Free Traffic Legal Advice

I appealed to the Tribunal and Hippocrates kindly agreed to represent me, for which I am extremely grateful.

However, I have now received this message from the Tribunal, which says:

“The Enforcement Authority has informed the Tribunal that it will not contest your appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice(s) stated above.”

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XEL3N5U7FKYjeQcV-4W9FqDV6MZKDy0g/view?usp=sharing

A great result, thanks to FTLA.

I have had a look at the online representation page, and after selecting “The contravention did not occur”, I am given these options:

“Select a reason from the list below and provide details in the textbox. Please upload any photos or documents that you have to support your assertion
•   At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, I was loading and unloading
•   The restriction that I am supposed to have ignored was not signed
•   At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, the restriction did not apply
•   At the time I am supposed to have been in contravention, I was elsewhere
•   I was instructed by a police officer to do this”

There is no option to say that the vehicle was authorised!  I think that I have to use the third option, as “the restriction did not apply”.

My proposed wording for my initial representations is as follows:

***
The vehicle AV66 GXE has for many years had a residents’ parking permit for the Lambeth S zone, and the current permit is number LJR206299 expiring on 4 July 2025.

At least until 2022, access to Stockwell Terrace was unrestricted.  It formed part of the Lambeth zone S, and contained parking bays and signage to that effect.

At some date between July 2002 and July 2024, restrictions were introduced with the sign restricting access for motor cycles and cars with the words “Except permit holders and loading”.  See photo 1.

Since my car had a relevant permit, I concluded that I was entitled to use Stockwell Terrace and did so.  There was no change to the signage of the Zone and parking places.

At some date between July 2024 and 1 November 2024, the restriction sign was changed, and the wording is now “Except authorised vehicles and loading”.  See photo 2.

The sign identifying Stockwell Terrace as being part of Controlled zone S remains in place, as does the sign above the parking bays – “Mon-Fi 8.30am -5.30pm.  Permit holders only.  SR.”

My conclusion is that since my permit allows me to use SR parking bays, and Stockwell Terrace forms part of the S zone, the change of wording does not affect me, as my car is “authorised” by the possession of the relevant permit.

Please therefore cancel the PCN.

If you do not agree with my interpretation of the word “authorise”, then please use your discretion to cancel the PCN, on the grounds that my interpretation was entirely reasonable, and to avoid the necessity for me to take the case to appeal.
***


Comments very welcome.

Streetview link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/RTdjgY2v5gL4cFzJ9

PCN
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LdSOLdsoY5-XLBvNLvrzit1GUNipe9Zb/view?usp=sharing


Hello

I think that this is an interesting case.

Stockwell Terrace is a small one way street between Clapham Road and South Lambeth Road to the East of Stockwell station.  After the LTNs came in to prevent access between the Clapham Road and South Lambeth Road further east, it was used extensively as a cut though.

Google streetview shows no prohibition in July 2022:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13gSR8ofSx2-4ZBGCANvfGI9sLLYl2chs/view?usp=sharing

At some point since then, prohibition signs were erected to restrict access, as shown in this streetview photo dated July 2024.  This is the latest streetview image, referenced above:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14WWeewyLK8vgGDxG0PbQSmW5j29oNntj/view?usp=sharing


The sign says “Except permit holders and loading”, and another sign says “Controlled zone S”.  On the left of the road are one disabled bay and a long single bay capable of taking five cars, and showing this sign (unchanged from 2022):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_-e9YBuUdbimUbGR2BgNQwHXLWMO86cf/view?usp=sharing

My car has a residents’ permit for the S zone, and I therefore concluded that I was allowed to use the road and did so.

When I received the PCN  for a contravention on 1 November 2024, I went to look at the signage, and it is now as follows:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN2KUVH5MTaA2ghfFKLb0U-F4XA_dJ4/view?usp=sharing

There is now a second sign, and the words “permit holders” have been replaced by “authorised vehicles”, but the Controlled zone sign is still there.  The parking bays are also still there, and so is the sign saying “Permit holders only – SR”:

Not surprisingly, I had not noticed the change of signage, and have continued to use the road.

I have used it several times since 1 November, so I can expect more PCNs to follow.

It seems to me that as I hold the relevant permit, and there is still a Zone S sign and the marked parking bays which my permit allows me to use, it follows that my vehicle is in fact “authorised” in the normal use of that word.

I would like advice on how to challenge this and any further PCNs.

Kind regards

I have today received by email a rejection letter, which I attach, together with my first and second representations.

In respect of the second representation, I made a very silly mistake.  I was out of the country, so had to send the letter to my son to post, and managed to send him the version including the reference to crossing the bus lane, instead of the version leaving that out, as recommended by @cp8759.  It also omitted the FOI request, but I have since made that separately.

I note they have responded to that statement, but have ignored the statement that it unenforceable. apart from stating “It is clear the PCN has been correctly issued”.  They have not therefore dealt with all my representations.

What should I do now?  I never received the PCN, and so never had an opportunity to pay the discounted amount of £80.

Kind regards


Rejection   
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uutCw-_PhKnev9punRphBYVpcWCa1Sa_/view?usp=sharing


Rep 1     https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UhhEQZdr82TmW9wWOxshTw_mkQ1oFBcw/view?usp=sharing

Rep 2    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HI81Whl0gJGxntUxAUpeXNUb7Z_yvCpQ/view?usp=sharing

@cp8759. Many thanks.  I will post anything I get back.

Thanks.  That page has lots of links on it.  The one marked “Challenge a PCN” leads to where I went before, with no ability to add to a previous challenge.

However, if you click on “Contact red routes” then “Online form: ask a question” and then “Make an enquiry”, you can choose “Penalty charges and enforcement” to post up to 3,000 characters and upload docs.  Just giving all this detail as it might help other people.

I will upload your text, appropriately adjusted, and and will post anything that I get back.

You text includes the statement “The alleged contravention did not occur”.   I think that I could add “because the vehicle was crossing the bus lane to reach an off-street parking place.”

And then “In any case, the PCN is unenforceable because … …”

My apologies.  I drafted a reply to thank Hippocrates and to say that I had submitted the suggested wording, but it doesn’t seem to have been posted.

The reply from tflenforcement.com dated 9 September 2024 as follows:

“Thank you - your representation has been submitted
We'll review your representation and send a response to the registered keeper/liable party. The enforcement process will now be suspended. We aim to respond to you within 15 days - please contact us if you have not received a response after 21 days.”

No response yet, but I have received the copy of the original PCN, and have uploaded it below with the covering letter.  I see that photo 3 from the website does not appear on the PCN.

There was also a document entitled “Important information. Please read.”  I imagine that that is always the same, but I can upload a copy if required.

Is there anything that I should do now?  The next step will presumably be the response to my challenge.

The video requested has not arrived.

Kind regards


https://drive.google.com/file/d/19gNC6MSh1mHcyNL950jsAirvRKPTL40J/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGcxRz2-nytCu0mu9GHNSqnv0zZgZX0k/view?usp=drive_link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VrlwKP9gNiVURfx_B5oWohpIx1uDvvpW/view?usp=drive_link

I have rung TFL because the PCN and video have not arrived.  They told me that nothing had yet been sent, and that I needed to log my challenge before the hold runs out on (I think) next Tuesday.  I was also told that the hold automatically stops when they SEND the information, which makes no sense.

My draft of what I might write, for you to consider, is as follows.

“I never received this PCN, but did receive an Enforcement Notice dated 12 August 2024.

I telephoned TFL on 28 August to ask for a copy of the PCN and also the relevant video, and my case was put on hold for 14 days.  I have not received anything and I understand that nothing has yet been sent to me.

The background to this PCN is that I moved into Flat 1, 248 Clapham Road in 2015.  It has off street parking, with a bus lane and cycle lane across the entrance.  A camera has recently been installed covering this stretch of road, and this camera has generated the PCN.

I understand that I am allowed to cross the bus lane to reach my parking place.  My own practice has been to cross the bus lane opposite the entrance, turn parallel to the pavement and go beyond the entrance, and then reverse in.  This is necessary because of the nature of my parking pace, and desirable in order not to reverse across the pavement when I leave.  If I went in forwards, I would have to carry out a similar manoeuvre when leaving.  I believe that this process is compatible with the bus lane regulations, as it minimises the time my car is in the bus lane.

My wife was driving at the time of this PCN.  She has followed a different pattern, as she did on this occasion. She entered the bus lane a short distance away from the entrance, drove to beyond the entrance and stopped, as shown in your third photograph. She then reversed into the entrance, as the video will no doubt show.

She went into the bus lane when she did in order to avoid inconveniencing any cyclist in the cycle lane, believing that it was therefore safer, and that it was compatible with the rules.

My first challenge is therefore that the time that the car spent in the bus lane was not excessive, was compatible with the rules and the PCN should therefore be cancelled.

If you conclude that my wife’s driving was not strictly compatible with the rules, then I request that on this occasion you should exercise your discretion to waive the penalty.

I reserve the right to add to my challenge when I have seen the PCN and video.

I also request that, if you do not waive the penalty, the charge should be reduced to £80, as it would have been if I had received the PCN, as I should have done.

I can absolutely confirm that the PCN was not delivered to Flat 1.  Since the other flats in the building have a different entrance, it is possible that it was delivered (wrongly) to that entrance as sometimes happens. This is, however, unlikely, as the other occupants usually put such mail through my letter box. "