Your Views ............................................................................................................................................................................
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
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
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
Case reference number for others to refer to is QA05111E
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:
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
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.
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:
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?
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
Missing time on
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
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.
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
I wanted first of all to write and compliment you that your website isa very useful as a source of useful information in explaining the massof guidelines and regulations in a user friendly way.
I recently acted on behalf of a friend before an Adjudicator in a caseagainst Cornwall County Council in relation to a parking bay onRichmond Hill, Truro that signs should be placed at intervals ofapproximately 30 metres in accordance with Chapter 3 of the TrafficSigns Manual guidance. Due to Cornwall County Council refusing toaccept our late appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice the issue waslisted before a District Judge at a local County Court and on readingthe papers told us not to get too comfortable as he had decided toallow the appeal wiping out any bailiffs charges. At the Hearing heldlocally to where the motorist lived, the Adjudicator, agreed with usthat the the distance between one set of signs was in excess of 30metres and more likely 50 metres and also agreed that one more sign
would be advisable to reduce the interval and the next sign after thatwas too low on the wall. However, she was satisfied that the signageat the end where the motorist was parked was clear enough and adequateto inform a reasonable motorist that permits were required.
We appealed by way of review arguing that the motorist's attentionwould have been directed uphill to where she was walking to thestation and not downhill where the sign was partly obscured by a drainpipe making it less obvious that the sign was there. Despite arguingR(Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator  EWHC894 and Appellant A and Hertfordshire County Council Case Number QA05111E
quoting the Adjudicator’s referral to the test by Mr JusticeBeatson that the adjudicator must, “take into account the signageconformity to the Department's formal guidance set out in Chapter 3 of
the Traffic Signs Manual. That specifically states that Diagram 619should be used for bus lanes "where access to premises is required forother vehicles or where the bus lane does not apply at all times". Theintroduction to Chapter 3 states that "should" indicates a course ofaction "that is strongly recommended and represents goodpractice"[para 68]. We argued that the wording of "should" apply inour case.
The review was unsuccessful and now Cornwall Council have sought toincrease the penalty from £70 to £105. This seems to act as a doublepenalty in that the motorist would lose the advantage of the 50%reduction in the charge which could have been £35 if paid within 14days and if the Council refused to accept the appeal and the matterwent before an adjudicator it could be further increased by 50%. Theappeal 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 consumingand expensive to find out. To go to Judicial Review would beexpensive. We recently went to Judicial Review involving the FinancialOmbudsman Service and the costs were about £1400 against us at thefirst stage which is all in writing which was dealt with by ourselvesa further oral appeal against refusal of judicial review there are nocosts but the costs would be out of proportion to the traffic penaltyinvolved.
It would appear that Cornwall Council can continue to display
incorrectly spaced signs in contravention of the Traffic Signs Manualand a motorist has to hunt around for a sign to find any restrictions.
If Cornwall County Council refuse to accept the motorists submissionsthat because of her dire financial circumstances that she cannotafford to pay then she could face further charges such as bailiffsfees.
I should be grateful for any other person's comments advice and
whether or not they have had problems when dealing with Cornwall
David Farmer, Cornwall
Invalid bus atop
I got ticketed by a
policeman when I stopped at a bus stop to ask for
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
.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
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
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
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
Archway Rd/Jackson's Lane Yellow Box
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
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
1 minute stop a
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
minimis, the law does not concern itself with trifles"
3 minutes to
I wonder if you could help me with
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
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 -
authorised by Camden council, lying in wait for his
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?
and thanks for providing a great website.
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.
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
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
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
Paul Middleton Cardiff
Westminster Bridge Road Bus Lane
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.
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
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
It is not clear which argument persuaded them or whether they were just too
busy. But a good result.
Editor - Don't know any
more on this. I get lots of emails from people in despair. A severe
punishment for what is often a minor mistake, or completely invalid
tickets with no opportunity for legal help. Meanwhile we read in the
papers about muggers and violent criminals getting let off daily
with a slap on the wrist.
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
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
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
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
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
(if the links don't work, search
for the case number on the PATAS
James Harris, London
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 ?
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
and stopping in a box junction when prohibited
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
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
can you help me
Carol Johnson, London
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
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
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.
Clamped in Brent
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
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
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
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
Pembroke road, Warwick
I had a box junction ticket cancelled and thought it might be of interest to you
and your readersHere 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
Theobalds Rd Camden
I would like to ask your opinion I have recently had my appeal rejected by
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.
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. HoweverI 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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
readers should know that I had a parking ticket cancelled bySutton Council because the 'Motorcycles Only' bay I parked in waswritten incorrectly as "Motor Cycles Only"
I also notice that Croydon Council in their Traffic Management Orderdocuments refers to Motorcyle bays in the same way, i.e.,"MotorCycles". Presumably, as Sutton by their own volition and withoutAdjudication decided it was not a legal sign, this sets a precedentwhich would render all other Councils to comply with the correct/legalwording and squash any convictions made under the wrong wording?
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
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
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
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?
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
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
2. Is the bay sufficiently
3. Shall I pay
- 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.
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
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
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.
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
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 junctiondeemed 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
haveadmitted 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
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
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
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
“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
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
The ‘Parking Charge Notice”
appears to have no legal standing and is unenforceable.
I believe the situation to be as
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
- 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
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
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
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?
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.
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
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
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
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
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
TfL yellow box
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
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
Yellow box victory
/ Bromfield Road
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!
Stephen Kirkham, London
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
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
Thanks for your help.Payment in the pipeline as I
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
Parking bay markings
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
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
Nitesh, Angel Islington
Footway parking on
private land in Camden
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
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.
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
Yellow Box Junction St James Street
& Leucha Road
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
In any case thanks once again, and I shall certainly let friends/family know
about your excellent web site...more power to you/us!!
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
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
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
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
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
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
Won a Westminster PCN informal
challenge with your help
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).
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.
this. To anyone who has received a ticket here, you are entitled to a refund
under the following circumstances:
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.
In late November I recd. a ticket
from Eailing Council for a boxjunction violation.
I wrote to them on 2nd December recorded delivery contesting theticket on the groundsthat 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 appealwas refused and they addressed the first two points in the letter but notthe 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 berecd. 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 applyto local authorities?
The letter states I have to pay a fine of £120 now but I'm sure whenthe first letter arrived it said if I made appeal within 14 days andwas unsuccessful the fine would be held at £60 so long as I appealedwithin the 14 days. Does this mean the risk is if you choose tocontest 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
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!
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!
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 :TSRGDand 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 ?
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
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
Bath bus lane valid?
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
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,
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
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
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.
Remove my vehicle from outside my own
front door ? Eat this!
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
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
Ruben Arakelyan, Ealing
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
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
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!
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
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
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 CheapStreet 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.
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!
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
I got a reply today from the council which reads
I am writing in response to your representation to the above penalty
charge notice (PCN) which has on this occasion been cancelled.
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
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
Bus gate, Camrose Ave Harrow
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.
Bus gate, Camrose Ave, Harrow
want to say thank you for an amazing site.
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.
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.
appealed to the parking appeals service and yesterday I won, it was very quick,
I wasn’t disputing I wasn’t there.
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.
adjudicator then looked at a thick book on road signs, agreed it wasn’t a
correct marking and upheld the appeal..
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???