DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107426--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moving Traffic Violation - Salter's Hill, Lambeth
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: January 26, 2026, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: jrob link ---
>
> Thanks for your help. Not sure if this is what you meant the
payments page because its just 2 fields. (Payments page
screensho
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z-vRbu6bhnYjosjT6RxpIMQHONQYzzo1/view?usp=drive_linkt).
>
> There's a representation button though - here's that
screenshot
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E4RnesPHrnBsYWOkttyywG2A2mJb4wJC/view?usp=drive_link.
>
> Or maybe you meant the main dashboard page
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a-zJ6RSDDnOfIT563qb_918mLRLsoDYl/view?usp=drive_link?
>
--- End Quote ---
The latter.
#Post#: 107444--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moving Traffic Violation - Salter's Hill, Lambeth
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 26, 2026, 2:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes the bottom video was allowed by Henry Greenslade.
The top one was refused by Andrew Harman.
This shows that the lottery in a lot of cases is the
adjudicator.
--------
Bottom video - 2250483268 - Greenslade
A contravention can occur is a vehicle is driven so as to fail
to give way to oncoming vehicles.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Salter's
Hill, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images
produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that the vehicle in the opposite
direction was not yet at the priority point when they began to
move forward.
Although the Appellant’s vehicle is seen to pass the sign
indicating the requirement, it is by no means clear from the
images that the oncoming vehicle had, at that moment, passed the
equivalent point on the other side of the bridge.
The Adjudicator is only able decide an appeal by making findings
of fact on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties and
applying relevant law.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find
as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did
occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
--------
Top video - 2250483632 - Harman
The contravention alleged in these proceedings is that this
vehicle, at Salters Hill, failed to give way to oncoming
vehicles. On the appellant's case, an approaching vehicle was
not close enough to require her to give way to it. The proximity
of an approaching vehicle is of no relevance to liability. The
test to be applied is whether that other vehicle is 'oncoming'.
I am satisfied on the council's video footage of the incident
that an approaching vehicle as shown on the footage was
'oncoming'. The appellant was required to wait at the
restriction to give way to it. Given she did not do so this
contravention has occurred. None of the appellant's submissions
raise an exemption or defence to that contravention. The appeal
is refused.
#Post#: 107449--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moving Traffic Violation - Salter's Hill, Lambeth
DIR By: mickR
Date: January 26, 2026, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
what absolute bollox by Harman. he's suggesting the entire
length of the road is the controlled area then eh! assuming the
road was a mile long the other vehicle woukd still be
"approaching"
surely this must be wrong in law.
#Post#: 107460--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moving Traffic Violation - Salter's Hill, Lambeth
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 26, 2026, 5:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mickR link ---
>
> what absolute bollox by Harman. he's suggesting the entire
length of the road is the controlled area then eh! assuming the
road was a mile long the other vehicle woukd still be
"approaching"
> surely this must be wrong in law.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have to agree; there must be some limitation on the obligation
to give-way and the signs on each end of the restricted length
give that limitation. Consider a motorist who has just turned
into Salters Hill and as he completes the turn, vehicles are
proceeding through the tunnel in the opposite direction. On
Harman's logic, these vehicles are all in contravention, because
there is an oncoming vehicle coming towards him. What tosh !!
#Post#: 107580--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moving Traffic Violation - Salter's Hill, Lambeth
DIR By: mickR
Date: January 27, 2026, 3:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
would that decision not be worthy of an appeal on the grounds of
miss-applying the law?
#Post#: 107607--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moving Traffic Violation - Salter's Hill, Lambeth
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 27, 2026, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mickR link ---
>
> would that decision not be worthy of an appeal on the grounds
of miss-applying the law?
>
--- End Quote ---
All one can do is request a review within 14 days of the
decision, and there is no right to one.
#Post#: 108401--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Moving Traffic Violation - Salter's Hill, Lambeth
DIR By: jrob
Date: February 2, 2026, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So I guess I just pay it? Or what do I say?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page