Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello,

I accidentally drove through this PCN in early July and have just "lost" an informal appeal with Merton. I live a few miles away and rarely drive this route so was not aware of the PCN here that I think started in 2025.

Considering whether to take this further, my main grounds are: 1) the sign to the left was at least partially obscured by a tree at that time; 2) the sign to the right is set way back from the road and around the bend so out of the natural line of sight 3) once around the sharp bend you tend to focus on the width restriction.

I sent lots of photos (am trying to work out how to upload them here) but the Council have not mentioned them and the most important one I uploaded (showing the tree obscuring the view around the bend - lots of leaves in early July) they also seem to have lost somehow. Merton council seem to tacitly acknowledge that the sign to the left is not very visible because they argue that the sign to the right is appropriate or preferable when there is sharp bend.

Has anyone experience with LTN at this junction?

Thanks

Search the forum for
“Elliott Loake”
or similar, there are loads of references to it, explanations and rebuttals such as http://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/yet-another-airport-cn-ntk/msg123721/#msg123721

There is a wording defect on page 1 of the PCN just below the ANPR image, however as can observed from other cases on the forum, the council reject representations even when this legal defect is highlighted to them. The PCN paperwork states verbatim: “If full payment has not been made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice, a Charge Certificate may be issued increasing the amount outstanding by 50% to £240.” Southwark’s PCN wording denies the registered keeper the full statutory provisions in respect to the period of service (which provides an additional two days), and so the PCN paperwork does not comply with the strict legal criteria of Paragraph 5(2)(a) under Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and TfL Act 2003 (the legislation by which the PCN is served under). Southwark’s PCN wording disregarded the period of service thereby rendering the PCN paperwork defective and unenforceable, but it also gives a misleading impression to the appellant as to the date when the penalty charge increases by 50%. By virtue of a collateral challenge, the PCN must be cancelled in view of the legal wording defect therein. Other local authorities avoid this wording error by stating: “with the date of service of this notice” or “the relevant period”. In other aspects, GoogleMaps shows the advance warning sign on Townley Road before the Bus Gate, it displays a complex timing structure that comprises of 23 characters of numerical and written data:"Mon-Fri 8-9am 3.00-4.30pm". A simulated test concluded that it's not reasonably possible to assimilate the full extent of the timing restriction(s) in transit including the second time period that pertains to the appellant’s case under such conditions (vehicle pictured at 15:51pm). It’s the associated time-plate that gives effect to the Bus Gate restriction. The box junction before the Bus Gate sign also impedes the motorist’s opportunity to sufficiently capture the timing data thereby placing the driver at a disadvantage. So there may be other points for appeal, if I am not mistaken, I suspect the ground for appeal: "The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case." But in regards to the Pedestrian Zone vehicle Restriction at the other side of crossroads, the advance warning sign for that comes after the Bus Gate sign. Also keep checking the PCN portal incase Southwark miscite any dates in respect to anything. Screenshot for your records as that can be vital for appeal. Recently, the council miscited a date on the PCN portal in respect to a Notice of Rejection versus the date that was stated on the paperwork. So these Southwark PCNs are winnable, especially on administrative technicalities. I won a Dulwich Bus Gate appeal for a family member by virtue of a collateral challenge on the basis of a PCN portal error in regards to the date cited for increasing the PCN charge. Southwark reject all my representations so end up having to appeal to the E&T adjudicators at London Tribunals. Hopefully others have feedback for your case.

I've written an FOI. Is this okay? Or is it requesting too much info?

Dear Leeds City Council,

Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, I would like to request information relating specifically to the camera-enforced prohibited turn at the junction of Green Road and Stonegate Road, Meanwood, Leeds.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not requesting city-wide figures or figures relating to prohibited turns generally. I am requesting information relating solely to the specific prohibited-turn restriction and enforcement camera at this junction.

Please provide the following information for the period from the commencement of camera enforcement to the date of your response:

1. PCNs issued at this specific location

a. The date on which camera enforcement commenced and the date on which the first PCN was issued.

b. The number of vehicle contraventions detected by the camera, broken down by month.

c. The number of PCNs actually issued, broken down by month.

d. The total number of PCNs issued at this location since enforcement commenced.

2. Representations and cancellations

Please provide:

a. The number of representations/challenges received concerning PCNs issued at this specific location.

b. The number of those PCNs subsequently cancelled.

c. Where this information is recorded, the number of representations which referred to:

unclear or confusing signage;
confusion about the road layout or permitted movements;
the junction having been altered or reconfigured; or
motorists believing that the manoeuvre was permitted.
d. The number of PCNs cancelled following representations on any of the above grounds.

I am not requesting any personal information about individual motorists.

3. Signage and road layout

Please provide copies of, or links to, any documents held by the Council showing the signage, road markings and road layout relating to this prohibited turn at the time camera enforcement commenced, including:

relevant site plans or drawings;
photographs;
details of the signs installed and their positions;
details of the road markings;
records of any subsequent changes to the signs, markings or road layout; and
any inspection or compliance records relating to the signage and markings before enforcement commenced.
4. Traffic Regulation Order

Please provide a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order, amendment order or other legal instrument which creates the prohibited turn enforced by this camera, together with any relevant map, schedule or plan.

Please also confirm:

the date on which the restriction came into force;
the precise prohibited movement covered by the order; and
whether the order has subsequently been amended.
Location

The location referred to throughout this request is the camera-enforced prohibited-turn restriction at the Green Road / Stonegate Road junction in Meanwood, Leeds.

If the Council identifies this location using a camera ID, restriction ID, TRO reference or other internal identifier, please use that identifier when extracting the information to ensure that the response relates specifically to this camera and restriction.

If any requested information is not held in the exact format requested, please provide the nearest equivalent information that is held.

If you consider that any part of this request exceeds the appropriate cost limit, please provide the information that can be supplied within the limit and identify which specific elements would need to be narrowed.

I would be grateful if the information could be provided electronically.

Afternoon folks, PCN NTK received from Euro Parking Services for location Capability Green Luton.

Period of Parking 1 min 23s!

Where do I begin with an appeal to these kind folk.  83 seconds.. Letter states parked on double yellow lines/crosshatched bay/Restricted area of the car park.  The vehicle was on a private estate roadway near to an entrance with no crosshatching momentarily for 83 seconds.