1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Camden PCN - unmarked bus lane CAMDEN ROAD SW-BND FROM CAMDEN STREET
« on: March 05, 2026, 10:07:22 am »
Thanks a lot @Hippocrates - I've used your template for the procedural points and built out the signage and case-specific arguments on top of it; please let me know any thoughts before I respond:
Quote
Dear TfL
Ref: PCN GX32154918
VRM: RF22YCX
I make this formal representation as follows:
The PCN is unenforceable because:
1. The reference to the Interpretation Act is both irrelevant and confusing, as the legislation pertaining to bus lane enforcement refers to actions which may be taken by the authority and/or appellant from the date of the notice.
2. The statement: "Any written correspondence before the issue of the Enforcement Notice will not be treated as a formal representation" fetters discretion and is contrary to the legislation, in that it clearly implies that you will send an Enforcement Notice when the legislation at Schedule 1, paragraph 1(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1996 states "may":
"the council concerned may serve a notice…"
See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/schedule/1/enacted
3. The statement: "It will not entitle you to the right of appeal" is both absurd and flies in the face of the law and natural justice. Further, the next statement about consideration seems to contradict what has been previously stated.
4. The statement: "Failure to respond or contact us within 28 days of the service date of this notice will result in the Enforcement Notice automatically being sent to you after this period" similarly fetters discretion and also misstates the time period.
The alleged contravention did not occur — inadequate and misleading signage
This is my strongest ground and I set it out in detail.
I was travelling south-westbound on Camden Road approaching the junction with Camden Street. The road layout at this location is actively misleading for the following reasons:
(a) Signage obscured by the Congestion Charge sign. The bus lane advance warning sign (diagram 958 per TSRGD 2016) before Lyme Street is obscured by the Congestion Charge sign positioned in front of it. The Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, paragraph 15.9 requires that advance indication of a with-flow bus lane via a diagram 958 sign should be sited with a minimum clear visibility distance of 45 metres (on 30mph roads). If the sign is obscured by another sign, this requirement is not met. TfL is under a duty to provide reasonable signing so as to give the motorist fair warning of restrictions in force, and this extends to ensuring signs are not occluded by other street furniture.
(b) The inside lane funnels directly into the bus lane after the yellow box junction. A driver lawfully positioned in the inside lane at the junction, intending to drive straight on as indicated by the directional arrow at the stop line, is given no meaningful opportunity to avoid entering the bus lane. The road layout effectively traps compliant drivers into a contravention. The presence of the directional arrow indicating straight-ahead travel is positively misleading in these circumstances, as there is no safe means of adjusting lane position after the junction.
(c) Absence of "BUS LANE" road markings on the carriageway. In your rejection of my informal representation dated 29/01/2026, you stated there is "no requirement to include the BUS LANE legend on the carriageway" and that "bus stop marking takes priority." However, the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3, paragraph 15.14 refers to the BUS LANE marking to diagram 1048 as a standard feature of bus lane signing schemes. The absence of this marking, in combination with the obscured advance sign and the misleading lane layout, creates a situation where a reasonable and attentive driver would not be aware they were entering a bus lane. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies is what matters, not whether each individual element is strictly mandatory in isolation.
(d) Your rejection of photographic evidence is unreasonable. In your rejection letter, you dismissed my photographic evidence on the grounds that the images "are not a reflection of a driver's positions" and that Google Maps images "are not representative and are not contemporaneous." This is unreasonable. My photographs demonstrate the actual visibility conditions a driver encounters on approach. If TfL's position is that my evidence is not representative, then TfL bears the burden of providing contemporaneous photographic evidence from the driver's perspective showing that the signage was adequate and clearly visible at the material time. The embedded photographs on the PCN itself show no relevant signage either passed or in situ.
(e) Adjudicator precedent supports appeals on these grounds. Adjudicators have consistently held that where signage is obscured, misaligned, or where road markings are inadequate, the contravention cannot be said to have occurred. The duty is on TfL to ensure signage is not merely present but clearly visible and not misleading in the context of the road layout as a whole.
Request for the video evidence
I ask for a copy of the full video footage of the alleged contravention as soon as possible. I am entitled to see this evidence to verify whether it shows any relevant signage visible to a driver at the material time, and to confirm the circumstances in which my vehicle entered the bus lane.
Camera authorisation
I put you to strict proof that the camera used to capture the alleged contravention has the correct certification under the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 and Part II and Paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities Act 1996. Please provide the certification number and confirm that the device was operating within the conditions of its certification at the material time. If this is not forthcoming, this will be a further ground of appeal.
Christmas Day — proportionality
The alleged contravention occurred on 25 December 2025 at 11:51. This was Christmas Day, when traffic volumes and bus services are at a minimal level. The bus lane restrictions at this location operate Mon–Sun at any time. While I accept that the restriction's legal validity is not dependent on the day, I ask TfL to exercise its discretion and consider the proportionality of enforcement on a day when the restriction serves little or no practical purpose, particularly in circumstances where the signage is inadequate.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
Alex Dumitru



.