Free Traffic Legal Advice

This forum's main purpose is to support motorists who receive PCNs, often as a consequence of poor signage. Each case is handled individually and the outcome applies to that PCN alone. Some sites are notorious for generating PCNs: I became involved with this forum as a result of my son's receiving a PCN on Camrose Avenue, Harrow.

I was shocked by what I found there, and on Rivercourt Road, Hammersmith: the Traffic Order was nonsensical, yet the Council was raking in millions a year (on Camrose Avenue) from a single site. It seemed to me that the nonsensical nature of the Traffic Order must make it invalid and that the issuing of PCNs alleging that a contravention had occurred were deceptions intended to deprive the accused of the penalty charge, i.e. fraud.

I learned that, however nonsensical the Traffic Order, once six weeks have elapsed after it was issued, it is valid, i.e. the order cannot be overturned by a legal process. That does not make it enforceable. The words of the order have to be interpreted using the methods of statutory construction, taking into account case law.

On Camrose Avenue the Traffic Order which the Council uses for its PCNs (there are two overlapping ones and the other one is well-formed) has a serious mistake in it. There are two traffic islands in the road and it identifies them as "northern" and "southern" when it should have referred to them as "western" (or south-western") and "eastern" (or "north-eastern"). The well-formed overlapping Traffic Order and previous versions of the ill-formed Traffic Order used these alternative compass points.

On Rivercourt Road the Traffic Order specifies that the restrictions apply from the junction with Great West Road to "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road". The changes which the Council made to the road markings indicate that it regarded the junction as lying at the edge-of-carriageway road markings (diagram 1010) on Great West Road. If this were true, there would be a very short (7m or so) length of one-way road between the junction and the specified location 8.30 meters south of 17, Rivercourt Road.

But it is not true. TfL's Great West Road includes the verge and the combined cycleway/footway to the north of the carriageway, including the exit slip road across these. The boundary between Great West Road and (the northern fragment of) Rivercourt Road lies to the north of the combined cycleway/footway which, because Rivercourt Road isn't at right angles to Great West Road, actually means that the start of the south-to-north one-way restriction lies to the north of its end. The paragraph defining this section of road for the purpose of restricting the classes of vehicle which can use it ends in mid-sentence after an "and".

While Hammersmith and Fulham may have believed when they made the Traffic Order that it applied from the carriageway of Great West Road, their response to my FoI request has elicited that they now place the junction between Great West Road and Rivercourt Road as coinciding with "a point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road". This means that, by their reckoning, the south-to-north restriction applies for precisely zero length. Yet they continue to issue PCNs.

In each case (Camrose Avenue and Rivercourt Road), the Traffic Order is valid but nonsensical. Yet each Council issues thousands of PCNs alleging contravention of the Traffic Order. The bulk of those receiving them pay up within 14 days of receiving the PCN to receive the "50% discount" and avoid the hassle of challenging the PCN with the risk that, if they fail, they will lose the "discount".

Recently Southwark Council has admitted that it issued PCNs by mistake because an experimental TMO had expired without the Council's issuing a permanent TMO. It agreed to refund penalties paid. In 2007 a fault in the TRO for a 30 mph speed limit on the A35 in Chideock, Dorset led to the repayment of all fines issued since the purported speed limit had been imposed in 1997, see Chideock Speed Camera Refunds. Attached to this post is a copy of the police's A Traffic Enforcement Officer's Guide to Speed Limit Signs. Page 62 records that the payout was in excess of £3 million.

I'm not sure how to go about it, but I would like to find a way to achieve a similar result to that at Chideock for those notorious sites where the TRO is so defective as to be nonsense or where there is some other gross legal fault (such as Merton's issuing PCNs for contravening a sign which is not a "scheduled section 36 traffic sign"). It would need to be an action in the High Court, either judicial review of an adjudication (as with the Oxford Bus Gate case) or a judicial review initiated for the purpose (on Rivercourt Road, for instance, as those don't even get to an adjudicator).

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

The Chideock example shows that there may be sufficient money at stake potentially to interest a commercial litigation funder. Therium financed the vastly more complicated fight by sub-postmasters against the Post Office over Horizon in return for a share of the damages.

Although it's small beer by their standards, a second-tier litigation funder might be interested in Camrose Avenue. It's been going since 2006 and yielded Harrow £500,000 in its first year. It will have been similar amounts in the first few years, but has increased rapidly in recent years. In 2021/22 it was £1,228,624; 2022/23 £1,735,611; 2023/24 £2,186,798. [Source: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/driving_fines_35]. I estimate that aggregate penalties will be around £15 million; double that if you include interest.

Given that those who have paid penalties have already lost 100% of their money and have had no hope of any redress, I can't see that they would be upset if the bulk of any damages ended up with the litigation funders and the lawyers. Getting their own back at Harrow would be the main reward; any financial payment would be the icing on the cake.

As far as the litigation funders are concerned, I expect their main motive would be publicity: a David-and-Goliath battle against a predatory local authority with unfair road signs.

Anyone think that this has a chance of flying? The alternative is to wait until a council has lost an adjudication in a way which will reduce its income sufficently to prompt it to bring judicial review against the adjudicators. In that case, the individual motorist is not a direct participant and will not have costs awarded against him.

There are rules around claims against government bodies, including local authorities. My understanding is that claims relating to wrongly issued PCNs fall outside the scope of what you can claim in a County Court.

Presumably he has in mind the common law principle of Crown Immunity, which was largely repealed as recently as 1948 by the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and probably further eroded by the Human Rights Act 1998. Not everyone has access to LexisNexis, Westlaw et al.

I was thinking more about the design of the court system in my last post. Tribunal cases generally progress direct to the High Court.

In a County Court a claimant would need to prove a breach of the council’s duty of care and that he/she suffered loss as a result. This may be difficult, given the claimant would already have paid the penalty charge, thus potentially admitting some guilt.

Nevertheless, I do understand the sentiment behind the idea suggested by @Southpaw82. Has anyone successfully issued a claim for a refund of a penalty charge in a County Court before? If so, did they win?

Moreover, does a District Judge have the relevant jurisdiction, given that he/she may need to scrutinise a previous decision by an ET Adjudicator?

@Southpaw82 thanks for your replies and explanations. I’d be very interested in watching a claim like this go through the county court.