DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 90241--------------------------------------------------
Failing to give way contravention, Salter's Hill
DIR By: rs100
Date: September 16, 2025, 12:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi
I would appreciate some help please.
I have received the PCN below and understand that there are
mixed responses when making an appeal for PCNs issued at this
site.
Lambeth Parking
Contravention 37 j Failing to give way to oncoming vehicles
Salter's Hill
White Nissan Qashqai Car
I would be grateful for advice on how to challenge this notice.
Pictures
HTML https://imgur.com/a/VgoEeJl
HTML https://imgur.com/a/IFpanZn
HTML https://imgur.com/a/wQbYoKy
HTML https://imgur.com/a/fPJRSlx
Video
HTML https://imgur.com/a/du5dWec
Location:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/KbxUFN17wxaeqdjP6
Many thanks in advance
#Post#: 90265--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failing to give way contravention, Salter's Hill
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: September 16, 2025, 3:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I say no contravention as you entered the give way area before
the oncoming car was at the speed bump and into the zone.
Hippo as usual with these may have something on PCN/website
wordings.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/mCmsWp8C/b24cde1f-01cd-4876-9a28-de010fb02034-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif
#Post#: 90269--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failing to give way contravention, Salter's Hill
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: September 16, 2025, 3:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please screenshot what the website say now re payment status.
#Post#: 90288--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failing to give way contravention, Salter's Hill
DIR By: rs100
Date: September 16, 2025, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you stamfordman and Hippocrates
Please find the requested screenshots below:
HTML https://imgur.com/a/xZxVqhr
HTML https://imgur.com/a/3xAr8P1
HTML https://imgur.com/a/Mzud7lg
Thank you
#Post#: 90350--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failing to give way contravention, Salter's Hill
DIR By: mickR
Date: September 17, 2025, 5:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> I say no contravention as you entered the give way area before
the oncoming car was at the speed bump and into the zone.
>
> Hippo as usual with these may have something on PCN/website
wordings.
>
>
HTML https://i.ibb.co/mCmsWp8C/b24cde1f-01cd-4876-9a28-de010fb02034-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif
>
--- End Quote ---
I completely agree.
the oncoming vehicle is no where near the contravention sign
when the OP enters the area and had barely finished the turn.
#Post#: 90366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failing to give way contravention, Salter's Hill
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 17, 2025, 6:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, to be clear it is not a 'Give Way' area, it is where
'Priority must be given to vehicles from the opposite
direction'. The Give Way triangle and line may be used 'to give
greater emphasis to the sign and indicate where vehicles must
wait'. You should avoid referring to the restriction as 'Give
Way' yourself and correct the authority should it use the term
because it misleads - I've read several adjudication decisions
where IMO this has been a factor in their decisions.
Please see the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3:
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
See pp 21-25.
Whereas the 'priority' sign is at pp 37-38.
IMO, your reps must put this point to the authority:
The video shows my vehicle entering the priority section at the
same time that a vehicle appears from the opposite direction. My
vehicle passed through the arch of the bridge before that
vehicle reached what Google Street View shows is a 'priority'
sign in its direction.
The video also shows that the 'give priority' sign in my
direction does not carry an associated plate specifying the
distance over which the restriction applies although the council
has placed optional road markings, namely those prescribed for
use at road junctions and level crossings, which the Traffic
Signs Manual states may be used ''to give greater emphasis' to
the [priority] sign and indicate where vehicles must wait.
I would now refer the authority to further references in the
Traffic Signs Manual to the signage to be used by councils where
'priority is to be given to traffic from the opposite
direction':
'Unless the limits of the priority section are obvious e.g.
through the arch of a bridge, the signs to diagrams 615[Priority
must be given to vehicles from the opposite direction] and 811A
[Priority over oncoming vehicles] should include the distance
over which the priority applies. (my emphasis).
It must therefore follow and a motorist would be entitled to
assume and act upon such an assumption that as the council has
availed itself of the optional road markings to 'give greater
emphasis' to the restriction, it has similarly rationally
determined that as the limits of the priority section are
obvious, namely 'through the arch of the bridge', it does not
need to observe the Traffic Sign Manual's clear recommendation
to erect an associated plate specifying those limits in terms of
distance e.g. 50 yds etc.
I submit that the council cannot have its cake and eat it. It
cannot on the one hand ignore the TSM as regards clearly
conveying to motorists the limits of the area by placing
distance plates and then on the other seek to penalise motorists
who act upon the only logical construction of this decision
which is that the priority area is limited to that length of
road 'through the arch of the bridge'.
I did not fail to give priority to oncoming vehicles while I
traversed the length of road through the arch of the bridge and
therefore the PCN must be cancelled.
Some thoughts.
#Post#: 90697--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failing to give way contravention, Salter's Hill
DIR By: rs100
Date: September 19, 2025, 3:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you very much for your help mickR and H C Andersen! It's
much appreciated!
#Post#: 115229--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failing to give way contravention, Salter's Hill
DIR By: NewBornBaby
Date: April 5, 2026, 5:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, did you challenge this? How did you get on?
Thank you!
#Post#: 115231--------------------------------------------------
Re: Failing to give way contravention, Salter's Hill
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: April 5, 2026, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: NewBornBaby link ---
>
> Hi, did you challenge this? How did you get on?
>
> Thank you!
>
--- End Quote ---
The OP has not been seem since September, tho' you could try an
e-mail or personal message.
If you have a live PCN and would like advice, please to have a
read of
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and start your own thread by posting there a brief account of
the circumstances, all sides of the PCN (only redact yr name &
address - leave all else in), and the video.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1