You may have a glimmer if the contravention was stopping on a red route when they should have done you for "footway parking". This is likely to hinge on the precise nature of the land on which you stopped. The facts of not causing an obstruction, other vehicles, reading a map are of no relevance.

Not an impropriety but could be a breach of their duty to act fairly.

I would direct you to this thread: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?282302-Private-Parking-Tickets-Template-Letters

Quite correct. The omission of the words "Loading only" from the sign should be fatal to the enforcement. Here's the page from TSRGD

You have done everything you need to at this stage. If you get any more correspondence from the TP or their insurers or Lawyers, forward it unanswered to your insurers. Keep records and copies of everything though.

Few LAs bother to attend hearings and there is no requirement for them to do so. The arguments given are perfectly reasonable arguments and OP's sister should IMHO put them forward.

Support (for evidence) is different to being used as the basis for issuing the PCN in the first place.

Not how I read post No 10. Still unclear to me.

But surely it behoves TfL in the enforcement process to use specific terminology rather than generic terms. Not to do so undermines the fairness obligations to which I have previously referred.

Still unclear whether OP's sister was turning left or right. In any event, I'm not sure that the "turning right" exemption would apply here as there are no "oncoming vehicles" unless you want to argue that those coming from the left are "oncoming". In any event this is a traffic light controlled junction and so the vehicles coming from the left should be held up by the light.

Perfectly true but irrelevant to the OP as the old bill will do nothing, parking being decriminalised in London. It the cabbie was to send it to the LA the LA would be unable to act either as cameras need to be "approved" and in any event it is unlikely that the cabbie is also a CEO.

OP is perhaps thinking that because there is an exemption for turning right there is for turning left too. If that is a correct assumption of mine, OP is sadly mistaken.

But what about OPs post #11?

All I can recommend with what you have given here is to check the documents and the box for compliance. Otherwise: There is no exemption for turning left. Can you elaborate more on what caused your sister to stop in the YBJ?

I think that the issue at hand is rather less than whether the driver stopped where they shouldn't have. The question at hand is really whether TfL have operated the enforcement process correctly and it appears to me that there is a perfectly good argument that they haven't. Under our system of decriminalised enforcement, if that argument is accepted, it means that no penalty is due.

Sorry, I have to disagree. The A2 and the A20 converge at New Cross. They are then entirely two separate roads. The A2 heads in a broadly easterly direction to Blackheath (where it dog-legs a bit) while the A20 goes SE to Lewisham. They are both arterial trunk roads. One does not supersede the other. Kidbrooke park road connects the two just before they both intersect with the south circular. I agree that it is not where the bridge is but I see little relevance to that. This is how these restrictions work on bus routes. Sorry, I thought that "in your shoes" was a reasonably well known idiom, my mistake if it's not. What I meant by it was that if I was in your position (with the PCN from the Blackheath Village bus lane) I'd be going and studying the signage that is there and comparing it with what should be there to formulate an appeal. That's what I did when I got a PCN in Kidbrooke Park Road. You stand much more chance of success if you do that than complaining about "honey traps" and "police states". [Edit - drafted but not posted until later. In the meantime I see lamma clarified]

He may well have done so . . . andleft it there until Monday when the PCN was issued.

Go for it! List everything in minute detail in an appeal to PATAS. Its all procedural impropriety and failure to act fairly in ways that cause potential prejudice. There is no excuse for this.

andrew1, With respect I think you are understating the significance of Kidbrooke Park Road. It is a red route and an "A" road and therefore is not minor. The purpose of this system of restrictions is to keep heavy vehicles off the bridge over the railway. The TFL letter above is I think quite damming. TFL acknowledge that the signage is non-compliant but bleat that there was not enough space to comply. That is not good enough they designed the system and they should explain why they simply didn't swap the locations (so to speak) of the northbound restriction with the southbound. Non-compliance because they couldn't be arsed to figure out a compliant layout is not good enough when the end result is penalties for otherwise innocent motorists. As for the Blackheath Village bus lane. The camera facilities have been there for yonks, its the enforcement that is new (and loads of people have been caught out). That does not take away the ludicrous nature of the bus lane which serves no one well (buses included). Take a look at the Blackheath Society website and see what they say about it. I'd go and take a look at the signage in your shoes.

It is perfectly reasonable to write and tell them that they have an obligation to be fair and consistent in their application of discretion and while you reserve your rights to take the matter to PATAS you are asking for an explanation as to why they are not exercising their discretion in the same way as they have done for so many others.

Yup, it's as I suspected in posts 11 and 15. Tax is irrelevant. OP you need to find some other reason for the PCN to be invalid and/or unlawfully issued. What did the LA say on their website re parking over Christmas/New Year period?

Consider whether this would apply to you: You can find it here: http://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=132&pageNumber=5

Possible, I seem to recall you are in Scotland or am I mistaken?

As can ours.

I've seen nothing to say that this has been decriminalised or is a "dual" matter that can be handled by police or CEOs. It is not on the London Council's contraventions which are here, http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/committees/agenda.htm?pk_agenda_items=4287