We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
IMPORTANT: Please make sure your posts do not contain any personally identifiable information (both your own and that of others). When uploading images, please take care that you have redacted all personal information including number plates, reference numbers and QR codes (which may reveal vehicle information when scanned).
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
TFL PCN Issued and initial Appeal rejected. Can I still get it cancelled?
Options

Capana
Posts: 39 Forumite

Hi guys,
The driver of the vehicle in question at the time allegedly caused a contravention when performing a "No right turn" at the lights on this junction.
However, the driver mentioned in the appeal that on the day there were roads works and the traffic light sign was covered and the "No right turn" sign on the light was covered and not visible.
There was also a diversion in placing, from what they can remember, that said it was okay to turn right due to the diversion and road works.
Here is the initial appeal that was rejected:
=======================
They initially replied sending me the evidence...photos and a video on a CD(which I haven't viewed yet as no cd drive on my laptop).
But one of my main concerns is that the photo evidence they supplied of the junction is from 2023 with no road works.
So my question is can I still further appeal it given that they haven't provided proper or valid evidence?
Images attached.
Initial PCN - https://ibb.co/DHVhnNGR
Letters about photo evidence-
https://ibb.co/zWC5tP8L
The driver of the vehicle in question at the time allegedly caused a contravention when performing a "No right turn" at the lights on this junction.
However, the driver mentioned in the appeal that on the day there were roads works and the traffic light sign was covered and the "No right turn" sign on the light was covered and not visible.
There was also a diversion in placing, from what they can remember, that said it was okay to turn right due to the diversion and road works.
Here is the initial appeal that was rejected:
To whom it may concern,
Re: Penalty Charge Notice XXXXX
I am the registered keeper of the vehicle with registration XXXXXXX and I write to formally challenge the validity of this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
This PCN was issued on 04/04/2025 for an alleged right turn at DRUMMOND STREET EASTBOUND JW HAMPSTEAD ROAD, stated as a contravention of code 50r – “Performing a prohibited turn (no right turn).”
I deny liability for this charge and submit that the PCN should be cancelled on the following grounds:
1. Legitimate Expectation and Diversion Due to Road Works
At the time of the alleged contravention, there were ongoing roadworks in the area which had altered the usual road layout and signage. The driver, who cannot be named, was acting in accordance with a diversion indicated due to the roadworks. It is a well-established principle that if temporary signage or road layouts override the permanent restrictions, no contravention can be said to have occurred. Therefore, the driver was under the honest and reasonable belief that a right turn was permitted at the time.
2. Inadequate and Confusing Signage
Given the altered road conditions and potential obstructions due to construction works, the visibility and clarity of the “No Right Turn” signage must be called into question. If the signage was obscured, displaced, or temporarily overridden by a diversion, then enforcement is neither fair nor lawful.
3. No Evidence of Clear Contravention
The images supplied with the PCN do not clearly establish the presence of adequate signage or the context of temporary road layout changes. Enforcement based purely on ANPR evidence without a clear contextual assessment fails the test of procedural fairness.
4. Mitigating Circumstances and Abuse of Process
TfL is under a duty to act fairly and consider any mitigating circumstances. Issuing PCNs during times of inconsistent or unclear road layouts (particularly when roadworks are in place) may amount to an abuse of process as described in Camden v The Parking Adjudicator and BHS t/a First for Food Service Ltd [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin).
Given the circumstances and the lack of a clear, enforceable contravention due to temporary road changes, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled.
Should you choose not to cancel the PCN, I request the following under the Freedom of Information Act and in preparation for appeal to London Tribunals:
Copies of all images and footage relied upon.
Evidence of the signage in place on the date and time of the alleged contravention.
Confirmation of any roadworks or diversions logged in the area on that date.
Yours faithfully,
=======================
They initially replied sending me the evidence...photos and a video on a CD(which I haven't viewed yet as no cd drive on my laptop).
But one of my main concerns is that the photo evidence they supplied of the junction is from 2023 with no road works.
So my question is can I still further appeal it given that they haven't provided proper or valid evidence?
Images attached.
Initial PCN - https://ibb.co/DHVhnNGR
Letters about photo evidence-
https://ibb.co/zWC5tP8L
0
Comments
-
As this is not a private parking charge, please go to the FTLA parking forum website and post in there after reading their posting requirements first4
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards