Free Traffic Legal Advice

here are the files

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

no it isn't

restricted for school from 8.15am to something like 10.

How often have you done this? Exactly the same circumstances? Any recently before this event?
=> yes many times this year, I bring my children to school and every time I am after 8.15 I push the bike...well until now, not taking the risk anymore, but I wonder if I can push on pavement.

No motor vehicle... yes I agree but if we want to play dumb I can say that there is no proof that my vehicle had a motor at that time...

The video evidence shows me at all time pushing my bike at a time where the area is restricted

For the council it doesn't exempt me from the restriction... are they right? Is there a way to escape this?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

any way to claim compensation?

I am not hoping for a miracle but just basic justice. Here is what I sent, I'd be shocked if review is not accepted and appeal allowed

I am writing to apply for a review of the decision made by Adjudicator Ms. Natalie Goffe on 7th October 2023 regarding Case number 2230384795, where my appeal against liability for the payment of Penalty Charge Notice LJ25354983 was refused.

This exact situation was already decided by Teresa Brennan on the 8th March 2023 case (case 2230095470, PCN LJ23107724) because evidence submitted by the council was unacceptable:

“The local authority provides photographs of a sign at the junction of Lambeth Walk and Lambeth Road that warns drivers that there is a bus lane on the left. The photograph is undated. None of the photographs provided by the council are dated. I find that the evidence shows that the signs in Lambeth Road have changed from a bus lane that is in operation from 7am to 7pm to a bus lane that is in operation at all times. As the council's photographs are undated and as I cannot read the sign in the CCTV footage because the camera does not focus on the sign I cannot be satisfied that the bus lane was clearly signed in accordance with the traffic order on 28th November 2022.”

Remarkably, the evidence presented in Case Number 2230384795 (October 2023) mirrors the undated photographs used in Case Number 2230095470 (November 2022). The council has repeatedly neglected to consider the actual facts when responding to appeals. Given that the evidence previously ruled unacceptable is being recycled for multiple appeals, there is a significant concern regarding a systematic denial of justice. The evidence used for the current case decision is factually incorrect, offering no insight into the present condition of the road signage. Furthermore, it appears that additional information I provided after receiving the council’s evidence was not acknowledged or considered in the final decision (including dated and recent pictures contradicting EA’s pictures), potentially indicating a procedural oversight.

In light of these considerations, I am compelled to seek a review under Regulation 12 of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001. This request is submitted within the required 14 days following the Adjudicator's decision, and for your convenience, I have attached the prior decision which approved the appeal.


Given the serious and systemic flaws evident in the appeal process, I am also compelled to seek compensation and a formal condemnation of the Enforcement Authority's approach to handling appeals. It is apparent that the council has not evaluated my appeals — and likely many others — with the requisite level of honesty and consideration.

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

ok makes sense for the hearing

pre warning sign yes, but didn't get a chance to see a warning sign. I have been caught before passing the first blue sign. How could I know that this bus lane was not permitted to moped when all TFL road around are. 50 yards is nothing... blatent bleach, yes if you've had signs to be warned. In my case I had no signs.

any for me the worst is that the council used undated/outdated evidence, I have made this FOI:

Dear Lambeth Borough Council,

I have noticed that on Lambeth Walk leading to Lambeth Road, the white sign featuring a bus symbol is not visible as it is rotated 180°. This situation leads to road users receiving Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) without proper advance warning typically expected in such scenarios. In light of this, could you please provide information on the following:

1. How many PCNs have been issued at Lambeth Road (W) to individuals who entered from the side road and later contested the signage visibility in their responses?
2. Out of the aforementioned number, how many PCNs were subsequently cancelled?
3. When was the issue of the rotated sign first reported to the council?
4. When the council presents cases against road users at Lambeth Road (W) – irrespective of their approach route – photographic evidence is submitted to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators to demonstrate compliance with sign visibility standards. It has come to my attention that the council consistently uses the same image for this location. Could you please provide the date on which this recurring photograph was initially captured?
5. In cases where individuals feel unjustly penalized due to outdated or inaccurate evidence submitted by the council (for instance, when the photographs used do not reflect the current state of the signage), what is the appropriate contact or email address for them to seek refunds for charges incurred as a result of adjudication by the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators?

I await your prompt response.

Yours faithfully,

I found that I should write them, is there a chance to overturn by sending a letter like this?

Head of Support Services
London Tribunals
PO Box 10598
Nottingham
NG6 6DR

08/10/2023

Dear Sir or Madam,

Application for Review
Case number: 2230384795
Penalty Charge Notice number: LJ25354983
Date of Adjudicator’s decision: 7th October 2023

I am writing to apply for a review of the decision made by Adjudicator Ms. Natalie Goffe on 7th October 2023 regarding Case number 2230384795, where my appeal against liability for the payment of Penalty Charge Notice LJ25354983 was refused.

I wish to apply for a review under Regulation 12 of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, within the stipulated 14 days following the adjudicator’s decision.

I seek a review for the following reasons:

1. **Inaccurate Evidence from the EA:** The decision was based on the EA's evidence, which I believe to be outdated and undated. This reliance led to a decision that I find erroneous, as it can be discredited through an on-site visit or consultation with Google Street View.

2. **Overlooked Supplementary Evidence:** A potential procedural error occurred when my supplementary evidence was submitted after the initial case submission. This evidence, crucial for my case, appears to have been overlooked or disregarded during the adjudication process.

To elaborate further, the final decision states: "The signage is also clear and compliant". However, the supplementary evidence I submitted post-initial case submission distinctly shows the signage is turned, making it non-visible to road users, thereby challenging the adjudicator's statement and the final decision's validity. This clear discrepancy between the adjudicator’s statement and the actual situation on the ground as supported by my evidence renders the decision "plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator", providing grounds for a necessary review.

I respectfully request the evaluation of my application for review, with a detailed assessment of the new and previously overlooked evidence to ensure a fair and just re-evaluation of the case.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and await your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,