Free Traffic Legal Advice

Im preparing to register an appeal with London Tribunals. I’d really appreciate a quick sense check before I submit.

My main ground will be that the PCN was served out of time. The alleged contravention was on 13/12/2025, so day 28 was 09/01/2026. The PCN is dated 08/01/2026, but applying the usual two working day presumption for service by post, deemed service would be 12/01/2026. On that basis it was served outside the 28-day limit under the 2003 Act. The NOR simply says it was “served within 28 days” but doesn’t deal with deemed service or identify any exception.

I will also maintain that the contravention did not occur. The CCTV shows there was space ahead for me to move further forward and substantially clear the box, so I was not prevented from exiting by stationary vehicles (the statutory test). In any event only the rear wheels were in the box and any stop was minimal.

Finally, I intend to keep the PCN wording point in as a collateral challenge.

Unless anyone thinks otherwise, I plan to register the appeal online, opt for a hearing (phone or video), and lead on the out-of-time service argument.

Grateful for any final comments before I file.

Thanks very much for all the help everyone — a very impressive and knowledgeable community.

I’ve drafted what I believe is the final version below and plan to submit it later today unless anyone spots an issue or suggests otherwise:

I make representations against this Penalty Charge Notice on the following grounds.

The Penalty Charge Notice was served out of time and is unenforceable. The alleged contravention occurred on 13 December 2025. Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, a postal PCN must be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the alleged contravention, unless a statutory exception applies. No such exception is stated on the PCN. The last lawful date for service was therefore 9 January 2026. The PCN is dated 8 January 2026 and, applying the presumption of service two working days after posting, the presumed date of service is 12 January 2026. As the PCN was served after the last lawful date for service, it was served out of time and is unenforceable and must be cancelled.

Without prejudice to the above, I also make a collateral challenge to the validity of the Penalty Charge Notice. Paragraph 4((v) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires a PCN to state that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable. This provision refers back to paragraph 4((iii), which requires the PCN to state that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. The PCN fails to convey this mandatory information correctly. Instead, it states words to the effect that if payment or representations are not made before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, an increased charge may be payable. This wording is defective because it fails to state that the increased charge arises if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day payment period, it conflates payment and representations by using the word “or”, and it incorrectly refers to a period beginning with the date of service rather than the date of the notice. Whether this wording is interpreted conjunctively or disjunctively, the mandatory statutory information is missing and the PCN does not convey the required information with clarity. The High Court has confirmed, including in Hackney Drivers, that PCNs must clearly and unambiguously convey statutory requirements. This PCN does not do so and is therefore invalid.

Without prejudice to the above, I deny that the alleged contravention occurred. The CCTV footage shows that there was sufficient space available ahead for me to move further forward and substantially clear the box junction, and accordingly I was not prevented from exiting the box junction by any stationary vehicle, which is the statutory test for the contravention. In any event, the footage demonstrates that my vehicle had substantially cleared the box junction, with only the rear wheels remaining within the marked area. If a contravention is nevertheless alleged, the extent of any encroachment was so trivial as to be de minimis.

For all of the above reasons, the Penalty Charge Notice must be cancelled.

The link is better. They will reject of course but the quality of their response is the important point. In your defence, I would throw the Highway Code into the mix Rule 174 and see what they say to that.

https://www.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/road-junctions.html#:~:text=174%0ABox%20junctions,1)%20%26%2029(2)

Understood. I've updated my challenge statement to reflect the latest advice (courtesy of my friend Mr ChatGPT). Please let me know what you think. I wont send this on until I get the experts approval  :

Challenge / Representations

Grounds:

The Penalty Charge Notice is invalid – missing mandatory information

The alleged contravention did not occur (in the alternative)**

1. The Penalty Charge Notice is invalid – missing mandatory information

I make a collateral challenge to the validity of the Penalty Charge Notice.

Paragraph 4((v) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires a PCN to state:

“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable.”

This provision clearly refers back to paragraph 4((iii), which requires the PCN to state:

“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”

My PCN fails to comply with these mandatory requirements.

Instead, it states words to the effect of:

“If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased charge of £240 may be payable.”

This wording is defective for the following reasons:

It fails to clearly state that the increased charge arises only if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day payment period, as required by paragraph 4((v).

It conflates payment and representations into a single statement using the word “or”, creating ambiguity as to what event triggers the increased charge.

It incorrectly refers to a period beginning with the date of service, rather than the date of the notice, contrary to paragraph 4((iii).

The omission of the mandatory information required by paragraph 4((v) exacerbates the lack of clarity.

Whether the word “or” is interpreted conjunctively or disjunctively, the PCN still fails to convey the required statutory information with clarity. As a result, the PCN cannot lawfully be enforced.

The High Court has confirmed, including in Hackney Drivers, that PCNs must convey statutory requirements clearly and unambiguously. This PCN does not do so and is therefore invalid.

2. The alleged contravention did not occur (in the alternative)

Without prejudice to the above, I also deny that the contravention occurred.

I entered the box junction in order to complete a right-turn manoeuvre. At the time of entry, I was not prevented from exiting the junction by stationary vehicles, which is the statutory test.

After committing to the turn, traffic conditions ahead changed and I became briefly stationary. The CCTV footage shows that my vehicle had substantially cleared the box junction, with only the rear wheels remaining within the marked area.

Any stop was minimal and momentary, occurring only after lawful entry. The prohibition applies to entering a box junction when the exit is blocked; it does not apply where a driver enters lawfully and subsequently has to slow or stop due to traffic conditions.

In addition, Highway Code Rule 174 confirms that drivers should not enter a box junction unless their exit is clear, which accords with the statutory test. In this case, that requirement was satisfied at the point of entry.

In the alternative, if a contravention is alleged, the extent of any encroachment was so trivial as to be de minimis, and enforcement in these circumstances would be disproportionate.

That's not quite right.

It looks like you had space in front of you to clear or mostly clear the box behind the van. Is that correct?

Yes, but there was limited space ahead once I had committed to the turn, which is why only the rear wheels remained in the box. I’ve amended my draft to reflect that without conceding the point about entry:

I deny that the contravention occurred.

I entered the yellow box junction in order to complete a right-turn manoeuvre. At the time I entered the box junction, there was sufficient receiving space available beyond the junction, and I was not prevented from exiting the junction by stationary vehicles, which is the test set out in the regulations.

After committing to the turn, traffic ahead slowed and I became briefly stationary behind the van. However, my vehicle had substantially cleared the box junction, with only the rear wheels remaining within the marked area, as shown in the CCTV footage.

This demonstrates that there was sufficient room to move into beyond the box junction, and that any remaining encroachment was minimal and momentary. The prohibition applies to entering a box junction when the exit is blocked; it does not apply where a driver enters lawfully and subsequently has to slow or stop due to traffic conditions ahead.

In the alternative, if the authority considers that a contravention occurred, I submit that the extent of any encroachment into the box junction was so minor as to be de minimis, and enforcement in these circumstances would be disproportionate.

For these reasons, the PCN should be cancelled.

Post the PCN and the video.

#

Apologies I didnt know whether or not I should have uploaded - see below (ive also added links to the main topic)

Video: https://streamable.com/m7srem
PCN: https://ibb.co/G49TJYKG

My bad posted now - I could've sworn I attached it!

Hi all,

I’d really appreciate your help regarding a PCN I’ve received from Croydon Council:

    PCN Number: CR22663922

    Date of Notice: 16/06/2025

    Date of Alleged Contravention: 08/06/2025 at 13:15

    Location: Derby Road junction with Clarendon Road, Croydon

    Contravention: 52J – Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles

    Vehicle Use: Private vehicle, personal use only

    First time driving in this area — completely unfamiliar with local layout

I’ve read the previous thread on this location https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/52j-derby-rd-junction-clarendon-road-(croydon)/ — seems signage has changed over time.

I’m unsure if:

    The signage at the time of my contravention was clear enough

    There’s still an argument to be made re: the PCN failing to specify the type of vehicle prohibited, as mentioned in other cases

I haven’t yet challenged it, but would like to know if there’s any solid ground to appeal based on:

    Unclear signage / recent changes

    Defective PCN wording (re: vehicle type)

    Anything else from those previous appeal cases



I’m also trying to download the video footage but the view my PCN website doesnt allow for downloads. If this is required please let me know of a way in which I can provide it.

Would be very grateful for any advice — thanks in advance!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]