Free Traffic Legal Advice

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 #

If you take them to London Tribunals, they will show how the two videos are linked in their evidence pack, (or they should do, if you query this). Be aware that adjudicators work to the civil standard of "on the balance of probabilities", not the criminal standard of "beyond all reasonable doubt".

I'm not doubting that they can link the videos.

My point was that all the second video shows is that a black car is in contravention.

How do they establish that the car turning right is the OP's car? 
It's hardly distinctive, and several cars in a row are black.




 

As this is not a live case this may have to be moved to Flame Pit.


Looking at Bradford website  Clean air zone it looks like you can exempt any vehicle, not just a car.  [ Assuming Clean air zone is synonym for ULEZ ] 

Bradford residents can apply for an exemption from CAZ charges for one private vehicle per applicant of any vehicle Class, in addition to any exemption for motor caravans and motorised horseboxes.

To get an exemption, you must have owned your vehicle before 26 September 2022 and have the V5c (logbook) in your name and address. If you bought it after that date, you can’t get an exemption because this is the cut off point for the exemption scheme. This is the date the Clean Air Zone became live.

Exemptions cannot be backdated.

If a new person owns your vehicle, the exemption will stop working



So OP needs to apply for exemption via above website link.  One vehicle only per applicant.

As this cannot be back dated, any penalty payments previously made can not be claimed back.

As the exemption date ends on 26 September 2022, hopefully OP didn't transfer ownership from company to yourself after this date.

I am familiar with these restrictions.

Unfortunately the op is incorrect. There is advance notice of the restriction. It is just before King George St. Allowing an escape route along King George St. (Or opportunity to reverse direction).

The camera angle is facing south bound, whereas the contravention is north bound. Hence the restriction notices visible in video are not relevant to the contravention.

Really there should also be warning earlier at the turning from the A2, to save a wasted half mile journey for the unfamiliar. But this aside is no help to op.

If a driver missed the notice at King George St. then it is nigh on impossible to avoid contravening restriction at the restriction due to narrowness of road / cars parked  as the op found.