Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi @Incandescent @Hippocrates

Barnet have just rejected my enforcement letter appeal, so I was wondering if you could help me with the submission to London Tribunals? I've put the correspondence with Barnet Council here

My enforcement letter appeal arguments were:
1. Lack of video evidence of the vehicle passing an upright sign - their comment was 'there is no requirement for the enforcement video to capture a vehicle passing a specific sign'
2. Obscured warning sign - they conceded this but then said that the combination of signs and road markings were still sufficient to warn motorists of restrictions
3. The bus lane has significant breaks and also the words 'BUS LANE' are no longer fully visible; they argue that these are minor defects and the bus lane is still clearly delineated

I also asked for evidence that the video camera used to collect the PCN video was a prescribed device - they declined, saying they did not have to.

I think my arguments are above are still valid, so I'm planning to include those in my London Tribunals submission. I am also considering using the clause in the London Local Authorities Act 1996 mentioned by you here ; do you think it is a good idea to use this, and if so how do I use it, i.e. include it in my London Tribunals letter or wait till afterwards?

Any help appreciated

Tom

Update:
We sent the PCN to the parking adjudicator and Haringey decided to not contest the appeal, so it was cancelled.

Here was the appeal letter, if anyone is interested:

-------------
The PCN is invalid based on the following grounds and should be rejected.
1.   Lack of video evidence of the vehicle passing an upright sign

The PCN video evidence does not prove the alleged contravention as it does not show the vehicle passing an upright sign; this is required to prove that the bus lane restriction was adequately communicated to the driver prior to them committing the alleged contravention. The absence of this evidence has been used as grounds for rejection of other PCNs by independent adjudicators, and these rejections set a precedent to reject this PCN also.

Haringey’s 4th March appeal rejection letter includes the following statement: 
‘The vehicle is seen entering and driving within a marked bus lane in the opposite direction to the authorised flow of traffic. Even though the driver did not physically pass the regulatory sign at the start of the lane, the restriction applies along the entire length of the bus lane, and motorists must not enter it unless doing so is expressly permitted.’
They have explicitly acknowledged that I did not pass the regulatory sign before pulling into the parking space within the bus lane. Their argument is that they do not need to provide evidence that I passed the regulatory sign to prove that the alleged contravention occurred because I entered and drove in the bus lane ‘in the opposite direction to the authorized flow of traffic’, but this argument is false for the following reasons:
-   I did not drive ‘within the bus lane’, I pulled into a space designated as a parking space by Haringey Council
-   I did not drive in the opposite direction to the authorized flow of traffic; I parked on the opposite side of the road. This is perfectly legal – the only time it is illegal is at night, unless in a recognized parking space (see Highway code 248), which is not the case here.
Therefore, the responsibility remains on Haringey Council to provide adequate warning signage and to provide evidence that a vehicle passed this to prove that a bus lane contravention has occurred, both of which they have failed to do here.
2.   Upright signage does not meet regulatory guidance
Please see the file ‘Additional photo evidence’, photo 1. This shows the bus lane warning sign after the intersection of Colney Hatch Lane and Muswell Road. This does not meet the regulatory guidance given for sign 959B given in Traffic Sign Manual (TSM) chapter 3 sections 9.3.6 and 9.3.7, specifically:
-   The sign on the photo has the word  ‘&coaches’ written on it. This is not a valid inclusion; if the aim is to show that local buses and coaches can use the bus lane, the bus symbol should be used without the addition of ‘local’ on the bus symbol.
-   The sign includes the time restrictions above the sign, not below; section 9.3.7 of the TSM states ‘The times during which the bus lane operates are shown in the bottom panel of the signs to diagrams 958 and 959B.’

3.   Confusing overlap of bus lane restrictions and designated parking spaces

I pulled into the bus lane because I had seen a space which Haringey council had designated as a parking space. I was not able to see the parking restriction warning signs (see file ‘Additional photo evidence’, photo 2) nor the bus lane warning signs prior to parking, so I checked with the Dentist, then checked the signs further up the road, and then moved the car once it became clear of the restrictions (the majority of which can be clearly seen in the PCN video). It is extremely confusing and misleading to on the one hand delineate designated parking spaces on the road and the same time overlay a bus lane restriction that will lead to a PCN being issued as soon as you park in the parking space; the warning signs are not visible and no grace period was given to allow me to check the signs further up the road. This is at best ill-considered and at worst opportunistic profiteering by Haringey Council.
Yours Sincerely,
------------------

Thanks @Incandsescent, much appreciated.

I'm prepared to take it to London Tribunals, if there is a fighting chance of winning the appeal. So, if you have any more details please let me know.

Hi @Hippocrates

Ok, fair enough, will do. Thanks for your help, I really appreciate it
Cheers
Tom

Hi All,
My sister-in-law got a parking ticket recently and I would greatly appreciate any help in getting it cancelled. Details:
PCN: ZN19143930
Vehicle Registration: BJ70YPG
Date and Time: 04/11/2025 09:31
Contravention code: 34 - being in a bus lane
PCN letters and sign photos: link

She pulled into the bus lane next to Perfect Smile Dentists (438 Muswell Hill Broadway, Muswell Hill, London N10 1BS) to drop her daughter for a dental appointment, parking is allowed after 10 am in the bus lane, but it was 9:31 am. The restriction signs were not immediately visible where she had parked, so she went into the dentist to ask them what the parking restrictions were and was told that parking was not allowed at that time. She then checked the signs to confirm the restriction and moved the car.

She explained this when she submitted her appeal using Haringey council's online portal on the 9th November 2025. In November she also moved home, did not receive an appeal response from Haringey (it was potentially posted to her old address, but it was never received), and then received an enforcement notice dated 7th Jan 2026.

I think Haringey should have responded to her appeal by email, given that she submitted the appeal online. Also, she had set up post forwarding to her new address but did not receive the rejection letter. So, whether it is Haringey or Royal Mail's fault that she did not receive the appeal response is debatable, but it not fair to send her an enforcement notice given that she has not received the appeal response. Is this grounds to demand the appeal response and the usual time period to submit the PCN to London Tribunals for review? 

Secondly, assuming it is possible to insist that the PCN can be submitted to London Tribunals, can you suggest any arguments for re-appealing the PCN? I think:
- The argument in her original appeal that she just pulled into a parking space, checked the restrictions and then moved the car are valid
- Also, I don't think the bus lane warning sign after the Colney Hatch Lane/Muswell Road meets regulations; see photo 5 in the Drop Box link shared above

Any help greatly appreciated
Kind Regards
Tom

Hi @stamfordman, @H C Anderson, @Incandescent

Thanks again for all your help.

I've drafted a response below (heavily borrowing from your points), if you have any feedback please let me know. In particular, whether it is worth including the assisted boarding argument.

Also; my conversation with the CEO - I think I told him I had just parked and crossed over to pick up my daughter. We didn't spend much time talking, I tried to appeal to him to be reasonable, that I had just parked and crossed the road to pick up my daughter as she came out, but he made it clear he wasn't going to cancel the PCN so I didn't bother continuing to talk to him. He said he would put a note on the PCN to that effect.

-------------

Dear Sir/Madam.

I am writing to appeal PCN IZ37568464. The contravention did not occur, for the following reasons:

1. The PCN evidence fails to prove that all required test criteria for contravention code 25 were met

The contravention code 25 restriction is a two-part test, both of which must be satisfied (conjunctive) in order to not be in contravention i.e. a goods vehicle and 'loading'. However, the objective tests are not the same.
Whether a vehicle is a 'goods vehicle' can be determined by instant observation, but the second component of the test (loading) cannot; Civil Enforcement Officers are required to observe the vehicle for a sufficient period of time to determine if loading is occurring, and in this instance the CEO failed to do so; they made an instant determination, as shown by the PCN's evidence. The PCN evidence begins at 17:38, and from the beginning of the evidence it shows the PCN attached to my vehicle (at 17:38), i.e. the CEO saw my vehicle and immediately issued and attached a PCN. They failed to sufficiently assess the loading component of the test, and therefore this PCN is invalid.
They effectively applied the wrong contravention code test when determining that the alleged contravention had occurred. They only applied the test conditions for contravention code 23 ('Parked in a parking space or area not designated for that class of vehicle') because this only requires observation of whether a vehicle is a 'goods' vehicle, but code 23 was not the code assigned to this PCN.

2. Assisted boarding exemption

My 16 year old daughter has hypermobility, which means she can suffer from extreme tiredness, aching joints and muscles. This NHS website gives some of the symptoms:
- 'Joints move too much: Extra movement can cause the joints to become unstable or work harder to stay in place.
- Muscles have to work overtime: Muscles may become tired, tight, or sore from trying to keep joints stable.
- Increased risk of sprains and strains: Looser ligaments may not support joints as well during everyday movements or exercise.
- Poor posture or coordination: This can develop over time if the body is constantly compensating for joint instability.
- Pain may affect knees, ankles, shoulders, wrists, and the back, but any joint can be affected. Fatigue and difficulty with balance or coordination are also common.'

On the day in question my daughter had completed 5 hours of dancing, acting and other intense physical activity at a Theatre school ('West End MT' on Hornsey Road, this combined with her hypermobility meant she would be in intense discomfort and so I sought to minimise this by parking in the loading bay directly opposite her theatre school so that I could assist with her heavy bag and boarding into our car. In the period when I crossed the road to collect and assist my daughter the CEO drove up and immediately issued the PCN. I saw him, crossed the road again and explained that I had just crossed the road to momentarily pick up my daughter, but he was unwilling/unable to cancel the PCN. But this is a second reason that the alleged contravention did not occur because of the assisted boarding exemption.

I look forward to your response,

Yours sincerely

Hi @Incandescent, @stamfordman

Thanks for your help.

My daughter is 16 years old. I picked her up from outside her drama school - she was doing about five hours of dancing and acting that day, she has hypermobility and so her legs and joints get extremely tired and painful, so I try to pick her up as close as possible.

Re the road markings - penaltychargenotice.co.uk's article on code 25 say that 'loading' has to be written on the street (their article was written in 2015 though, so might be out of date):
'Was the bay marked correctly? Were the words “loading” painted on the street which is a legal requirement...'

I asked Google Gemini what the sign and road marking restrictions were for loading bays; it said that according to the Highway Code guide for road markings, loading bays should have 'loading only' on them:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/road-markings#:~:text=Loading%20restrictions%20on%20roads%20other,including%20Sundays%20and%20Bank%20Holidays.

Do you think that is correct?

Kind Regards

Tom

Hi @Incandescent, @Hippocrates, @stamfordman,

Thanks for all your help, I really appreciate it (sorry for the delay in responding, did not check for responses). I will write up an email in line with your guidance.

Much appreciated

Tom