Hi there,
I recently received a PCN for a 47J offence. I drop my son off for his school bus every day and I have been doing this for some time. Recently, obviously without my knowledge, an enforcement camera has been installed and I have picked up this PCN. For reference, I am fairly sure I have approximately 7 further violations (I stopped dropping off this way when I realised, but counting the days this is how many more I think I will get).
I acknowledge I obviously shouldn't have done this, but whilst the road markings are there, I had never seen signage related to this. Signage is there, but it really is not noticeable from the drivers seat.
Docs, photos and videos related to this, including the PCN, can be found on the link below:
https://drive.proton.me/urls/8WCKF81364#tbM3ZPMYByQB I have drafted the below and wondered if anyone could advise. Obviously I would prefer not to pay 8 PCNs. Maybe I will have to. I was hoping if I could appeal one, then I could appeal them all as they are the same contravention at the same site. It would be good to know either way, even if I have to prepare myself for the financial drain!! Thank you in advance for your help!
Re: Appeal against PCN NQ90229170 / Code 47J - Stopped on a Restricted Bus Stop or Stand
I am writing to formally challenge the Penalty Charge Notice issued under Contravention Code 47J, alleging that my vehicle stopped unlawfully on a restricted bus stop or stand. I fully acknowledge the importance of ensuring bus routes remain unobstructed and accessible. However, I respectfully submit that in this case, the relevant signage and placement raise concerns under both statutory and procedural standards, rendering the contravention unfair and unenforceable.
Signage Visibility and Placement
The yellow sign indicating the restriction is mounted parallel to the pavement and is set so close to the road that it is almost unnoticeable to a driver attempting to navigate traffic (unless you are already aware of its presence). As evidenced in the video footage at 18 seconds, the sign is not angled toward oncoming traffic and is not clearly visible from the driver’s seated position within a moving vehicle. In fact due to the sharp angle needed to read this sign it is visible for less than one second and would require the driver to take their eyes entirely off the road, due to the angle and proximity to the vehicle. This placement not only contradicts the guidance provided in the Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 3, Section 13.24.9, which is stated below, but is potentially dangerous and requires a driver to commit an offence by stopping. By regulation, signage should not require a dangerous shift in driver attention
13.24.9. Upright signs that indicate a prohibition of stopping normally face oncoming traffic as it is an offence to stop to read the sign.
13.24.9 The sign should normally be located near the centre of the bay or mounted on the post that supports the bus stop sign to diagram 970, 973.2 or 973.3 (S11‑2‑76 and 77). Where the bus stop marking has been extended to accommodate two or more buses, it might be preferable to mount the sign close to the beginning of the bay. In these circumstances an additional sign, mounted parallel to the kerb, might be required near the centre of the bay.
To further illustrate this issue, I have included a comparative photograph of another sign positioned on the opposite side of the same road. That sign, which relates to stopping but not at a bus stop, is correctly positioned adjacent to the area it governs (alongside an area of almost identical length - in fact there are two adjacent signs across this bay). These are placed where drivers can reasonably be expected to notice and interpret them in real time whilst driving in traffic conditions. In fact every other stopping or parking restriction sign on Castle Gate is arranged in this format. In contrast, the signage relevant to the alleged contravention in my case was not placed adjacent to the restricted area but was positioned ahead of and after the bus stop. Its visibility was compromised due to the flat, parallel orientation relative to the kerb, rather than being directed toward drivers. This inconsistency highlights a missed opportunity to position the sign in accordance with best practice and with consideration for real-world visibility and driver behaviour.
Road Markings and Type of Bus Stop
The road markings consist of "BUS STOP" in yellow text with a dashed yellow line near the carriageway and a solid yellow line at the back of the kerb. While this may indicate a bus stop clearway, the enforcement under Code 47J requires the restriction to be clearly and lawfully conveyed by both road markings and upright signage. The Highway Code (Rule 243) advises against stopping at bus stops, but enforcement relies on compliance with properly positioned signage under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. Where signage is not adequately visible, the markings alone cannot be deemed sufficient.
Legal and Regulatory Context
The following statutory sources apply directly to this case:
Traffic Signs Manual – Chapter 3:
Section 1.8.1: Drivers must have an unobstructed view of upright signs.
Due to the parallel nature and close proximity to the curb there is not a minimum clear visibility distance of the sign at 60m. It is not possible to scan ahead for the sign prior to this due to the complex nature of traffic requirements ahead of this - namely a busy roundabout, followed immediately by a pedestrian crossing, which requires a drivers undivided attention. This is clearly evidenced in the video footage, in real driving conditions the sign only becomes visible in the last few metres and does not meet the minimum visibility requirements.
In addition, in the video footage AND in the photos included on the PCN itself, there is clear evidence that the full structure of the sign is obstructed. In the footage a shop sign is covering the post and starting point of the structure (which is present every day) and in the PCN notice refuse bins are collected around the sign structure. While the sign face is technically unobstructed, the partial blockage of the post structure compromises the driver’s ability to clearly and promptly identify the upright sign as a legal traffic control measure — particularly in a complex traffic environment where visual cues must be quickly processed. These obstructions were noted on 15/05/25 (on the PCN picture), 23/05/2025 and 25/05/2025 (in the evidenced photographs. Traffic Signs Manual 1.8.1 requires unobstructed view of upright signs — which reasonably includes the post or structure that visually confirms it is an official sign.
Section 1.8.2: Sitting of upright signs
Section 1.8.2. These should normally be measured from the centre of the most disadvantaged driving lane. It is important that the full recommended sight line to the whole of the sign face is preserved. Cutting back of vegetation only in the immediate vicinity of the sign might not be sufficient; sign visibility should always be checked from the appropriate viewing distance.
Section 1.8.5: …care should be taken to ensure that a single sign is clearly visible to all road users and does not give rise to issues relating to enforcement or road safety.
Section 13.24.9: Signs that prohibit stopping should face oncoming traffic, not be parallel to the kerb.
Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016:
Regulation 3: Traffic signs must conform to prescribed sizes, shapes, colours, and placements to be enforceable.
Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996:
Regulation 18(1): Authorities must take adequate steps to ensure restrictions are clearly conveyed to road users.
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022:
Provides rights to make formal representations and ensures authorities respond appropriately.
Traffic Management Act 2004, Section 78:
Establishes the legal right to appeal and outlines procedural fairness requirements.
Road Safety Considerations
The bus stop in question appears less than three seconds after a pedestrian crossing and only eight seconds after navigating a busy roundabout. At this point in the road, a driver’s attention must be fully focused on live road conditions — including other vehicles, crossing pedestrians, and safe forward movement. Expecting a driver to notice, interpret, and act upon a non-angled sign, where the real visibility of this is for one second in close proximity to the sign (as evidenced in the video footage) while responsibly navigating this stretch is not only unreasonable but potentially dangerous. Due to the sign’s parallel placement, the sign only becomes visible to read within a few metres of the sign (with no clear line of visibility prior to this), with no practical way to read the sign in real world driving conditions without stopping in the road to read the sign (which in turn would cause a driver to commit a different offence).
It may be argued that the sign was present and therefore the restriction enforceable. However, both statutory regulations and official guidance stress that signs must not only be present, but also clearly visible and properly positioned in real-world driving conditions. If a restriction is conveyed in such a way that a reasonable driver cannot identify it without compromising safety, enforcement becomes questionable.
If visibility is argued based on a still image or brief video frame, I would respectfully note that legality must be based on actual driving conditions — not on pausing footage.
Procedural Impropriety and Grounds under Regulation
In reference to the grounds outlined on page 4 of the Notice, I submit this challenge on the basis of:
Procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority, under the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
The authority failed to adequately provide the effect of the Order through lawful signage as required under Regulation 18(1) of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996.
That the Order which is alleged to have been contravened is invalid, as the signage giving effect to it does not comply with the Traffic Signs Manual or TSRGD 2016 and therefore cannot legally convey the restriction.
I note that the PCN documentation states that representation should not be made after payment, yet also acknowledges on the same page that if a representation is accepted, any amounts already paid will be refunded. Crucially, the PCN itself and none of the legislation referenced in this PCN, including the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the Civil Enforcement Regulations 2022, states that payment constitutes an admission of liability or forfeits the right to appeal.
The documentation does not make this consequence clear either. In fact, the inclusion of refund language creates an ambiguous position that undermines fair process. Where legal rights may be waived, clarity is essential. It is therefore not reasonable to assume that payment nullifies the right to challenge — and I respectfully submit that this representation is valid regardless of payment status.
This ambiguity places an unfair burden on the motorist, who may be misled into thinking they cannot preserve the discount and submit a challenge concurrently. The lack of clarity in official wording amounts to a failure of procedural fairness, as defined under the principles of administrative law.
I respectfully request that this PCN be reviewed and cancelled on the basis that the restriction was not clearly or lawfully conveyed, the signage was not visible from a moving vehicle, and its placement created an unnecessary and dangerous distraction. These deficiencies render the contravention invalid under both regulatory and procedural frameworks. I trust that Nottinghamshire County Council will recognise that this situation does not reflect a deliberate violation, but rather a reasonable and responsible attempt to navigate a complex road environment safely in the absence of clearly visible signage.
Show Posts