‘Mr. Loophole’ Suggests that the Absence of Warning Signs Could Negate ULEZ Fines

Motorists entering the newly extended Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) without adequate road signs may be able to contest fines, says prominent motoring lawyer Nick Freeman.

Mr. Freeman, who is known as “Mr Loophole,” for his success in defending famous figures against driving charges, told The Telegraph that he believes the absence of Transport for London (TfL) ULEZ signs on the outskirts of London, could lead to a surge in successful challenges from drivers.

Mr. Freeman told the Telegraph that the absence of clear signage invalidates penalties, with all new road traffic regulations requiring unambiguous messaging.

Related Stories

He said: “Any road traffic regulations that are introduced, there must be clear, unambiguous signage. And in the absence of clear, unambiguous signage, no penalty can be enforced. The prosecutors would, I’m quite confident, win on appeal.”

He asserted that legal challenges based on this could prove similar to cases of unclear signage related to speeding or bus lanes: “This happens in speeding cases, you get it in bus lane cases, there are a whole host of cases where the signage isn’t clear. And then when somebody wants to challenge it, they invariably win because the signage doesn’t doesn’t fit the bill.”

His warning comes as the ULEZ expansion is set to encompass all 32 London boroughs, effective from August 29th. Motorists with vehicles not meeting euro emissions standards will face a daily £12.50 fee.

Most gasoline cars less than 16 years old and diesel vehicles less than six years old meet these standards, according to TfL. Non-compliance with the fee could result in a £180 fine, reducible to £90 if paid within two weeks.

Council Criticism

Criticism of ULEZ has been particularly vocal among Conservative-led councils bordering London, which argue that their residents heavily rely on private vehicles and would bear the brunt of the charges.

To protest the expansion, six of seven councils adjacent to London, including Surrey, Kent, Essex, Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Thurrock are refusing to erect warning signs. In response, Mr. Khan has called on these councils to fulfil their duty of ensuring motorists have the necessary information to avoid accidental ULEZ entry.

Matt Furniss, a cabinet member for transport at Surrey County Council, expressed concerns that constituents would be caught out and urged the mayor to look at creating a buffer zone.

He told The Telegraph: “We said if they want to install advanced signage, they have to do it on their own land, and therefore they’ll have to shrink the size of the Ulez in order to give people the option to turn around. They’re choosing not to do that.

“It will be an interesting test case when someone actually tries to challenge for the first time the fact that there was no advance signage.”

A Need For Warnings

As the ULEZ domain expands, the absence of conspicuous signage on entry points could provide legal leverage for motorists contesting fines, leaving authorities with the task of ensuring clear and unambiguous notifications.

Edmund King, president of the Automobile Association said: “If TfL does not send out warnings they will be deluged with complaints from drivers. If they turn down appeals to have fines cancelled, huge numbers will take their complaints to the traffic penalties tribunal.”

A TfL spokesman said: “All the signs needed for the enforcement of the scheme will be in place and the boundaries clearly signposted for residents.

“The signage and level of information in the public domain means we expect drivers to be aware of the standards and the boundary. This means all non-compliant drivers are liable for the charge and if they fail to pay it within the appropriate amount of time, they will face a penalty charge.

“National Highways, which manages the busiest roads into the capital, have worked with us to ensure drivers have advance warning of the expanded ULEZ, and we have run a major communications campaign to make sure as many people are aware of the scheme as possible.”

The news comes as Labour Party MP Siobhain McDonagh has raised concerns about the potential negative impact of the expansion to businesses across the city of London, calling it a “regressive tax.”