DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 77842--------------------------------------------------
Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: June 24, 2025, 3:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This forum's main purpose is to support motorists who receive
PCNs, often as a consequence of poor signage. Each case is
handled individually and the outcome applies to that PCN alone.
Some sites are notorious for generating PCNs: I became involved
with this forum as a result of my son's receiving a PCN on
Camrose Avenue, Harrow.
I was shocked by what I found there, and on Rivercourt Road,
Hammersmith: the Traffic Order was nonsensical, yet the Council
was raking in millions a year (on Camrose Avenue) from a single
site. It seemed to me that the nonsensical nature of the Traffic
Order must make it invalid and that the issuing of PCNs alleging
that a contravention had occurred were deceptions intended to
deprive the accused of the penalty charge, i.e. fraud.
I learned that, however nonsensical the Traffic Order, once six
weeks have elapsed after it was issued, it is valid, i.e. the
order cannot be overturned by a legal process. That does not
make it enforceable. The words of the order have to be
interpreted using the methods of statutory construction, taking
into account case law.
On Camrose Avenue the Traffic Order which the Council uses for
its PCNs (there are two overlapping ones and the other one is
well-formed) has a serious mistake in it. There are two traffic
islands in the road and it identifies them as "northern" and
"southern" when it should have referred to them as "western" (or
south-western") and "eastern" (or "north-eastern"). The
well-formed overlapping Traffic Order and previous versions of
the ill-formed Traffic Order used these alternative compass
points.
On Rivercourt Road the Traffic Order specifies that the
restrictions apply from the junction with Great West Road to "a
point 8.30 meters south of the southern building wall of No. 17
Rivercourt Road". The changes which the Council made to the road
markings indicate that it regarded the junction as lying at the
edge-of-carriageway road markings (diagram 1010) on Great West
Road. If this were true, there would be a very short (7m or so)
length of one-way road between the junction and the specified
location 8.30 meters south of 17, Rivercourt Road.
But it is not true. TfL's Great West Road includes the verge and
the combined cycleway/footway to the north of the carriageway,
including the exit slip road across these. The boundary between
Great West Road and (the northern fragment of) Rivercourt Road
lies to the north of the combined cycleway/footway which,
because Rivercourt Road isn't at right angles to Great West
Road, actually means that the start of the south-to-north
one-way restriction lies to the north of its end. The paragraph
defining this section of road for the purpose of restricting the
classes of vehicle which can use it ends in mid-sentence after
an "and".
While Hammersmith and Fulham may have believed when they made
the Traffic Order that it applied from the carriageway of Great
West Road, their response to my FoI request
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/rivercourt_road_experimental_tmo<br
/>has elicited that they now place the junction between Great
West
Road and Rivercourt Road as coinciding with "a point 8.30 meters
south of the southern building wall of No. 17 Rivercourt Road".
This means that, by their reckoning, the south-to-north
restriction applies for precisely zero length. Yet they continue
to issue PCNs.
In each case (Camrose Avenue and Rivercourt Road), the Traffic
Order is valid but nonsensical. Yet each Council issues
thousands of PCNs alleging contravention of the Traffic Order.
The bulk of those receiving them pay up within 14 days of
receiving the PCN to receive the "50% discount" and avoid the
hassle of challenging the PCN with the risk that, if they fail,
they will lose the "discount".
Recently Southwark Council has admitted that it issued PCNs by
mistake because an experimental TMO had expired without the
Council's issuing a permanent TMO. It agreed to refund penalties
paid
HTML https://southwarknews.co.uk/area/rotherhithe/exclusive-council-to-refund-over-100k-to-drivers-wrongly-fined-at-lower-road-bus-lane/.<br
/>In 2007 a fault in the TRO for a 30 mph speed limit on the A35
in Chideock, Dorset led to the repayment of all fines issued
since the purported speed limit had been imposed in 1997, see
Chideock Speed Camera Refunds
HTML https://neilherron.blogspot.com/2009/06/chideock-speed-camera-refunds.html.<br
/>Attached to this post is a copy of the police's A Traffic
Enforcement Officer's Guide to Speed Limit Signs. Page 62
records that the payout was in excess of £3 million.
I'm not sure how to go about it, but I would like to find a way
to achieve a similar result to that at Chideock for those
notorious sites where the TRO is so defective as to be nonsense
or where there is some other gross legal fault (such as Merton's
issuing PCNs for contravening a sign which is not a "scheduled
section 36 traffic sign"). It would need to be an action in the
High Court, either judicial review of an adjudication (as with
the Oxford Bus Gate case
HTML https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2010/894.html)
or a
judicial review initiated for the purpose (on Rivercourt Road,
for instance, as those don't even get to an adjudicator).
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 77868--------------------------------------------------
Re: Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: John_S
Date: June 24, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I guess many members of this forum have or have had similar
thoughts to those expressed by [member=3617]Bustagate[/member].
There are many examples of sites where the issuing of PCNs fits
this broad description of unlawful. There must be sufficient
knowledge and expertise within FTLA to compile a comprehensive
evidence and information package for any given site (eg Merton).
I wonder whether anyone on this forum has ‘rights of audience’
which would be required for a High Court action.
I ask these questions because all of the above would be very
expensive, but those costs could be mitigated by forum members
giving-up their free time.
That said, the biggest obstacle to any High Court action is the
likely exposure to the other side’s costs. These could
potentially run into £100k +. I imagine that’s why no individual
to my knowledge has recently challenged a PCN or traffic order
in the High Court.
#Post#: 77897--------------------------------------------------
Re: Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: June 24, 2025, 7:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Chideock example shows that there may be sufficient money at
stake potentially to interest a commercial litigation funder.
Therium financed the vastly more complicated fight by
sub-postmasters against the Post Office over Horizon in return
for a share of the damages.
Although it's small beer by their standards, a second-tier
litigation funder might be interested in Camrose Avenue. It's
been going since 2006 and yielded Harrow £500,000 in its first
year. It will have been similar amounts in the first few years,
but has increased rapidly in recent years. In 2021/22 it was
£1,228,624; 2022/23 £1,735,611; 2023/24 £2,186,798. [Source:
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/driving_fines_35
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/driving_fines_35].
I
estimate that aggregate penalties will be around £15 million;
double that if you include interest.
Given that those who have paid penalties have already lost 100%
of their money and have had no hope of any redress, I can't see
that they would be upset if the bulk of any damages ended up
with the litigation funders and the lawyers. Getting their own
back at Harrow would be the main reward; any financial payment
would be the icing on the cake.
As far as the litigation funders are concerned, I expect their
main motive would be publicity: a David-and-Goliath battle
against a predatory local authority with unfair road signs.
Anyone think that this has a chance of flying? The alternative
is to wait until a council has lost an adjudication in a way
which will reduce its income sufficently to prompt it to bring
judicial review against the adjudicators. In that case, the
individual motorist is not a direct participant and will not
have costs awarded against him.
#Post#: 77901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: June 24, 2025, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Chideock was due in no small part to the late Peter Harry
(Bluedart on PePiPoo) - the first and last person ever to
receive the PePiPoo man of the Year award (hastily invented,
decided and awarded in a pub somewhere after some court hearing
or other).
His legal mind was a sharp as any battering ram. I'm also pretty
sure he never uttered the phrase "somebody ought to do something
about this".
#Post#: 77902--------------------------------------------------
Re: Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: June 24, 2025, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> The Chideock example shows that there may be sufficient money
at stake potentially to interest a commercial litigation funder.
Therium financed the vastly more complicated fight by
sub-postmasters against the Post Office over Horizon in return
for a share of the damages.
>
> Although it's small beer by their standards, a second-tier
litigation funder might be interested in Camrose Avenue. It's
been going since 2006 and yielded Harrow £500,000 in its first
year. It will have been similar amounts in the first few years,
but has increased rapidly in recent years. In 2021/22 it was
£1,228,624; 2022/23 £1,735,611; 2023/24 £2,186,798. [Source:
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/driving_fines_35
HTML https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/driving_fines_35].
I
estimate that aggregate penalties will be around £15 million;
double that if you include interest.
>
> Given that those who have paid penalties have already lost
100% of their money and have had no hope of any redress, I can't
see that they would be upset if the bulk of any damages ended up
with the litigation funders and the lawyers. Getting their own
back at Harrow would be the main reward; any financial payment
would be the icing on the cake.
>
> As far as the litigation funders are concerned, I expect their
main motive would be publicity: a David-and-Goliath battle
against a predatory local authority with unfair road signs.
>
> Anyone think that this has a chance of flying? The alternative
is to wait until a council has lost an adjudication in a way
which will reduce its income sufficently to prompt it to bring
judicial review against the adjudicators (as in R(Oxfordshire
C.C.) v The Bus Lane Adjudicator). In that case, the individual
motorist is not a direct participant and will not have costs
awarded against him.
>
> To achieve this, the representations and appeal against a PCN
need to be conducted on the single argument that the Traffic
Order is defective for the specified reason. This would require
the agreement of the recipient of the PCN, possibly with some
form of indemnification.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 77906--------------------------------------------------
Re: Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: June 24, 2025, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The obvious answer (to me, anyway) is a claim for restitution.
Such claims have been successful in the past where the state has
been paid money that it was not owed, e.g. taxes. That would
seem to confine the case to the small claims court.
#Post#: 77973--------------------------------------------------
Re: Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: John_S
Date: June 24, 2025, 12:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
There are rules around claims against government bodies,
including local authorities. My understanding is that claims
relating to wrongly issued PCNs fall outside the scope of what
you can claim in a County Court.
#Post#: 77981--------------------------------------------------
Re: Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: June 24, 2025, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John_S link ---
>
> There are rules around claims against government bodies,
including local authorities. My understanding is that claims
relating to wrongly issued PCNs fall outside the scope of what
you can claim in a County Court.
>
--- End Quote ---
Do you have the relevant rule?
#Post#: 77986--------------------------------------------------
Re: Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: June 24, 2025, 12:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Presumably he has in mind the common law principle of Crown
Immunity, which was largely repealed as recently as 1948 by the
Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and probably further eroded by the
Human Rights Act 1998. Not everyone has access to LexisNexis,
Westlaw et al.
#Post#: 77992--------------------------------------------------
Re: Refunds for PCNs Improperly Issued Because of Legal Faults
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: June 24, 2025, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> Presumably he has in mind the common law principle of Crown
Immunity, which was largely repealed as recently as 1948 by the
Crown Proceedings Act 1947, and probably further eroded by the
Human Rights Act 1998. Not everyone has access to LexisNexis,
Westlaw et al.
>
--- End Quote ---
Oh. I was thinking more of allocation.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page