okay, that answers part of the question. I would submit the request after the decision, presumably by post or email.

Perhaps this is not the best route to solve this issue. I was hoping this could deter the council from continuing this crap, as the London Tribunal decisions against them so far for this exact issue have not been the kick up the arse they need. I have put in a complaint to the Department for Transport this evening and I may write to my MP too. I suspect there will be thousands of companies and people that have been essentially scammed by them. Unfortunately, the council haven't provided any of the information I requested under FOIA for me to find out the scale of the issue here. So, annoyingly, that's going to have to be a complaint to the ICO too.

My employer (a company/registered keeper) has been issued yet another PCN from Bexley Council for a contravention code 55 - A commercial vehicle parked in a restricted street in contravention of the Overnight Waiting Ban. I have had 2 previous PCNs that I appealed, accepted. And had a previous PCN that was paid, refunded. This time they have rejected my initial challenge and now my formal representations, so it will go to the London Tribunal.

This is merely a summary of their behaviours, but the full list of issues and failures by the Council is extensive.


The Council's conduct has been wholly unreasonable in defending the penalty charge notice (PCN), primarily because they have:

Ignored Their Own Admissions: In previous correspondence regarding this specific area, the Council's own internal department formally admitted in writing that local repeater signs were required and missing, confirming the scheme is defective. Despite this, the Council continues to enforce the restriction and rejects appeals without addressing or refuting their own evidence of non-compliance.

Defended Illegal Signage: The Council is relying on perimeter signs for their borough-wide zone, but evidence shows a critical zone-entry sign was physically altered using an adhesive sticker to change the restricted hours. This manual, non-compliant alteration violates national design rules (TSRGD), yet the Council continues to defend the validity of enforcement based on this flawed sign. Other zone signs are missing. Oh, and this zone is 60.5km² in area, contrary to the directions in TSM 2019. In a FOI requestearlier in the year they were only able to provide one location and one picture of a perimeter sign to enforce this massive area. A complaint earlier in the year they told me they are unable to provide the locations of all the borough perimeter signs for the prohibition.

Abused Statutory Process: In their formal rejection, the Council abandoned the legal test (compliant signage for the public) and justified the charge by claiming the registered keeper had been privately advised of the restriction (they actually only told me, and i have done my best to inform our 800+ drivers. They are attempting to enforce based on an individual's private knowledge rather than fulfilling their statutory duty to ensure compliant public signage for a motorist of average prudence.

I am currently waiting for a response to a more thorough FOI request I submitted which they were meant to respond to in full last Monday (8th December). I plan to use the information in my London Tribunal. They were also supposed to respond to my formal complaint last Wednesday (despite actually submitting it in September) regarding the very clear issues and failure, but I've heard nothing, but told it has been logged as a stage 1 complaint which they aim to respond to in 15 days.

Essentially, the local signage is non existent, the perimeter signage is about 5 miles away, and so far I have only seen evidence of one of these signs existing despite their claim that they are on every road in to Bexley. I have dashcam footage from multiple vehicles showing perimeter signs not being present on several routes into Bexley. This one sign Bexley relies on, is on Thames Road, and has had a sticker placed over the time the restriction applies, altering it, as it is the wrong font and size and removes the hyphen. So, it is non compliant also.

So, I want to know if I can request the adjudicator awards costs to us for the Councils unreasonable behaviour. They are just wasting my time, their own time, not just the traffic penalty enforcement team, but complaints team and whoever deals with FOI requests, and the London Tribunals time.

I have put the evidence infront of Bexley 3 times now, just for this PCN, which clearly supports the cancellation of the PCN, yet they reject it because they have previously informed me of the restriction in place, as if I'm suppose to baby sit 800 drivers, and it absolves the council of their responsibility to have sufficient and compliant signage for a prohabition they wish to enforce. It's ridiculous.