Free Traffic Legal Advice

@Incandescent for background, I appealed and the rejection reads (in my interpretation) due to the fact they think I was driving are not taking the c section and symptom into consideration fully as they think I was driving

Ignore this one await further contact and you will be advised accordingly

Yes, but not just me that was confused...probably ONE THOUSAND PCNS issued by now for this (6 months more since the data i have). So when it was a one way street, the yellow box made sense, but now? Why have a yellow box if NO traffic is permitted to turn in there?? This seems like a deliberately confusing junction to me....or maybe the Council think the blue 960.2 sign is just for cycles as you did, but the yellow box still makes no sense.

Would it seem fair if a council put up a one way street sign and a no entry on the same post? Isn’t the argument that I saw the one way sign and proceeded down the one way street because i couldn’t stop on the yellow box viable? and if not what is a better one please?

Who was driving is totally irrelevant, because the owner has responsibility in the legislation for all PCNs, whether driving or not.

Just to emphasise the London Tribunals case decided on 30th July 2026, here is the judgment: -

Quote

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is stopped where prohibited on a red route.


The Penalty Charge Notice was issued under Regulation 11(1)(d) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 (the ‘2022 General Regulations’) on the basis of a record produced by an approved device.


There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was stationary at this location, as shown in the closed-circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.


The Enforcement Authority’s case is that no stopping is permitted on the red route at any time on any day, as indicated by the double red line.


However, in R(TfL) v. London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) & Ors [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin), Mr Justice Swift decided at paragraph 16 that:


the requirements in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of the definition are cumulative; to be a red route for this purpose the road must be marked "in accordance with" both requirements. The requirements are not alternatives.


At paragraph 17, Mr Justice Swift concluded that:


Nor is it correct that the requirement at sub-paragraph (b) for signage can be construed as applying to one but not the other of the two alternative requirements within sub paragraph (a).... the correct conclusion is that the definition of red route requires that both condition (a) and condition (b) are met.


The Enforcement Authority does not appear to dispute that there is no signage at the location as it submits in its case summary that it is not required.


A sign is not required to put motorists on notice of the red route restrictions. However, the relevant issue in this present matter is whether the Enforcement Authority was entitled to issue a Penalty Charge Notice by post. The decision of the High Court in the case referred to above means that both lines and a sign are required to meet the statutory definition of a red route to enable the Enforcement Authority to issue a Penalty Charge Notice by post.


I therefore find that, because there was no sign, the red route was not a "red route" in accordance with the definition of Regulation 11(2) of the 2022 General Regulations and therefore that the Authority was not entitled to issue the Penalty Charge Notice by post.


Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.

I have emphasise the basic point of the ruling in bold.

Thanks for such a comprehensive outline of the appeal verdict. I guess this also applies to my situation as the PCN was issued by post yet there is no red route sign anywhere near the site of my alleged contravention.

The question is should I add any of the above to my representation to Sandwell council?