Free Traffic Legal Advice

My understanding is that being on the line is in contravention.

IMO if the island wasn't there you might have had a chance of de minimus argument, straying less than 5m on line.  However although the island is irrelevant to PCN you are looking for charity from adjudicator, and  OP was clearly gaining an advantage by squeezing through and driving on line (by avoiding main traffic), so I'd reckon sympathy would be on the low side.

Wait for Hippo to get back to you, as he has won previous cases in this exact place (based on technical defence such as camera certification/ prior notification etc).

Out of curiosity, how much was the solicitor?

Well, if you parked before 2pm it was fair...

You need better than "I don’t remember exactly when I parked" to challenge this.

The GSV is old. October 24.

Lewisham Road definitely has a no right turn now.

This was a notoriously dangerous junction for pedestrians & cycles, crossing the A2.
It has recently (maybe completed 6 months ago) been revamped to add a pedestrian crossing and ban right turn from Lewisham.

Plan

The photo that the council provided could not possibly show the prohibition sign from that angle, as it is before the junction where the OP turned. Whether that evidence is necessary for the charge to stick , I leave to others.

Shabby behaviour by council to include a picture which was not the OP's car.

Particularly as it was a similar colour car, and the fact it was illustrative rather than evidence of contravention was not mentioned.
A casual reader might well assume this was a council picture of contravention, and throw cards in. 


Anyway. Act on facts.

Is the location local to OP?

Surely the simplest way to establish the truth is to retrace your steps and park in the same position. 

Then take two photos,  one perpendicular to kerb to illustrate you were parked outside No. 7;
and one from the perspective of the council's photos, to show that parking position the same as one cited in PCN.

Perhaps come back for an opinion then?

If OP entirely in front of no 7, job's a goodun.

If the OP was overlapping a little, de minimus could still prevail.

If OP more than a little, I'd be inclined to gamble, with original argument that council have not demonstrated a contravention. Especially due to council's behaviour, which I'm sure an adjudicator would take a dim view of.

I thought I'd raise this here as it might interest the group.

My sister recently saw a charge on her Bank App, from TFL for £4.  She's not very tech savvy, so came to me for advice.

Had a butchers and the only TFL charge that I could find that was £4 is the Blackwall Tunnel charge. Regular payment.

Spoke to bank, they confirmed it was a genuine charge from TFL from Bridges and Tunnels. gave us a transaction reference. 

To be clear. My sister had not used the tunnel since it became chargeable, and not paid for the tunnel for anyone else. She has a dormant TFL account, but this card is not associated with that account. 
 
Contacted TFL.  Call centre could not help, requested email communication. After a bit of to-ing and fro-ing, they asked for payment card details (some redacted) to identify transaction. 

They finally said: Yes there was a payment on 4th November. Gave the impression that for them, the case is closed! Clearly not reading previous communications, said to provide receipt(!) details if they were to investigate further! Otherwise contact bank.


It seems to me that there appears to be only two possible explanations:

Her bank card details have been maliciously obtained and used.
TfL’s systems have incorrectly applied a genuine transaction to her card details.


Very curious.

It seems bizarre that a malicious agent would risk using a false card on a system from which they potentially could be traced, via reg number.

The second possibility is particularly concerning. This card was only issued in June 2025, and as an Oyster 60+ cardholder she does not use her  payment card to 'tap in', so I do not understand how TfL would hold her bank card details at all.

We wrote back requesting:

What was this payment for?
How was this payment made?
Was her name used in the card payment details?
What vehicle registration was associated with this payment?
Which TfL account was linked to that vehicle registration?
Is her card linked in any way to any accounts or previous payments?
What steps are TfL taking to investigate this matter further?

Requested a refund.

We cancelled the payment card, so can't happen again.


Awaiting reply. It's only £4 but I just wondered what information TFL are obliged to give?


Let's assume that they map the payment to a transaction. And hence to an account. 

If they can, 

Are they obliged to pass on this detail to us? Or is this protected under Data Protection?

If they can't, can they legally charge for a service they cannot show she requested or benefitted from?
Where's the contract?











 
 

Apologies,

I have just realised I had misinterpreted the video evidence.

I had assumed that the two videos were in chronological order and that the first video showed the car at the traffic lights before the right turn.

I now realise that the first video shows the car after the turn, and that both videos show a car stopped in same position.  It can be shown to be the same car, as the time stamp is 15:57:00 on both videos then.

# removed comment #