The Motorists' Guide to Appealing Parking, Bus Lane, Yellow Box Junction and Moving Traffic Tickets

http://www.ticketfighter.co.uk/images/boxer.gif

 

  Your Views
............................................................................................................................................................................

Tell us your stories about parking, bus lane, yellow box or moving traffic enforcement and if it's interesting we'll show your comments below.

 

If you have a question about a specific ticket which isn't answered on this site, please check the pepipoo forums where there are more experts who can help you. There are also other sites where you can pay for help. This site is run as a hobby and I'm afraid that due to its increasing popularity I no longer have the time to help individual cases. However I am particularly interested in cases that you have won (or lost) at adjudicator so it can go on this site to help others. If you are press please put this in the subject title.

 

ticketfighter@yahoo.co.uk.

 

Show your appreciation

This is a free site however it does cost money to run. If it has helped you win your appeal and you'd like to show your appreciation, feel free to donate any amount you wish. Clicking on the ads also generates revenue to help pay the rent for the site!

Help spread the word by becoming a fan on Facebook

Page 1        Page 2 (cases from 2007 - 2009)

 

Subject

Comment

Name, location

Date

 

Moor End Road Hemel Hempstead

 

Update on this case where 25,000 people were ticketed in the space of a few months - Victory for motorists! Thanks to Ticketfighter, NotoMob and others. Unclear signage and an invalid traffic order are the reasons the adjudicator has given in a comprehensive analysis. Press story here and adjudication here. Case reference number for others to refer to is QA05111E

 

 

 

  Mar 12

Yellow Box Junction

To whom it may concern,

I have been visiting the ticket fighter website for the last couple of years & have found it a great source of information in dealing with parking offences.

In my case against the London Borough of Southwark, i was recorded on CCTV entering into a yellow box junction on Wednesday 5th Spetember 2012 at 17:44 located at the junction of Lower Road/Surrey Quays Road, SE16. Southwark Council claimed that i had entered the yellow box junction knowing that my right of way was blocked, leading to me stopping within the yellow box junction. Southwark Council issued a penalty charge for this offence (£130) & i appealed against this penalty charge based on the following:

  1. Due to the movement of a car into another lane on the other side of the yellow box junction, i couldn't exit the yellow box junction.

  2. The traffic lights located just after you exit the yellow junction box had been re-phased, making it impossible to avoid getting trapped in the yellow box junction when the lights charged to red. This i believed was done to take advantage of the additional traffic in the area caused by the Olympics.

  3. The Yellow box junction was not compliant as the the yellow outer lines of the yellow box junction did not extend to the kerb. There was a 2ft gap between the outer yellow lines of the junction box & the kerb.

I also applied for a freedom of information act & asked Southwark Council five questions related to the yellow box junction mentioned above. The key questions concerned are listed below:

  • How many penalty charges had been issued in the yellow box junction during the period of the year: 1st Oct 2010 through to 1st Oct 2011 & the amount of money generated in this period?

  • How many penalty charges had been issued in the yellow box junction during the period of the year: 1st Oct 2011 through to 1st Oct 2012 & the amount of money generated in this period?

In the reply to the freedom of information act request the Council failed to answer the questions put forward fully above & attempted to suggest by their reply that they had fully answered the questions put forward. I requested a personal hearing & on Tuesday 18th December appeared at a independent tribunal for parking & traffic penalties in London, which took place at Angel Square, Angel. I presented all of what i had mentioned above as evidence & explained to the adjudicator that although the CCTV footage showed my car at one stage stationary in the yellow box junction, this was caused by the re-phasing of the traffic lights & the layout of the non compliant yellow box junction.

The adjudicator explained she would need to review the evidence i had provided & would make a decision by the end of the day.

I received the letter informing me of her decision on Monday 24th December. The verdict was as follows:

'The adjudicator, having considered the evidence from the appellant & the authority, has allowed the appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur'. 'The adjudicator directs the authority to cancel the penalty charge notice'. The reasons for the adjudicator's decision are as follows:

'Whilst the appellant has received a response to the FOI request it does not address or provide details of the number of PCNS issued for the period in question even though the information was requested. In addition the local authority have not addressed the issue as to whether the phasing of the lights or layout was changed due to the Olympics & whether there has been a significant increase in the number of penalty charge notices issued as a result. Based on the evidence presented & representations made by the appellant i am not satisfied that this box junction is compliant or that the appellant stopped due to the presence of stationary vehicles. I therefore allow this appeal'.

Mamta Parekh, Adjudicator.

Hope the above will help & support others who may be dealing with penalty charges for entering or stopping in Yellow box junctions. Please let me know if you require any further information.

Regards
Thomas Isidore

 

 

Thomas Isidore, Southwark

Dec 12

Missing time on PCN

I was issued a ticket for failing to pay and display back in August this year, I made two informal representations, and a subsequent formal one to the issuing borough.

 

All to no avail, not too surprising.

 

Nevertheless, I followed the case up with PTAS and have just noticed that the case (appeal) has been allowed.

 

The reason for appealing was simple (well I thought so), that was that the ticket was invalid as did not contain the information prescribed by paragraph 1(d) of the Schedule to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007.

 

PATAS case number 2120552069 (click here then search for the case number)

 

The question that I have, is how long have they been issuing invalid PCN’s, how many and are these/should these now be re funded?

 

David Kaye, K+C

Dec 12

Cornwall Council I wanted first of all to write and compliment you that your website is a very useful as a source of useful information in explaining the mass of guidelines and regulations in a user friendly way.

I recently acted on behalf of a friend before an Adjudicator in a case against Cornwall County Council in relation to a parking bay on Richmond Hill, Truro that signs should be placed at intervals of approximately 30 metres in accordance with Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual guidance. Due to Cornwall County Council refusing to accept our late appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice the issue was listed before a District Judge at a local County Court and on reading the papers told us not to get too comfortable as he had decided to allow the appeal wiping out any bailiffs charges. At the Hearing held locally to where the motorist lived, the Adjudicator, agreed with us that the the distance between one set of signs was in excess of 30 metres and more likely 50 metres and also agreed that one more sign
would be advisable to reduce the interval and the next sign after that was too low on the wall. However, she was satisfied that the signage at the end where the motorist was parked was clear enough and adequate to inform a reasonable motorist that permits were required.

We appealed by way of review arguing that the motorist's attention would have been directed uphill to where she was walking to the station and not downhill where the sign was partly obscured by a drain pipe making it less obvious that the sign was there. Despite arguing R(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 and Appellant A and Hertfordshire County Council Case Number QA05111E quoting the Adjudicator’s referral to the test by Mr Justice Beatson that the adjudicator must, “take into account the signage conformity to the Department's formal guidance set out in Chapter 3 of
the Traffic Signs Manual. That specifically states that Diagram 619 should be used for bus lanes "where access to premises is required for other vehicles or where the bus lane does not apply at all times". The introduction to Chapter 3 states that "should" indicates a course of action "that is strongly recommended and represents good practice"[para 68]. We argued that the wording of "should" apply in our case.

The review was unsuccessful and now Cornwall Council have sought to increase the penalty from £70 to £105. This seems to act as a double penalty in that the motorist would lose the advantage of the 50% reduction in the charge which could have been £35 if paid within 14 days and if the Council refused to accept the appeal and the matter went before an adjudicator it could be further increased by 50%. The appeal process is weighed heavily by the disincentives to dissuade
motorists from appealing which are imposed almost as a punishment.
There may be a human rights argument but it would be time consuming and expensive to find out. To go to Judicial Review would be expensive. We recently went to Judicial Review involving the Financial Ombudsman Service and the costs were about £1400 against us at the first stage which is all in writing which was dealt with by ourselves a further oral appeal against refusal of judicial review there are no costs but the costs would be out of proportion to the traffic penalty involved.

It would appear that Cornwall Council can continue to display
incorrectly spaced signs in contravention of the Traffic Signs Manual and a motorist has to hunt around for a sign to find any restrictions.
If Cornwall County Council refuse to accept the motorists submissions that because of her dire financial circumstances that she cannot afford to pay then she could face further charges such as bailiffs fees.

I should be grateful for any other person's comments advice and
whether or not they have had problems when dealing with Cornwall
Council
David Farmer, Cornwall Sep 12

Invalid bus atop

I got ticketed by a policeman when I stopped at a bus stop to ask for directions.

I refused to pay the £30 fine and chose to go for trial at Ayr sheriff court
 

,.I won my case when I pointed out that the sign,which said on it No stopping at any time except local buses was not a permitted varient of traffic sign 974 as in the TRAFFIC SIGNS MANUAL . clearway and no stopping signs 9.19 which states that The time period shown on the sign may be varied or omitted as appropriate.It must not be changed to the expression "at any time" as this does not comply with either Schedule 16 item 38 or Schedule 19 , paragraph 2(a)
 

.After 4 hours and 5 adjournments I was found not guilty because the prosecution" had not proven their case"
 

So I think anyone whos paid a ticket fine for stopping at the bus stop on the A79 next to prestwick airport in South Ayrshire should claim their money back.
 

 

James Grimes, South Ayrshire

Apr 12

Bay markings, Stafford

Just had a penalty from Stafford overturned because of wrongly painted bays – double termination lines one end, single the other! Turns out loads of parking bays in Staffordshire are wrongly painted. If they’d gone for “de minimis” I’d have fought them again on the basis that I was only 5 minutes late. Brilliant site, the template letter worked without editing and I even got the evidence shot from Google Street view! Even if I’d lost, I’d at least have had the satisfaction of making them work for their money.

 

Interestingly, the letter that told me the ticket was cancelled referred to my “informal representation” rather than to the illegality of the markings. Needless to say, if I see anyone with a ticket there I’ll leave them a note! I’m now a parking geek as well as a computer geek

 

Graham Skeats, Stafford

Mar 12

Blagrave Street, Reading

I have just successfully appealed against three bus lane fines issued within a period of 7 minutes on Blagrave Street on the 14/12/2011.

The appeal was based on the fact that road works in the immediate vicinity of the start of the bus lane blocked the bus lane signage on approach.

I know these road works were in place for a lone period over Christmas and beyond and would urge anybody else receiving a penalty notice regarding this street over the Christmas period to appeal on these grounds. 

I have attached a file with the evidence pictures if anybody else requires them. Hope this can help

gethinmail owen, reading

Jan 12

 

Northgate Street Bath

Editor - I have received more emails about this bus only street than any other site. I am happy to say that I have now helped someone win their case at adjudicator based on unclear signage and markings. Decision here and here, press story here

 

   
Archway Rd / Jackson's Lane Yellow Box junction
 
I was wondering if you could be of any assistance please? I received a PCN for a yellow box junction Offence, i appealed which was rejected. it then went to an Adjudicator which was also rejected.
Since then i have found out another driver who was caught on the same day as me only 30 minutes after had his appeal upheld by an adjudicator as the junction has been deemed non compliant as it has not been maintained appropriately.  The yellow lines are so faded that it is not possible to see the end of the box at the point of entry.
 
I wrote to the tribunals manager who refused my appeal, is there anything more that can be done. how can one adjudicator say the box junction is non compliant and another say it is compliant when both offences occurred within 30 minutes of each other. 
Any help is much appreciated

Editor - Thanks for your email Mo. Unfortunately there is nothing more you can do except take the case to the high court which is very expensive. This sort of nonsense sums up the unfairness of the appeals system. You are not alone, there are many other contradictory decisions.

Mohammed, London Jan 12

1 minute stop a bus stop

Hello Ticketfighter, I own a minibus company & the vehicle in question is a minibus that has an Operators licence with the South East & Metropolitan Traffic area. On the log book the taxation class is bus. On the day in question the driver was feeling a little unwell and needed a drink of water. The driver parked at the bus stop went into the shop. The driver was back in the bus within a minute and off the bus stop. Can you advise me the best way to fight this. Is there a certain amount of time that needs to pass to class as parked ie: more than a minute. Thank you in advance for your help in this matter.

 

Editor - There is no minimum time for parking. You should appeal on the basis of mitigating circumstances ie that the driver was unwell so had to get water. Also appeal on the basis that as it was only 1 minute the case comes under "De minimis, the law does not concern itself with trifles"

 

Vincent Duff

Jan 12

3 minutes to go....

I wonder if you could help me with the following:
 

I am a seasoned and experienced London parker, and have not had a PCN for many years.  A couple of years ago I parked in a Westminster pay and display bay at 18.26.  A traffic warden watched me park.  This worried me, so I asked him if it was OK to park there.  He said it was fine, and I didn't have to pay and display, because they did not issue tickets after 18.26.  I did not believe him - I thought it was probably a trick to enable him to give me a ticket - and queried this three times.  But he insisted he was telling the truth, and I thought it would be unkind to show him I mistrusted him by buying a four minute parking voucher.  So I didn't pay and display, and he didn't give me a ticket.
 

I was surprised by this incident - I was used to Camden wardens waiting by my car to issue a ticket as soon as the voucher expired, and thought that Westminster ones were worse.   But I knew that the government had taken action to curb Local Authority excesses, and I convinced myself that this apparent flexibility and reasonableness (drivers' watches might be fast, it's pointless to ticket someone for four minutes, etc etc) was a result of this.   I was sure that the Westminster warden would have given me a ticket if he could, and could see no reason why he should make up such a thing.  So, unfortunately, the lesson I took away with me from this experience was that PCN's are not issued after 18.26.
 

Last night I took my family to the theatre in Covent Garden (Camden!).  I planned my trip carefully, found out where all the pay and display bays nearby are, and planned to arrive and park at 18.20 and pay for 10 minutes parking.  Everything went according to plan, except that we arrived five minutes late.  I had the coins in my hand to pay for five minutes' parking, when the clock on the machine changed to 18.26.  'We don't need to pay now it's 18.26', I told my daughter, and put my coins away.  You can guess the rest.
 

My PCN was issued at 18.27, and says I was parking without displaying a valid ticket from 18.26 - 18.27.  This means that the warden was lying in wait, hiding, in the hope of catching people whose watches were a little fast or who thought no-one would bother over a couple of minutes here or there.   He must have had to move extremely fast to get that ticket out so quickly.  I guess he would have done the same if I had arrived at 18.28.  Imagine him watching us: 'Oh no, they're going to pay!!  Oh, hang on a minute - she's decided not to - yeesss!!!!

A mugger authorised by Camden council, lying in wait for his prey.  
 

My questions for you are these:  do you think what that Westminster warden told me had any validity?  Presumably if it did, it was only for Westminster?  And do you think there is any point in me taking my case as far as the PATAS?  From what I can make out, the PCN has been correctly issued.  But, like Mat Jackson, I think it has been unfairly and improperly issued.  Camden's warden should be visible, so I could ask him whether I had to pay for four minutes, not hiding, waiting for me to make a mistake.  You told Mat Jackson that he could make a 'de minimis' argument, and I intend to do that.  I expect Camden will reject my representation - but do you think that PATAS would uphold my appeal if I took it to them?

Best wishes, and thanks for providing a great website.

 

Editor - thanks for your interesting email! There is no 4 minute rule. The only debate could be if it was 1 or 2 minutes and they would have to prove their clock was accurate. Definately appeal on de minimis but there is no guarantee of winning. Check the signs, lines, pcn, notice to owner and traffic order for anything else wrong to add to your appeal. Let me know how you get on.

 

Catherine Knowles

Jan 12

Northgate St bus lane Bath I thought you would like to know that I have today received judgement in my favour against Bath and North East Somerset Council for an alleged offence of being in the Bus Lane in Northgate Street Bath.

The council have decided not to contest my appeal whcih centered around a large number of points regarding the status of the "Bus Lane", the vailidity of the CCTV images and the vailidity of the signage.

I have attached a copy of my appeal, which the council may have decided not to contest the second time around simply because I was a visitor to Bath, however their original rejection of appeal letter said they were rejecting the appeal.

I have also filed a Freedom of Information Request against the council to find out exactly home many people have fallen foul of the "Bus Lane" and how many appeals have been allowed and how much they have made from fines from that camera.

What is probably more significant is that the warning signs on Northgate Street have changed twice since the last pictures you have on the "Your Views" section of yoru website.
If you look on Google Maps there was one new "No Motor Vehicles" Sign on the Left Side of the Road only. At some point after the Google pictures were taken the council erected a second sign on the Right side of the Road. At some point they obviously realised that the wording on the signs was incorrect and instead of replacing the sign decided to paint out some of the sign leaving a sign that was still incorrect. The attached picture is the one provided by the council in their evidence.

Hope this helps other people. Obviously it would have been better if the case had actually had an adjudication, but I suspect at some point the Council will change the signs again rather than taking the obvious step of getting rid of the "Bus Lane


 

Paul Middleton
Cardiff
Jan 12

Westminster Bridge Road Bus Lane

I recently successfully appealed against a bus lane infringement on Westminster Bridge Road at the point where, heading south after passing under the Waterloo rail bridge, there is a bus lane and pedestrian crossing that takes you by surprise unless you happen to be familiar with it.  The key point was the pedestrian crossing crossed the bus lane in the middle of the dotted line bus lane entry stage.  They had failed to realise there was a conflict between the crossing rules and the bus lane rules.  Anyway Westminster decided not to contest my appeal, and recently I saw they have changed the whole signage and road markings set up.  So a success, and many thanks to you for encouraging me to stand up to them.  The point is, if anyone has been done on this stretch before they changed the markings, they should appeal retrospectively since the markings change means they admit they were wrong before.

 

David Walker, London

Jan 12

Loading bay appeal I was recently ticketed by Hounslow for parking in a Loading Place on Chiswick High Road, W4, at 2130 in the evening.  Ticket issued by post based on CCTV evidence.

Following some hints from your excellent website I challenged the PCN and asked for an appeal.  Three days prior to the hearing Hounslow decided not to offer any evidence and the appeal was allowed in my favour.

Basis for challenge:

CCTV camera was incorrectly identified and located
Loading place white line markings not in correct place by about 1 metre.
CCTV signage confusing and inadequate
Purpose of CCTV surveillance not as stated on the signage attached to the
camera pole.
Loading place signage correct but confusing (i.e. no timing stated, but all
neighbouring parking places have timing stated)
Traffic Management Order provided incorrectly by Hounslow on the first
request.

It is not clear which argument persuaded them or whether they were just too
busy.  But a good result.

 
Andrew Miller, Chiswick Jan 12

 

Andy Grant

Dec 11

Bank holidays

I was left with a penatly charge notice on the 27th Dec 11, which is a bank holiday!
Place: Felsham Road (A1) SW15 (2 mertres to LP No 5)
 
i would like to appeal against it because i parked my car on the normal place i normaly park on sundays and i even parked there the day before (mon 26th) Boxing day/bank holiday
 
It would be great if you can get back to me and let me know how i can appeal
 

Editor - Bank holidays catch people out every year. Every authority has different rules and these aren't on the signs, they are in the traffic orders. Council never put it right cause it is a nice little money earner.

 

Ahali Srikar, Feltham

Dec 11

Motorcycle bay

Firstly a huge thanks for the inspiration and information to enable me to successfully fight and win against Kensington and Chelsea Borough on a PCN for £130 that was surprisingly attached to my motorbike in a bay in Campden Hill Road. It is a victory for bikers as we seem to be targeted more and more by parking enforcers in London.

 

When I arrived in the area I passed a motorcycle bay that was full, but fortunately a bay 50 metres away had spaces. I checked carefully for residents permit and other restricted signs and there were none. When I returned there was a ticket stuck to the seat. I really couldn't understand why and checked up and down the street again,  until when I got on to ride the bike away I looked down and, on the floor was painted "M/C permits only" instead of the usual "solo M/C only". Really easy to overlook the difference of what was painted on the floor and of course no street sign for guidance.
 

From your site I found out that all marked bays should be accompanied by a sign, although from further reading wasn't sure if this only applied to disabled bays. I lifted an extract from Cukier v London Borough of Barnet, which seemed to do the trick, 
 

Direction 25(1) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 provides that the road markings specified in column (2) to the direction may be placed on a road only in conjunction with, and on the same side of the road as, a sign in column (3). In other words, the general position is that where there is a road marking there must also be a sign.


I got an arrogant letter back withdrawing the PCN and advising me to refrain from parking illegally in the future, but victory was mine.

 

Bruno Haines, London

Dec 12

Yellow Box Archway Rd / Jacksons Lane

This is just a quick note to say that based on my upheld appeal to PATAS about the YBJ at Archway/Jackson's Lane, the junction has been deemed as non compliant as it has not been maintained appropriately.  The yellow lines are so faded that it is not possible to see the end of the box at the point of entry.  My appeal was upheld on this point despite the fact that I entered and stopped in the junction when the route was not clear. 

I will happily forward all documentation at the earliest opportunity, please let me know where to send or post and I will happily do so to help other drivers who are caught at this junction, which I believe is one of the most lucrative for TfL in London.

Case reference 211055173A (if the links don't work, search for the case number on the PATAS site here)

James Harris, London Nov 11
Sign change I wonder if you can help - I received a ticket on a road near Charing Cross Road recently having parked there at 6.30pm next to a sign that read park at meter till 6.30 pm.  Upon returning to my car a few hours later I came back to a ticket and another puzzled looking motorist staring at the sign with a ticket saying 'this was a different sign a few hours ago'.  The sign now read resident permit holders only Monday to Saturday at all times - with no mention of a meter or times.  As far as I can see the signs had been changed while motorists had been away without any notice. Surely this isn't allowed ?

 

Labina Basit Oct 11
Yellow box

Editor - This letter that I received really sums up the unfairness of the system with regards to 2 issues. First of all for real crimes the government tells us that the courts are responsible for sentencing as they have the full facts in front of them. However for the heinous crime of being in a yellow box for 10 seconds, we have a statutory minimum sentence. Secondly, whilst adjudicators routinely now quote "de minimis, the law does not concern itself with trifles" to allow authorities to get away with breaking the law, here the adjudicator says "i am not permitted by law to allow an appeal because the contravention was minor".

 

Hi I hope you can help but it may be too late

I received a PCN caught on CCTV, my back wheels were in a box junction for 10 seconds in Euston rd/dukes road/churchway

contravention... entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited

contravention date 06/02/11

My daughters disabled she became ill last year at the age of 25yrs, with a rare condition called idiopathic intracranial hypertension

she has a shunt in her spine and is on DLA. I drive the Motobility car.

In Feb things started going wrong with my other daughter a single mum with 2 young children, it all went to court and i have my grandchildren living with me under a residence order, we have a court case pending in October.

i explained to the transport of London in an appeal, that not only did i have a lot on my mind but as the traffic was flowing with lights up ahead i just drove with the flow of traffic, i would have never been able to tell if my back wheels were in a box junction or not and for 10 seconds too. i had only just moved to London from Brighton (Jan 10th 2011) traffic contraventions are so different in Brighton, there’s no such thing as a PCN for a box junction, i would have never known that 10 seconds in a box junction was an offence.

i couldn’t even drive to the right as there was and island and to the left was a bus lane. so its a real mixed bag of reasons.

I am living on just £95 a week that’s carers allowance and income support, i cannot work as im a carer for my daughter. Also although ive had my grandchildren since may this year the social services have not given me a penny to live off nor do i recieve child benefits or tax credits. so im really really struggling.

my daughter lives on DLA and reduced ESA as she’s just had a medical, the dr who did the DWP medical had never heard of her condition, so we’ve appealed, she should be fine as she is under the hospital for life.

I was meant to have appeared in court for the PCN, but never received that letter to say so, so didn’t turn up, instead i got a letter from Anthony Chan from parking and appeals stating................. '' that although the stoppage was brief i agree that the contravention has occurred nevertheless, i am not permitted by law to allow an appeal because the contravention was minor''................. this also stated that i didnt turn up for court.

so i wrote to Karen Buck my MP, but she hasn’t been able to do anything really, so this morning i received a letter from the transport of London, they have set up a payment plan to pay the £120 fine, they say in the letter that i agreed to it which i haven’t.

i have to take my grandchildren to see their mum for contact 3 times a week and the other 2 days my eldest granddaughter aged 3 yrs old goes to nursery throughout the summer and then i fit in the hospital appointments for my eldest daughter.

Its been a tough couple of years mentally and financially as i was made redundant at the same time my daughter became ill.

I just do not know what to do

can you help me

 

Carol Johnson, London Aug 11

Dodgy yellow colour

 

Hi ticketfighter I hope you can help me as i have not got anywhere with my appeal. On the 23/04/11  i was parked on a restricted area. I parked on the main road called lake bank in rochdale which i thought was ok due to the line being white looking in colour. The enforcement officer who issued the ticket advised me to appeal as the line is incorrect in colour. I have appealed and it was rejected. I responed to them by sending photos of the line i was parked on and photos of a correct yellow line. Also i stated that in the highway code a white line denotes the edge of the road and you can park. They rejected this again and sent me a e-mail quoting the traffic signs manual, the colour of a yellow line can be

 

BS381C No.335 lemon

BS381C No.309 canary

BS381C N0 310 primrose

BS381C No 353 deep cream

 

Therefore up holding the fine. I think this is wrong as  all motorist follow the highway and it dose not mention that a yellow line can be any of the above colours.  they rejected my appeal saying the photos i sent them of my car on the line is correct in colour. I have attached photos for you to have a look and hopefully be able to help me

 

 

Editor - They are correct, p144 of Chapter 5 of the traffic signs manual states the colours that can be used. I recommend you search on the web, print out the 4 colours and compare them to the one in the road in your next appeal

 

May 11

Victories!

 

 

Hello my friend,
first thanks to be in internet with all your advises.
I won 2 tickets straight away with 2 beasts council in london Camden and Brent council thank to your advises.
My friend I am  so proud an happy as you said ...never give up.
I send also a symbolic donation to you but I want also send all picture and video of  my case in brent wembley central area where brent council leave a like permanent mobile smart camera on the street on double line to catch people  turning right instead than left without have any sign banning to turn right on the on the principal road THEY SAID the cancel my tickets because they were late to answer after 56 days Bullshit...

 

 

 

 

Editor - Many thanks and congrats Gio! Stories like this warm my heart and it's why I set up this site.

 

Gio, Wembley

May 11

Clamped in Brent

I recently had a clamping fee refunded by Brent Council after parking in as area called “Peel Precinct” in South Kilburn.  I had parked to visit a nearby building site and when I returned I had been clamped by Hawk Security, working for the council.  There were no parking restriction signs nearby otherwise I would have not parked there.

 

Looking at an old Google Map I could see the area used to have double yellow lines, but when resurfaced, they had not been replaced.  Three month and three persistent letters later I got a refund cheque of£88-00.  I wonder how many clamping fees the council have illegally trousered over the years

 

Wesley Lees, Brent

May 11

Northgate Street, Bath

I found your site after having just received a rejection letter from BANES Council against my representations of the PNC I was issued after accidentally driving through a bus gate in Northgate street, Bath.  My representation was that the road had no bus lane written on it, whereas it had previously, as I found out when looking on google maps.  I sent two photos one from google maps and one I took a couple of days ago.  I have attached the rejection letter and the photos I sent to them( google map pic.) I notice you have other enquires for the same bit of road, but they have changed the sign again and I would like to know whether this one is legal?   Do you think it would be worthwhile appealing?
Thanks in advance

 

Editor - I've had lots of emails about this site. Definitely appeal and let me know how you get on. Someone needs to show this council up at adjudicator.

Julie Morgan, Bath

May 11

Yellow Box Success, Chelsea Embankment

I wanted to let you know I have successfully appealed a penalty charge for entering and stopping in a yellow box junction located at the Royal Hospital Road junction with Chelsea embankment. My appeal was allowed on the grounds that the contravention did not occur because the box junction is not lawfully marked. The adjudicator allowed it because of the decision in another recent case. That decision, which found the junction non-compliant, is 2100559950 and the appellant is Ms Sharon Williams.

 

 

May 11

Pembroke road, Warwick Gardens, Cromwell Crescent

I had a box junction ticket cancelled and thought it might be of interest to you and your readers Here is the letter I sent to Transport of London
 
I am appealing against this ticket, for a number of reasons.
The box junction was difficult to see ahead ,as I believe it may be against the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002,in that the yellow box junction was painted incorrectly as it did not run right up to the kerb.
The evidence produced by Transport for London does not show the entry of the vehicle into the box; it commences later, when the vehicle is already stopped in the box. It seems to me that in order properly to consider whether the contravention has occurred the pictures would need to show the entry of the vehicle into the box since that is the start of the events that will or will not lead to there being a contravention.
Also I believe that the phasing of the traffic lights literally forces road users into this junction.
For these reasons I am appealing this ticket and ask that you cancel it, for if not I would then appeal to the independent parking and traffic adjudicator

I had the ticket cancelled because they said there was no evidence available to show the vehicles entry in the box junction,only when it had stopped

 

Toby, London

May 11

Bus Lane, Theobalds Rd Camden

I would like to ask your opinion  I have recently had my appeal rejected by PATAS.
I have appealed against a  bus lane contravention where a driver moves into a bus lane a short distance before turning left and crosses white unbroken line. I based my appeal on two key points, turning left precedent and the roadmarkings (Editor - having looked I think the markings are valid)
 
I have discovered a parallel case of Mr Roy Swift where the Adjudicator agreed and decided in favour of the appellant, reasoning that it was a legal manoeuvre and contravention did not happen. TAPAS upheld Mr Swift's appeal but rejected mine even though both cases were identical.
 
I provide 2 photographs:
1. Mr Roy Swift case
2. My case and a  link if you want to look closely at Mr Roy Swift case:

 

Do you think I should pay (£120) or I stand a chance in court?

 

Editor - I don't think you've got a chance to be honest. There is usually no leeway when it comes to crossing the solid line to turn left. However I think the case comes under "de minimus - the law does not concern itself with trifles". This has been used by authorities and adjudicators to rule against motorists. You need to specify that in future. However it would still be at the discretion of the adjudicator and as I see time and time again, they are biased

 

 

May 11

Camera 139 Clapham Park Road, Lambeth - update

Editor - To update some cases below on the Clapham Park Road bus lane, a case was taken to adjudicator on the basis of invalid PCN and unfortunately lost.

 

We appealed on the basis that the PCN did not include the grounds of appeal. The adjudicator has stated that it does not have to, despite quoting the reg that says it does! And also that an enforcement notice is not mandatory. This despite PATAS own website setting out the process (see here). Below in italics is the wording of the appeal. Needless to say I don't agree with the decision and the adjudicator seems to have overseen the obvious as well as messing up the reply. You can see his reasons here and here

Neither the PCN nor the enforocement notice comply with the London Local Authorites Act 1996 (as amended 2000)
1. The PCN does not specify the grounds for representations as required by schedule 1 (as amended 2000)

2. The enforcement notice does not comply with schedule 1 as it fails to offer the grounds "that there was no breach of an order or regulations" in accordance with item 2 (4) (b)
 

Due to several dodgy cases I now recommend people chose a personal rather than postal hearing at adjudicator.

 

 

April 11

Successes

Do you remember a few months ago I asked you for advice on dealing with a Newham parking ticket, on a road with no lines at all.
 
Glad to say my appeal was allowed in under 10 minutes this afternoon. The adjudicator clearly thought the lack of road markings was deceptive and threw it out on the specific grounds that Newham had failed to provide a picture of the sign at the end of the road which indicated it was a restricted road. He agreed with me that they couldn't penalise me for parking in a "bay", when there were no bays.
 
I drove round the area in East Ham last week, and this road is the only one with signs at the end of the road, but no road markings at all. Every other road has conventional yellow lines and marked bays.
 
I also mentioned another battle with Haringey, in which a warden was clearly lying, or very confused, about the time. This was the one where they claimed their ticketing machines were all carefully synchronised to GMT, when we were still three weeks from coming off BST. I was driving a garage courtesy car. That one ended very strangely. I suddenly got a letter confirming receipt of the £100 charge and closing the case. But nobody paid them £100 -- not me, nor the garage that owns the car! A rather silly way of saving face, I think.
 
This is now four out of four disputes over parking my family have won in the last year. I did get a ticket in Cricklewood a few weeks ago but had to pay that -- no excuses!

 

Editor - Congrats Laurie. Let this be inspiration to all out there. If you're a mug or have loads of cash to spare then pay up, the rest of us appeal!

 

Laurie Margolis, London

April 11

Yellow Box Junction - Otter Road / Greenford Rd Junction - Eailing Council
 

The 2 cases below show how fickle the so called "independent" adjudicators can be. The first one is from PATAS in London, the second outside London. Bad decisions by both, but PATAS refuse a review and the appeals service for outside London allow one.

 

I’m hoping you can provide some advice. In September 2010 I was issued a PCN for stopping in a box junction in Greenford, Middlesex. This is the same junction as that related to the Ticketfighter input from Victor Agarwal in June 2010. The box junction is on two lane road where Bus Lane restrictions apply during certain hours. These restrictions did not apply at the time of the incident. I challenged the PCN for two reasons:

 

1. the offence related to stopping in the box due to the presence of stationary vehicles. I was not stopped in the box for this reason as the inside lane was clear and, if I had wished to do so, I could have moved in to that lane. I referenced “Sheikh v London Borough of Newham, PATAS Case no. MV0071NE02” in my appeal as this is an identical case.

 

2.  the marking of the box junction (which is on a T-junction) does not meet statutory requirements and hence PCNs issued are unenforceable (see attached picture).  Regulations state that the box as marked should go right up to the kerb and a box which deviates from the standards requires approval from the Department for Transport. At the junction, one corner of the box is >2m short of going up to the kerb; it is prevented from doing so by zig-zag lines from a nearby pedestrian crossing. Hence, a conflict exists at this junction between the box junction and pedestrian crossing markings. In Chapter 5 Section 11 (Yellow Bar Markings) of the DfT traffic signs manual there is no mention of allowing such floating of the markings. In fact, Section 15.19 of Chapter 5 of the DfT traffic signs manual relating to pedestrian crossings states that “Crossings on major roads should be located away from conflict points at uncontrolled junctions”. Hence, one can only conclude that the box junction marking does deviate from DfT standards and approval for the junction as it is laid out is required. Ealing have stated that they do not have this approval.

 

In February 2011 I received the PATAS decision on my appeal. In refusing my appeal they state on the two points above:

 

1.    “One adjudicator is not bound by the decision of another. With respect to Mr Norman (the adjudicator in the Sheik case referred to above) I do not agree with his decision in Sheikh. In my view a motorist cannot escape liability for a box junction contravention by the argument he could have proceeded in another lane but chose to remain in a lane where stationary vehicles forced him to stop.”

So what we have here is two adjudicators giving totally opposing decisions. This can only be very confusing for the motorist when initially coming to a decision on whether to appeal against a PCN and surely this can’t be right. In my biased opinion, the adjudicator in the Sheikh case has made a decision based upon the law as it currently stands whereas the adjudicator in my case has just expressed a personal opinion.

 

2.    “This (the marking) is a triviality with which the law does not concern itself. A box junction which does not stretch as far as it could do acts to the advantage of the motorist.”

This decision baffles me completely. There have been many PATAS adjudications in favour of the motorist due to box junction marking being incorrect and to say that the incorrect marking favours the motorist is (in my opinion) totally against the reason for having a box junction which should not favour either the motorist or the Authority.

 

I then sent a response to PATAS requested a review of the adjudicator's decision in the interests of justice. I have just received a response from PATAS, stating that they will not allow a review. In making that decision they state that "The appeal decision shows no error in law. The appeal adjudicator addressed the relevant issues and made findings that were open to him on the evidence" and "The review procedure is not a mechanism for securing a second hearing. The issues have already been considered and rejected by the appeal adjudicator".

 

Is there anything I can do? Should I now go ahead and pay the fine? Many thanks

 

Editor - Many thanks for this John. The only other thing you can do is take it to the high court at your own expense. I agree with you this is amazing double standards from a hypocritical adjudication service. It is a note of caution for everybody that the adjudicators are a law unto themselves.

 

John Fordham, Ealing
 

March 11

Ms Caroline Sheppherd - appeal

I recently had a second tribunal YES a a second tribunal hearing and it was with the CEO of the Parking tribunal Ms Caroline Shepherds. I would like to make other folk aware that if you have been unsuccessful then it is possible to get a second hearing... I can not find a telephone number on your website and as an old person I have no idea with all this face book/blog twot stuff and feel excluded by it.
If you have a telephone number and a contact person them I would happily call them and relate how I managed to get a second hearing and most importantly the fact that My second hearing was won and in spite of no new evidence or on new anything... which begs the question why was the first adjudicator won unreasonable, dismissive and lazy ( I don't think he had read my paperwork ) and yet when CEO ( Ms Shepherd) herd my case she concurred with me 100% and felt that the council had behaved in an unreasonable manner. My case was that the council had increased the tariff but had done nothing to make the drive aware in a VISIBE fashion, they had changed the tariff on the board but had done very little to make the drivers aware that the tariff had increased ( they should use Large and Bold print/arrows to warn folk and draw the eye to a new tariff/maybe orange/yellow or red notice or print to make it clear that a change was in place ) simply changing the figures was not sufficient and updating website was ridiculous ( who is going to look on a council website on a daily basis) I felt entrapped by this as I had always paid the same amount for the last 3 years and had I known the price had gone up then would have gladly paid for it. I think my case will mean that the council can no longer hide around the fact that the board taffiff has changed they now need to be active in ensuring that this is VISIBLE and that the eye is drawn to the data that the tariff has increased

 

Theresa Farrell
 

March 11

Successful appeal to tribunal

Many thanks for your site which encouraged me to have a go at an appeal against an unjustified PCN.

I had inadvertently entered a residents parking zone having missed the obscured sign. I parked and looked for signs and found none (there was one sign 80m from where I parked)

The council rejected my informal appeal and also a formal appeal and did not even address my complaint about the obscured sign. They did however cut back the bushes the day after I complained (luckily I already had the photo) so I took that as an admission that it was non compliant.

The tribunal agreed entirely with my complaint and cancelled the PCN Thanks again
 

Ed Hounsell

March 11

Motorcycle bay

Your readers should know that I had a parking ticket cancelled by Sutton Council because the 'Motorcycles Only' bay I parked in was written incorrectly as "Motor Cycles Only"

I also notice that Croydon Council in their Traffic Management Order documents refers to Motorcyle  bays in the same way, i.e.,"Motor Cycles". Presumably, as Sutton by their own volition and  without Adjudication decided it was not a legal sign, this sets a precedent which would render all other Councils to comply with the correct/legal wording and squash any convictions made under the wrong wording?
 

John Bicourt, Croydon

March 11

Freedom of information act

I have just been looking at your excellent site for information regarding parking tickets appeals.
 
As we are aware, those that are enforcing the law must comply with the full requirements of it. As most people will look to assessing whether the local authority have complied with the physical requirement of issuing the tickets, dont forget that you can also use the Freedom of information act to ask the local authority for ANY information, memos, emails, correspondence etc etc (subject to a narrow band of exceptions) and they are required to provide you with the information. For example the person undertaking any infomal review of your appeal for your ticket must be adequately trained... you can ask them what training they have; there must be a clear divide between those hearing the appeals and the Parking officers to ensure impartiality etc... Go through the Parking legislation and ask your local authority for the information under the Freedom of Information Act to ensure they are complying.... they dont like it as it costs them money, but its tough they must comply and must comply with the law.
 
In short remind your readers they can get this information and for the sake of an email or short letter it may well be worth it, it exposed the MP's it might just expose how local authorities are treating their paymasters

 

Graham Archer

Feb 11

Grace period for pay and display

Hi, love the site!
Currently appealing 6 tickets, have had three out of a further four overturned in the last two months.
I always pay and display when parking, always in a designated zone- basically try to be a good boy!
Camden wardens seem to have an unofficial policy of checking ticket times during your park then coming back and enforcing a penalty immediately the ticket us overdue.
I have three or four currently issued within five minutes of expiry. In my mind thus is immoral and should be illegal... Any idea if there are guidelines for an extra wait period?
Cheers Mat

Editor - I know what you mean about Camden wardens. It's one of the reasons I set up this site after one hung around my car waiting for the ticket to expire! There's no grace period unfortunately you will have to look for something else to appeal on. However I would also include in your appeal the argument that has been used by adjudicators to reject appeals when there is a minor discrepancy with the lines. The latin concept of De minimus, "the law does not concern itself with trifles". Let me know how you get on
 

Mat Jackson, London

Feb 11

Motorcycle bay

Hi, I work as a motorcycle courier. I was picking up a package from Kazakhstan Embassy in SW7. Next to it I found "M/C PARKING ONLY bay. How lucky! I thought to myself. At least on this occasion I do not need to worry about the bike. On my return I found ticket. Shock! I stopped a passing by Traffic Warden and asked him for explanation. He pointed to the lettering on tarmac. It does not say M/C PARKING ONLY but M/C PERMITS ONLY. I was flabbergasted. Never heard of M/C PERMITS ONLY bays. On seeing the motorcycle bay I simply read motorcycle parking bay. The mistake was easy to make as the letters are rubbed off in places. Also there is no accompanying sign on a nearby post. What is your opinion?

1. Was it OK for me to stop there while loading/delivering?

2. Is the bay sufficiently marked?

3. Shall I pay

 

Editor - If you look at the permitted variants for diagram 1028.4 from here you will see mc permit holders is not allowed so yes appeal on them grounds. However they may have DfT approval but they will need to prove this. Regardless loading is permitted except where banned.

 

Jan 11

Footway parking

Can you please help me with a dispute i have with the TFL.
They have issued me with 2 penalty charge notice's on the Geat West Road, West London.
The reason they say they have charged me is because i STOPPED WHERE PROHIBITED ( ON A RED ROUTE OR CLEARWAY ), from the pictures i have provided you can see that i have stopped beyond the red route and i am not impeding the foot path or the road.
I have parked there for many years and i have never received a ticket until now by the same officer, so you can imagine my surprise when i got two tickets in the same spot two weeks apart. i recently appealed both tickets and i am now waiting for an answer. Can you please advise me what i can do next. is there tickets legal

 

Editor - Technically it is illegal to park on the footway however It is very bad of TfL to give you these tickets if you have been parking there for years. The offence you quote is not the offence they should have ticketed you for, it should've been footway parking as you are not parked on the road. So you will be able to get off these tickets. I suggest you get in touch with your local councillor and GLA member to complain as this probably affects your neighbours too.

 

Mr H Keely, Hounslow

Jan 11

 

Two wheels in a bus lane for seconds to overtake a van, what money grabbing scumbags Newham council are!!http://natswblog.blogspot.com/2010/12/parking-not-fine.html

 

Jan 11

Victoria Station, Manchester

The almost fraudulent issue of PCNs for bus lane incursions on Victoria Station Approach Manchester!
All facts can be verified simply by using google maps which at the highest magnification show 360 degree photographs at different vertical angles. Google Maps search for "Todd Street Manchester" shows the case.
Turning right off the A6042 onto Todd Street there is no visible no through road sign from the central lane...and edge of one angled for motorists turning left onto Todd Street only can be seen.
Once onto Todd Street the only getoffs appear to be do a u turn (iN RUSH HOUR AND ANYHOW DANGEROUS!)...or long millgate to the left on a stub road to
the right which on my walkthrough and shows on google picture view is full of parked cars.
There is a massive sign showing a bus lane in 60 yards, but these are everywhere, and in my experience there is always a parallel lane or
notice of a way off the road for other traffic when getting to a bus lane. This isn't the case in Manchester. There is a bollard in the centre showing that you can't take the RHS lane which is for traffic coming the opposite direction ( which on my walkthrough was twisted and not facing traffic
 and which was very dangerous as other than an arrow in the road on the other side it  seemed as though it was the lane to use to avoid driving on the bus lane...not visible is snow). Using google maps in extreme magniification it can be seen that Long Millgate is essentially a walkway for students at Chethams School of music with blocks either side and the opposite side show a stub road, that even on google has two cars blocking it and isn't really a getoff. I would like to add that the L of Lane has been obliterated with black tarmac and is thus not a maintained sign.
This is a motorist trap and is a disgrace, and is dangerous.
Also the regulations do not make automatic provision for the passage of emergency vehicles. I do not deliberately travel on bus lanes, and the crappy picture I was sent from Manchester City Council seemed to show that I was making way for an emergency vehicle.
One might think that the PCN can be challenged through the adjudicator...an expensive process in hours
and effort. Far easier to sit tight and allow the emergency vehicle to struggle!
Summary justice with cameras disproptionately affects the poorer, and when it a motorists trap it is a disgrace. Also in Harrow, where a junction deemed illegal by the ajudicator and brought in £1m per year in PCNs there was no refund to motorists who had paid up...because they were deemed to have admitted guilt by paying. Not everybody has time to return to a place to check...and also PCNs are given to people who might live hundreds of miles away.
THIS DOES NOT REPRESENT JUSTICE, OTHER THAN MIGHT BE ADMINISTERED BY THE LIKES OF CHINA!

 

Phillip Walton

Dec 10

Private Parking Ticket

Editor - I get of letters on private parking tickets and as per the info on my site the advice is to ignore it. Here is another case showing that you don't need to worry about these cowboys

 

Feel free to use this as a case study if it can help other victims of private parking tickets......

This is a case study … I have no legal qualifications and no basis for giving legal advice.

Earlier this year I parked at the end of a row of cars at Sheffield’s Valley Centertainment complex and went to the cinema. The car park is free and was packed. I came out a couple of hours later and found a ‘PARKING CHARGE NOTICE’ on the car alleging I had not parked in a proper bay. It looked almost identical to an official on street parking ticket but was issued by Vehicle Control Services, not any official body, and demanded an £80 fee to be paid within seven days plus an additional £40 for late payment..

I did not pay the fee and wrote to the company telling them I would not be paying. I then received a letter from Vehicle Control Services Ltd PO Box 686, Sheffield, S11 8XR, along with ’photographic evidence’ saying they had rejected my attempt to cancel the charge.

I ignored that and then received a “NOTICE TO OWNER” from Vehicle Control Services Ltd sprinkled with bold typeface and splashes of red and yellow background and claiming £120.

It also claimed failure to pay may result in ’court proceedings… a warrant being issued to the bailiffs an additional charges incurred.”It then listed “court fee £30” and “solicitors scale costs £50”. It also gave various ways to pay.

Two weeks later I received a similar but more threatening letter headed in bold “FINAL DEMAND NOTICE” and in red and white “FINAL DEMAND PRIOR TO COURT ACTION”. The rest was a virtual repeat of the previous letter.

A month later I received a letter from Roxburghe Debt Collectors, PO Box 342, Lavender Park Road, West Byfleet, Surrey KT14 6YX.

Again it detailed the allegations and said they had been instructed to recover the “DEBT” which was now said to be £161.12. It went on to say that if the amount wasn’t paid within seven days the matter would be passed to “our solicitors Graham White” -- whose address is also Lavender Park Road, West Byfleet, Surrey.

Two weeks later a letter arrived from Graham White, Solicitors, which is the trading name of Michael Sobell, Solicitor , regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority .

This was headed in bold “FINAL WARNING” and explaining that despite many attempts to obtain payment I had not settled the amount of £161.

It then went on to say ominously: “We have already fulfilled all legal requirements in relation to commencing litigation.

“If you are in any doubt as to the seriousness of this situation you should seek independent legal advice, as the consequences of litigation can be far-reaching, such as:

Substantial legal costs and statutory interest being added to your debt.

Your name being listed on the Register of Judgements affecting your chances of further credit in the future.

Seizure of our assetts by Bailiffs. An order to obtain information from judgement debtor.

Following that someone claiming to represent Roxburgh ,who had obtained my mobile phone number, made a call demanding settlement of the ‘debt’. Two more phone calls followed claiming to represent Graham White Solicitors.

I then contacted the Solicitors Regulation Authority to make a complaint about the conduct of Graham White (Michael Sobell) alleging harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970. I also contacted the Office of Fair Trading and the local Trading Standards Department.

 

I have based my refusal to pay on research and consulting Trading Standards and Office of Fair Trading.

Based on my research I believe the following to be true and I am happy to appear in County Court to defend my position:

The ‘Parking Charge Notice” appears to have no legal standing and is unenforceable.

I believe the situation to be as follows:

If I park on private land ( ie the car park of a cinema) I may be deemed to have entered into a contract with the landowner (sic). If the landowner decides that the way I have parked has caused has caused him a subsequent monetary loss he can sue me for compensation under contract law. Legal opinion seem to be that if the car park charges a fee and I stay longer than I have paid then I MAY be liable to make up the difference ( ie if I have paid £2

For two hours and stayed four I may be asked to pay another £2). The logic being the compensation claim is that I may have prevented another paying customer from using the space. Any loss or compensation has to be determined by the County Court. However, if parking is free then however or wherever I park makes no difference because under no circumstances does the landowner suffer any financial loss because of my parking. In any case if it is deemed that I have entered into a contract then the contract is between me and the landowner not any third party (ie a private car parking company). On that basis I would argue that a fee of £80 is outrageous and by the same token a demand for a further £40 is doubly outrageous and cannot be justified under any circumstances.  Lastly, I understand that the money demanded is not a ‘debt’ and only becomes a debt if a County Court rules that it is a debt

 

Editor - thanks for this. I get a lot of emails regarding private parking tickets and always advise people not to pay. I would be interested to hear the conclusion of this of when they stop bothering you and the result of your complaints

 

I have your website to thank for much of the advice I used to contest this and I'm happy for you to use the details but without any names. To be honest the ticket was actually picked up by my son but I thought it would complicate matters by explaining that. The last contact was when I wrote on his behalf to Michael Sobell on November 24th.

 

I sent a letter in the following terms: "I am xx,  the duly appointed representative of Mr xx of the same address.

TAKE NOTICE do not , under any circumstances or by any means, contact Leon Moxon, about the matter above. Any correspondence should be addressed to me. No debt exists therefore you have no legal right to demand money. Take this as formal notice to cease and desist from making your unwarranted demands.

I have today made a formal complaint to the Solicitors Regulation Authority about your conduct in this matter, alleging harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act 1970.

I have also taken up the matter with the head of Sheffield City Council Trading Standards Department and the Office of Fair Trading.

In addition I am taking steps to ensure that your conduct , and that of Vehicle Control Services and Roxburghe Debt Collectors is widely publicised. "

Shortly after I sent the letter there was one more phone call to my son's mobile by either Roxburhge or the solicitors but he refused to speak to them. Since then there has been no contact but to be honest I would welcome the opportunity to go to County Court because I'm so angry about this. They must be dishing out tickets at the cinema like confetti and a good proportion will, I'm sure, be paying up. My wife , who is a member of the "we'd better pay up or we'll be in trouble" group, has even been convinced about my stance and when a work colleague picked up a ticket at the same place she told her to ignore it. I'll let you know if I have any more contact and thanks once again for your help

 

Sheffield Dec 10

Disabled parking in loading bays

Editor - Many thanks to Loxley Parker who has done some great work challenging authorities on the issue of disabled people in loading bays. I have included this information on my site in the parking section

 

Are disabled drivers allowed to park in loading /unloading bays or not?
 
According to the Blue Badge Scheme booklet, they are not; but, according to Regulation 8 of this law, they are: Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 683 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000.
 
Since 2000, there has been some controversy as has happened in 2005 in Rochdale and Sunderland, which councils rescinded all pcn's issued to disabled drivers who parked in loading/unloading bays.  Since then, there have been two contested decisions in Sheffield and Nottingham with a score of 1 all.  A most recent case involving Mr Glyn Foulkes against Shropshire, which was a second appeal to another adjudicator, resulted in the Council not submitting anything against the Regulation 8 argument and the case was won by default.  Not only is Mr Foulkes disappointed, but also thousands of disabled drivers are still no better off knowing if they can park or not in loading/unloading bays.  Shropshire Council, according to the Shrewsbury Chronicle, have expressed concerns to the DfT about TPT decisions. Meanwhile, the Chief Adjudicator and Secretary of State for transport have been invited to a TV debate.  At the same time, Mr Foulkes is pressing for costs in view of the Council's conduct and pursuit of the pcn and its failure to address Regulation 8 in its TRO, a point which the second adjudicator noticed, which is the real reason why the Council did not show.  About 500 PCN'S were issued at the same location in Castle Street, Shrewsbury.  Mr Foulkes left his vehicle for a mere 10 minutes to collect urgent medication and was hauled through the coals as far as the TPT, whereas another disabled driver, Emma Gee, (who fully supports Glyn) parked in a similar bay in Castle Street, Ludlow, left her vehicle for an hour so as to get a "cuppa" and was, eventually, let off!  By the way, the first adjudicator was unaware of the Regulation 8 statute.  Well done pepipoo!  But the fight continues. A demo is planned to take place outside the DfT soon.  For all those interested, the case reference is: ZX 05048D.

 

Loxley Parker

Nov 10

Camera 139 Clapham Park Road, Lambeth

I saw an entry on yr site dated Aug 2010 from Heather Beard of Lambeth, in which she told you she'd been snapped by the infamous Camera 139 on Clapham Park Rd, London SW. I too have fallen victim to this camera, a cash-cow for Lambeth, & noticed that, in yr reply to Ms Beard, you said that if someone was in the same position, arranging an appeal with PATAS, & contacted you you'd explain why the PCN is invalid.

 

Editor - Due to being on holiday I wasn't able to get the details to Joe in time. However the cowards at Lambeth pulled out anyway....

 

Lambeth, having received details of my contesting the PCN, decided not to contest my PATAS action & dropped all charges! Result!
 

Joe Yapp Nov 10
Victory! Battersea Bridge / Parkgate road

Battersea bridge / Parkgate road
Got my letter this morning, (24th. November 2010),TFL will not contest my appeal, ticket was issued due to an administration error, yeah, right.
I was refused all the way through the appeals procedure, I was a bit late so the adjudicator refused to hear my appeal so I lost that, they even sent bailiffs, (who were sent away because they have no legal right of entry).
So then I wrote to the adjudicator and threatened him with a judicial review as he was refusing to hear an appeal for a box junction that was illegal and so was in the public interest to be heard. It only took him a week to decide he would hear my appeal so I sent all the paperwork, chief of which was the assertion that the box junction at Parkgate Road/Battersea Bridge Road is illegal because it is not marked correctly.
Lo and behold, the letter arrives from TFL saying they will not contest my appeal.
They have given up because they know the junction is illegal, but they don't want to lose the case and set the precedent. So, if you have been caught here, get appealing, the junction is illegal.
 

Mike S London Nov 10
Invalid bus lane ticket

Editor - Andy got a ticket for being in a bus lane in his motorbike in Finsbury Square Islington. I advised him that the PCN was invalid, he appealed to he council (without any details and won! So take note if you have a bus lane ticket in Islington

 

Andrew Adams, Islington Nov 10

TfL yellow box junction appeals

Hi I thought I'd let you know about two PCNs I received within a week of each other at the yellow box junction at the intersection of Battersea Bridge Road and Parkgate Road.
 

Following the advice on your site, I decided to appeal on the following grounds:

  • the yellow box junction does not meet the kerb on all four corners

  • the stills provided showed no evidence of me moving into the yellow box when my exit was not clear

My initial appeals were rejected by TfL, and I received two fairly standard responses, a couple more still photos which still didn't really prove anything other than the fact my vehicle was on the yellow box junction at a certain time on the two occasions.
 

I then requested to see CCTV evidence - as you are aware, there is the option to pay £10 to receive a DVD, or to go and view. I rang TfL and asked to get an appointment to see the evidence. I was told, that the particular department has to call me back, so I waited for the call back...and waited...and waited. Seven days, and still no call back. This I believe, is stalling tactics by TfL to get me to pay up.
 

So therefore I decided to appeal both to PATAS (I couldn't be bothered to go through the same issues on the second PCN).
 

I received a copy of TfL's defence through the post, including a DVD of each incident (which of cost didn't cost me anything, so makes the £10 you have to pay before appealing seem a tad expensive). On the first incident, I clearly had an exit from the box junction, but the car in front cut across my path thus preventing me exiting the junction. This was the main point of my appeal. On the second one, it was more debatable that my exit was clear, but I appealed on the basis of the yellow box junction not meeting regulations (not meeting the kerb).
 

The outcome of the appeal, which took place some four months after the original incidents?

 

The first appeal was allowed, on the basis that the contravention did not occur - it was clear on the DVD that another car moved across before directed by the road markings thus blocking my exit. On the second appeal, it was rejected as the adjudicator claimed there was no such legal requirement, and "such a point in the circumstances of this case as de minimis" - I thought this was interesting considering the editorial on the site.
 

In conclusion however, I would definitely stand up to the likes of TfL on such issues. They appear to dish out these PCN's without really examining the evidence, and in a society that promotes innocent until proven guilty, we should be standing up against such lazy officialdom

 

Editor - Hi Simon thanks for this. Congrats on the first case. With regards to the markings going up to the kerb, the legal requirement is diagram 1043 which shows the box going up the kerb. Another case was won on this point (see here). However it depends exactly how close it is and if it was just a fraction then I agree de minimus would apply.

 

Simon Peat, London

Oct 10

Yellow box victory

Liverpool Road / Bromfield Road

Dear Ticketfighter,

Please find attached a successful representation against a yellow box junction PCN from the notorious yellow box on corner of Liverpool Road and Bromfield Road in Islington.

Please feel free to use on your website... I have not included the original PCN or the reply letter from Islington as i do not have these to hand.

Someone else i know also had successful appeal on same grounds for this junction.

Many thanks to you and your helpful website!

Kind Regards,

Stephen

 

Stephen Kirkham, London Sept 10
Yellow box junction a406/ Brownlow Road
Dear Ticket Fighter, I am writing in the hope that you can put some information on your website about known illegal box junctions.  I recently received a PCN alleging that I had contravened the law at a box junction on Bowes Road (A406) at the junction with Brownlow Road and Powys Lane in North London.  I challenged the notice on the basis of the regulations stating that it is a contravention if the vehicle enters the box junction when there is a stationary vehicle preventing that vehicle from leaving the box junction.  In my case I entered the box junction following flowing traffic which had no reason to stop except when the adjacent pedestrian lights turned to red.  I was prevented from leaving the junction because of a red light and not a stationary vehicle.
 
I received a letter from TFL saying that I had contravened the box junction regulations however since this was my first representation to TFL they will cancel the PCN as a gesture of good will and that I should not take this as accepting that they were wrong.
 
I smell a rat.
 
On further examination of the regulations about box junctions it seems obvious to me that this junction is illegal based on the amount of extension of the yellow box area away from the junction.  Pleas check the current image on google maps at this location
Martin Shaw, London Sept 10
Bus lanes and Traffic Orders Hi I am very sorry to bother you.  I do use your site a lot and will be making a sdonation if that is acceptable by credit card.

Can you please answer me one simple question:  do bus lanes need a TMO?  I am thinking of Ealing who have just written that they don't!  Surely this is wrong!?

Thanks for your help. Payment in the pipeline as I write.
Cheers

Editor - Yes they do! Bus stops however don't, maybe they are confused, would not be the first time lol. Phillip has been involved in some good work in brining Kingston to account for their dodgy bus lanes.

Phillip Morgan, London Sept 10
Parking bay markings

I managed to find your website after getting a ticket on a Bank Holiday Monday.

I had been given a ticket  for parking without paying in Croydon. The neighbours had said it was free and I was in a rush so took them for the word and disappeared.  

Got back to the car and found a PCN. After locating your site and reading up on the bay markings, I realised that the bay I was parked in, was incorrectly marked out – they were individually marked bays with no double line at the end.  

I sent them this picture and a couple of others and a couple of days ago a letter came back to me saying the ticket was being revoked.  

Many thanks !!

Jolyon Way, Croydon Sept 10

Suspended bay

Thanks to your brilliant site I successfully appealed against my ticket on the grounds that the suspended bay sign was invalid. I have made a donation to thank you for your help.

 

Nitesh, Angel Islington Sept 10

Footway parking on private land in Camden

Hi Sir,

 

After I read your website and all the helpful tips to cancel a parking ticket. My case as below and I attached all the corresponds and my pictures and title plan for your reference. I hope you can help on this unadjusted parking ticket. Thanks for your attention and I will nominate the money to your wonderful website.
 

Regards

Tzeki
 

I have received a PCN on the 03/07/2010.

I have parked my motorbike outside TSB Lloyds Bank as above details. It is a private land property, not the council property. Can you check the land registration to clarify the boundary line, please. I also have two witnesses saw the incident.
 

Here enclosed the attachments of where the parking location of my bike, penalty note and witnesses details (they took pictures on their mobile phone as well).
 

It will be appreciate if you can look into this matter, please.

I hope it is acceptable to email you, but can post all the original documents if required. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.

 

 

Editor - This is a very interesting and complicated case. Unfortunately the fact that it is private land does not necessarily mean that it is not classified as public highway. This is because the public has constant access to it. There have been several cases where motorists have lost their appeals. See here for the latest which was taken to the high court.

Tzeki, Camden

Aug 10

Clapham Park Road Camera 139, Bus Lane Hi I wonder whether you can help me?  I recently got a Penalty Charge Notice for the above contravention.  I blogged this junction and discovered that many people had had issues with this particular left hand turn.  However, I have sent off an appeal and had it rejected.  I further blogged this junction and discovered that Lambeth Council did in fact make modifications to this layout in January 2010.  I do feel though that they did not improve the deception of the white arrow on the road tricking you into turning into the bus lane.  I am unsure what to do now and feel that I would like some advice if anyone else has experienced this same Penalty Charge Notice since January 2010 and appealed successfully

Editor - See above - April 11

Heather Beard, Lambeth Aug 10
Yellow Box Junction St James Street & Leucha Road Hi,
I recently got a PCN from a CCTV in my borough (Waltham Forest) for stopping in a yellow box junction (covering one half of the road only). I feel that this PCN is unfair as it's clear from the photos that I stopped all of 12 seconds and that I was not obstructing any uncoming traffic.
I have tried appealing once using one of the template letters on your site - the one about them not notifying drivers of the presence of CCTV in the area - but this was rejected and I now have about another week to pay at the reduced rate of £60...can you advise whether it's worthwhile trying to appeal a second time, and on what grounds?
Many thanks & regards.

Editor - After checking the PCN for Laurence I found it was invalid. He appealed to the adjudicator....

Yes WE WON!! Great news, and many thanks for all your advise (and patience!)...it transpired that the appeal was upheld on the grounds that LBWF couldn't be bothered to send PATAS a copy of the original PCN so the case was thrown out, and all that additional info/evidence was irrelevant....so what do we learn from this I ask myself? Perhaps some of these money-grabbing Councils make it a habit of throwing out initial appeals but cant be arsed to follow it up further as I imagine most people pay up after the first rejection, what do you reckon?
In any case thanks once again, and I shall certainly let friends/family know about your excellent web site...more power to you/us!!
Best wishes, Laurence

Editor - WF didn't send the PCN because they knew it was invalid and were running scared. If anyone else has a yellow box PCN in Waltham Forest please let me know and I will provide details when your appeal by the council has been rejected and you are appealing to the adjudicator.
 

Laurence Paro Bodini
Waltham Forest, London
Jul/Aug 10

Rude cab driver

Editor - Here's some correspondence with a guy from Wembley. While most people are very friendly here we have one gentleman who clearly thinks the world owes him some free help. Lets hope he gets plenty more PCNs! Oh and learns how to speak English and type properly.

 

i just recieve  a bus lane ticket and iam minicab driver just pick up a passager wembley  high rd  and know i have to pay penatly of 60 is there anything you can help me thanks
THE PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE  IS BELOW
BT62941751
WU53ULH 
I WISH I HEAR U SOON THNKS

 

Editor - Hi if you send me a copy of the pcn (scan or take photo of all sides) I will have a look for you.

 

thnks u reply me but if you go online  www.brent .gov,co.uk then write the pcn number and reg of the car u can see it  and all phone is there webside so again here is below datails

 

Hi it says the PCN has already been paid?
 

yes  i paid because you reply it takes long so i worried ticket is increase by the way  if u want to help some one next time please reply sooner thnks not replying on time

 

isse ali, Wembley

July 10

Rejection letter not received

Dear Editor, back in April i was issued a PCN for stopping on a red route, I actually pulled in front of a car in a parking bay, i saw he was just entering his car and was going to drive off, i then reversed into the parking bay he vacated and left the car. I have two issues, one- the original PCN and two-I made representation against the offence on the first charge notice and sent it to them. I have now received a charge certificate to pay the full charge amount of £180. I rang TFL and was told that a letter of refusal had been sent to me declining my appeal. I never received such letter which they assume my non response was amounting to ignoring the refusal. I have sent them an e-mail informing them i never received their refusal, what is mynext course of action.

 

Editor - If TfL send you another refusal letter then you can appeal to PATAS. However if they don't the case will be sent to Northampton County Court TEC. You will have to file a statutory declaration, details here

Robert Stone, London

July 10

Won a Westminster PCN informal challenge with your help

Dear Sir,

Thank you.  I parked motorcycle in Westminster in Adelphi Terrace, didn’t pay (didn’t realise and saw no signs – only just back on bikes) and got PCN.

Studied your site regarding the correct end markings for parking bays, checked with Streetview and then later returned and took photographs. The motorcycle bay in question had double line end marks (only appropriate when individual bays marked within the overall bay – which m/c bays are not) when it should have had single line end markers.

Wrote a nice letter on their excellent website and uploaded the photographs (using your letter as a pro-forma) and received a swift and polite response from Westminster cancelling the ticket on the basis that I was given the benefit of the doubt about knowing whether to pay (I hadn’t mentioned this as no excuse and signs were there).

Everyone happy, thanks very much

 

Andrew Marshall, London

July 10

Refunds for Yellow Box Junction - Otter Road / Greenford Rd Junction

Dear TicketFighter

I noted that you had the Illegal box junction in Otter Rd, Greenford within LB of Ealing as a story on your homepage recently. As an update,

 

Ealing's Parking Services will only offer refunds to drivers that allegedly contravened this yellow box on or after 30th April 2010.

 

I received a PCN and paid it by 26th April 2010 so in effect as I paid mine early I am not apparently eligible for a refund!

 

Ealing's Parking Services state that they were not informed by PATAS of the box's illegality until 30/04/10 but my argument with them is that that the date is insignificant - it was still illegal before 30/04/10.

 

Thanks for this. To anyone who has received a ticket here, you are entitled to a refund under the following circumstances:

 

1. The contravention occurred at the location for code 31j
2. The date of contravention is on or before the 30/04/2010.
3. The date of payment received by Ealing is on or after the 30/04/2010.

 

Email: OtterRoadRefunds@ealing.gov.uk

 

 

July 10

Yellow Box Junction - Otter Road / Greenford Rd Junction - Eailing Council
 

In late November I recd. a ticket from Eailing Council for a box junction violation.

I wrote to them on 2nd December recorded delivery contesting the ticket on the grounds that the car in front of the box stopped suddenly so I was stuck in the box.
That my car stalled so nothing could be done. That the box is illegal as the box does not go to the corner of the junction.

I didn't hear anymore and assumed they had closed the file.
Then on 23rd Jan I recd. a letter from them dated 22nd Jan that my appeal was refused and they addressed the first two points in the letter but not the point about the box junction being illegal. Is it worth me appealing to PATAS on this point?


Eailing Council set strict time limits by which replies have to be recd. or the fine will increase, the fact they took 7 weeks to reply, does that mean they are out of compliance or do timescales not apply to local authorities?

The letter states I have to pay a fine of £120 now but I'm sure when the first letter arrived it said if I made appeal within 14 days and was unsuccessful the fine would be held at £60 so long as I appealed within the 14 days. Does this mean the risk is if you choose to contest and loose you get stung for double?

 

 

Editor -Yes definitely appeal sounds like you have a good case. Ealing have lost many cases against yellow boxes as you can seen on my news page. Unfortunately if you appeal to the adjudicator the fine does go up by 50% if you lose.  Also there is no time limit for them to reply to your appeal. The yellow box is invalid for the following reasons:

 

1. It does not go up the kerb at the 2 edges, and

2. The yellow line does not go into the corner on one of the sides by the kerb

 

You just need to say in your appeal it does not not comply with diagram 1044 from the TSRGD. This is of course on top of your other reason. Let me know how you get on!

 

Update:

I wanted to thank you for all your advice.

Friday evening I got home from work to find an envelope from Eailing Council. The letter stated that they had reviewed my case and decided to withdraw the appeal they made against me with PATAS.  That I will get a letter from PATAS confirming this.  I have just posted an update on your website and hopefully this will encourage others to take on Eailing Council. Presumably they didn't want to set a precedent at PATAS for the infamous Otter Rd/ Greenford Rd box junction

 

Editor - Excellent news!

 

Victor Agarwal, Ealing

June 10

CCTV at night? Illuminate me

Attended the Parking & Traffic appeals place in London the other day & instead of the sandal wearing beardy bloke walking around with a cup of herbal tea , i got a power suit wearing thin lipstick Evening Standard lover . Damn !

Became pretty obvious early on she was gunning for me - the DVD supplied by Hackney council had no less than 4 CCTV camera angles of me happily driving down a so called 'pedestrian zone buses only' shortcut at night ! The place is deserted - maybe because all the shops shut at 6pm ? Blatant revenue trap.

Anyway thanks to you guys i now know what TSRGD 2002 means & after visiting :TSRGD and printing out the relevant signs , diagrams and schedules (schedule 17 , item 1 , Illumination requirements) she was forced to get out her own book of regs & slowly but surely - reluctantly - had to read out:

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), where the sign is erected on a road within 50 metres of any lamp lit by electricity which forms part of a system of street-lighting for that road furnished by means of at least three such lamps placed not more than 183 metres (in Scotland 185 metres) apart, it shall be illuminated by a means of internal or external lighting either for so long as that system is illuminated, or throughout the hours of darkness and may also be reflectorised.

Instead of doing the decent thing & declaring the signs not visible enough or whatever (after seeing my photo's - photo's from Hackney Council taken during the day ! ) she adjourned & issued my legal challenge back at them . They have 14 days , but seeing as they have already stated that the signs were "lit enough" and "how do you know the signs were not lit if you did not see them ?" i think my chances are pretty good don't you ? (Laughs out Loud) .

Thanks again - Richi

P.S. Hackney Council have just sent me a 3 month old highly dubious PCN - bitter ?

 

June 10

TfL yellow box pcn
I have been served with a pcn by Transport for London for entering a yellow box in the centre of Lewisham. I pointed out to them in my initial letter that I was not driving the vehicle at the time of the offence. I had taken it to a local garage for a service and MOT. The garage, which I have used for several years, said the MOT service garage had picked up the car to carry out the MOT and had been driving it at the time of the offence. I was therefore at two removes from the vehicle when the offence was committed. I submitted copies of my garage bill and the MOT certificate, timed shortly after the offence was committed, to show I was not the driver. My appeal was rejected by TfL and they simply sent more copies of photographs showing the car in the box.

Would an appeal to an adjudicator be likely to be successful on these grounds?  Would I need to provide letters from garage (which I know) and the MOT garage (which I have had no contact with.) to support my case?

 

Editor - Your grounds for appeal are this:

at the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner

 

Therefore you need to show the person driving the car was doing so without your consent, not just that it wasn't you. Hope that helps, let us know how you get on

 

Charles Batchelor, London June 10

Bath bus lane valid?

Hi, Came across your website after getting a ticket on a short bus lane in Bath.
I've enclosed some photos - there are no words on the road surface itself to tell you it's a bus lane. Road surface is hardly the "reddish" colour most bus lanes seem to be. And is the sign itself legal?

 

Editor - This is Northgate in Bath, same as the case below. They have changed the signs but it is still invalid, its a bus only street not a bus lane and there are no markings.

 

Response from Alistair - they have scrapped the ticket after my appeal, although they did say their signs all meet the DfT regulations, and the words BUS LANE are not necessary on the road surface because of the width of the road. They say they let me off because "it was my first offence". Interesting, but a result all the same

 

Editor - Ok nice one! First offence, no chance, they never admit when in the wrong

 

Alistair Durden, bath

 

Bounds Green Road N22 Haringey, Yellow Box

Firstly i would like to thank you for this website and the help you are offering to innocent motorists getting ripped off by unscrupulous councils in UK. My wife received 3 PCN for entering and stopping in a box junction in Bounds Green Road N22 Haringey, we appealed against the 3 PCN on the ground that the 3 PCN don't comply with traffic signs regulations and general directions 2002, and added that if the deviation has been approved from the standards required by DFT, we would like to see evidence before making any payment.
We waited one month and a half to receive today a notice of rejection saying that this box junction is fully compliant, but without submitting any evidence showing that the deviation has been approved by DFT.
I think that the box junction is painted incorrectly as it does not run right up to the kerb, i have attached some photos of the box junction in question with this email. Your help would be very much appreciated. Many thanks

 

 

Editor - I agree the box is invalid unless it has DfT approval. You need to state that it does not comply with diagrams 1043 or 1044 from the TSRGD 2002.

 

Many thanks for your reply, i made an appeal to PATAS saying that the box junction is painted incorrectly because it does not go right up to kerb and doesn't comply with diagram 1044 as it was a T junction. I also stated that there was no CCTV nearby.

May 10

Remove my vehicle from outside my own front door ? Eat this!

Hi Guys,
I'm proud of this letter, not only because all the law cited is relevant, but also because I reckon that when they read through it, they'll just find it easier to refund my £ 260.00 removal fee.

I'll let you know their response. You'll find that points 16 and 18 are particularly useful when appealing vehicle removals.

Thank you for providing a brilliant site

 

May 10

Ealing yellow box junction I'm just emailing to show my gratitude for the website you have set up. Thanks to your page about Ealing Council's illegal box junctions, I was motivated to contest a recent ticket for stopping in one, although the provided photos were inconclusive anyway. I contested on the basis of many small issues, including the box not coming up to the kerb, the lines not being correctly painted and there being no signs about CCTV nearby.

I am pretty sure from reading your pages that there is no set time limit for the council to respond, but oddly, I recently received a letter from them stating that although they believe the ticket was issued correctly, they were dropping the issue due to a "time limit" being exceeded. The letter was sent about three months after the ticket and my letter.

In any case, I have attached an anonymised version of the letter that you can put up on your site to hopefully encourage others trapped by this same illegal box junction to contest and win their appeals!

Editor - Thanks for this. You are correct there is no 56 day limit, that applies to parking tickets not yellow box junctions. Based on their incompetent history it wouldn't surprise me if Ealing didn't know that. However they are also clearly being sneaky, knowing full well the box is invalid and not wishing to publically embarrass themselves any further and allow more refunds from other motorists. Unfortunately this is the sort of injustice I see on a daily basis.

Ruben Arakelyan, Ealing April 10
A fine without a Ticket?! First of all I think this is a fantastic site, which I will be recommending to everyone!
Here is my problem, I received a PCN(LB of Camden) in the post for double the fine (£120) "claiming" i had parked in a residents permit bay and had an unpaid ticket. I clearly remember the events of that evening and I never received a parking ticket nor was I aware I was actually parked in a residents bay. I stopped off to buy some food for 5 minutes and parked in a loading bay where the signage clearly stated outside the parking spot it was a loading bay Mon-Sat 8.30am-6.30pm. I am clearly aware of the parking restrictions in central London hence why I am always careful.

On my PCN letter they have provided me with what they call photographic evidence. The photographic evidence is not clear, you cannot make out what is on the picture, let alone my car or registration. (see attached photo)
I appealed this ticket as it never existed and I have received a notice of rejection in the post. Camden council say it is not a legal requirement to provide photographic evidence and according to the traffic warden I was parked in a bay 2 yards from a sign advising that loading is permitted Mon-Sat 8.30am-6.30pm and at any other time is designated as a residents permit holder only bay and it was recorded the ticket was attached to my vehicle. They have reduced the fine back down to £60 but this is still not good enough when I never received a ticket in the first place.
I would like to appeal this again but what sort of evidence can I provide? and where do I stand as its my word against the dishonest traffic warden.
I would appreciate your advice, Many thanks
 
Editor - You're right it is your word against the warden's and unfortunately they often believe the warden. You need to carry on denying that you ever received a ticket and also look for any thing wrong with the signs, lines, traffic order and PCN and notice to owner aswell. If you have a witness that will help your case
Tia, London April 10

Westminster CPZ

I find your site very useful, but I cannot find an answer to my specific query.
 
I parked in a Resident Permit Holders Only bay without any specified hours on a Saturday evening in a Westminster City Council CPZ, which as clearly indicated on nearby entry signs is operation Monday to Friday 9.30 am to 6.30 pm. I therefore assumed that the residents only restriction only applied within these hours. I returned to a PCN on the car (issued at 1840). I have informally challenged this on grounds that that the CPZ signs are misleading - in response the Council has rejected the challenge on grounds
a) the CPZ only applies to the single yellow lines and pay and display bays (but how was I supposed to know this?)
b) the resident permit holders bay without specified hours is a permitted variant under the TSRGD 2002 (but is it so in the context of a CPZ with DIFFERENT specified hours?)
 
Would be most grateful for quick advice on whether it is worth persisting to formal representation or paying up now at the discounted rate

 

Editor - This is a very good question! I parked in the west end last night and noticed this. Some of the residents bays had "at any time" and some didn't. I know a CPZ which has residents bays with no specified hours on the sign, but they operate according to the controlled zone hours at entry points.

 

Paragraph 12.4 from page 97 of Chapter 3 of the traffic signs manual provides some information on this issue. According to this, no times means it operates 24 hours. However 12.9 acknowledges that this is confusing and would seem to suggest the whole of westminster's big CPZs are confusing (but of course that makes them a nice £ earner).

 

Were there any residents bays signs with "at any time" near where you parked? If so i think you have a case on grounds of confusion due to inconsistent signage (but of course there is no guarantee of winning). Take photos and appeal to the adjudicator. Let me know how you get on!

 

John Wolffe , London

April 10

Bus lane in clapham Dear TF,

Just thought I'd let you know about a small victory I just had:
http://coletti.co.uk/?p=1089
 
Paul, London March 10

Bus lane pcn in bath

Good morning,

 

This weekend I received a PCN of £60 for driving in the bus lane in Northgate Street in Bath city centre on 28th Feb 2010. (£30 if paid within 14 days).

 

I was driving a hired 17 seater minibus.

 

Having reviewed the Highway Code, the DOT website and the Government website I can find no definition of the term "bus". The only time size / occupancy etc is mentioned anywhere is in the section showing road signs where the circular red edged roadsign with a bus inside it is labelled "no entry for buses over 8 seater".

 

Do I have a defence in that I was driving a minibus with 15 other people inside on our day trip to bath to visit the Roman Baths ?

Surely if they deny access to anthing over 8 seats on one sign, this must demonstrate the criteria of "a bus" which can then be applied to other signs and road markings.

 

Incidentally, I think this must be a relatively new bus lane because the AA autoroute we were following took us down Northgate Street. Northgate Street is now a single lane for buses, it isnt a bus lane plus a car lane. I have since checked the RAC autoroute and again that instructs you to go along Northgate Street.

 

You can easily check the area I am talking about on google maps and google street. I think you can see the actual camera that zapped me too !

 

Having driven around Bath 3 times trying to get to Cheap Street from the A3039, it was impossible without accessing the Bus Lane, bearing in mind the full closure of Gay Street for works to the mains.

 

Look forward to hearing your thoughts on this one.

 

Editor - The definition of bus is in the TSRGD here. "motor vehicles constructed or adapted to carry more than 8 passengers (exclusive of the driver)"

 

Is this the location? If so that sign is illegal (unless it has dft approval) as the words "authorised vehicles" is not a permitted variant of diagram 620. However the fact you were driving a 17 seater should be fine to get you off. Don't tell them about the sign and keep it as a back up. Why should we do their job for them! 

 

Update:

I challenged the PCN with Bath and North Somerset Council on the basis I was driving a 17 seater minibus. I sent them the statutory clause defining a bus as a vehicle designed to carry 8 or more passengers, plus a copy of my rental agreement from the hire company which showed the vehicle reistration number, make and model and the fact it is a 17 seat minibus.

 

I got a reply today from the council which reads

 

"Mr Hamilton,

I am writing in response to your representation to the above penalty charge notice (PCN) which has on this occasion been cancelled.

Yours sincerely

Reps Asst"

 

Excellent result, thank you for your assistance. I note that they couldnt force themselves to apologise for their obvious error, but hey ho, you cant have everything. Please feel free to put this ruling on your excellent website. best wishes and thanks again

 

Marty Hamilton, Bath

March 10

Successful appeal

Thanks for a great site. I used your information to fight a case against TFL. This was in Kidbrooke Park Road leading on to the A2 where the road is width restricted and also has a bus lane for about 30 yards for no apparent purpose rather than to raise revenue.

 

I pointed out that there should be an advance sign to warn there is a bus lane ahead in order to give the motorist time to change lanes and this should be sited at least 30m in advance. There is no such sign.

 

Also the taper for the bus lane should conform with regulations and be around 30m in length to give drivers the chance to change lanes. This one is about 1m in length because of the existence of a side road.

 

After a jumbled standard paragraphs letter turning down my submission and the usual chain of letters ramping up the pressure (and the fine) the council finally backed down without admitting they were wrong. I had argued that I had followed a high sided foreign vehicle through the bus lane and because it is on a corner this  meant that I was unable to see any of the warning signs. As you'll see another car then inadvertently followed me through.

 

If they had an advance warning sign as required by law they would not have had to concede this point. However nothing has changed and motorists are still being ripped off on a daily basis!

 

 

Peter Stephens, London

Mar 10

Bus gate, Camrose Ave Harrow

Editor - Sleyman received 10 tickets for going through the Harrow bus gate in his van. The section had no advance warning  and would've scraped his van had he gone through it normally. Despite losing their appeal in the case below, Harrow still pursued him for the tickets which would've amounted to over a thousand pounds. With ticketfighter's help the adjudicator decided in his favour and all tickets were cancelled. You can read the news story here. How many more motorists have paid tickets here!? A donation would've been nice.........

 

Sleyamn said  - my heartfull thanks for all your help and support, without you i couldn't have done anything. keep it up.

 

Sleyman, Harrow

Mar 10

Bus gate, Camrose Ave, Harrow

Just want to say thank you for an amazing site.

 

I was flagged driving through a bus gate in Camrose Avenue Edgware Middx – however this was a side road where you don’t expect buses and further, visibility and signage was very poor, you only knew about the bus lane when you were on it. I visited your site after receiving the PCN in the post.

 

I appealed to the council and among other things told them the signs on the street and on the road did not conform to legislation. but it was turned down.

 

I appealed to the parking appeals service and yesterday I won, it was very quick, I wasn’t disputing I wasn’t there.

 

What was interesting was Harrow Council had sent in a 36 page document and video evidence of the contravention. All was pretty irrelevant. They also sent in historical “pictures” of the area in question which I managed to argue is all irrelevant, because the last of 9 pictures was a streetmap shot of the area and showed the road markings had been altered to read “BUS & CYCLE NLY” – the O had been paved over – In addition the term “BUS & CYCLE ONLY” is not a valid road marking. The adjudicator went onto google to check for himself.

 

The adjudicator then looked at a thick book on road signs, agreed it wasn’t a correct marking and upheld the appeal..

 

What surprises me is the council must have known this site is illegal – and what about the others who have been nicked going through it – according to the papers submitted the TFL contributed £25,000 towards the installation of a camera. Everyone who has paid at this site should have a refund???

 

Ed Saleh, Harrow

Jan 10

       

 

Click here for page 2 (cases from 2007-2009)