What the numbers say
- A total of 9,462,185 penalty charge notices (PCNs) were issued in the latest year in London, according to data from London Councils (which represents the 32 boroughs plus the City of London). (The Independent)
- This represents an increase of around 13.5 % compared with the prior year. (The Times)
- Since around 2010 the number of PCNs in London has risen by about 70 %. (The Times)
- Of those issued, the number of appeals rose to 47,935 (~13.6 % increase in appeals) but that is still only about 0.45 % of all notices issued. (The Independent)
- The success rate for appeals has dropped: only about 49.4 % of appeals were successful in 2024-25, down from ~54.9 % previously. (The Independent)
- Penalty levels: PCNs for parking, bus lanes, moving traffic contraventions can go up to £160 in London; early payment (within 14 days) often leads to a reduced amount. (The Independent)
What the fines cover
The PCNs are issued for a range of offences, including:
- Illegal parking or overstaying in parking bays
- Violations of bus-lane rules (driving in bus lanes when not allowed)
- Moving traffic contraventions (for example, driving in a restricted zone, stopping in a hatched box)
- Some lorry control / commercial vehicle regulation breaches (through the London Lorry Control Scheme) (The Times)
Comments / Reactions
- AA President Edmund King said:
“While there is a need to protect parking spaces and bus lanes from drivers who break rules … London enforcement that used to be for deterrence is now a money-making exercise for TfL and London councils.” (The Times)
- From London Councils: they defended the PCNs, saying:
“Councils only issue PCNs when there’s clear evidence that the rules of the road have been broken … income from PCNs goes straight back into essential traffic and parking services … with any surplus reinvested into key transport initiatives like the Freedom Pass for older and disabled Londoners.” (The Independent)
- Critics raise concerns that the steep increase suggests that enforcement may be geared more to revenue generation than solely to safety or traffic-management aims. (As expressed by AA and various articles.)
Key issues & implications
- Safety & traffic-flow aim: One justification is that PCNs help keep bus lanes clear (which improves public transport performance), ensure parking is used properly, reduce congestion and improve road safety. London Councils emphasise this.
- Revenue vs deterrence: The large number of fines and steep increases raise questions about whether the primary motive is enforcement for safety or revenue generation.
- Driver behaviour: The fact that appeal rates are low (0.45 % of PCNs issued) may indicate many drivers pay quickly to avoid escalation, which may suggest that the system effectively pressures compliance.
- Equity concerns: The cost of fines (up to £160) may have a different impact on lower-income drivers. Also, some argue that signage / clarity of restrictions can be inconsistent, potentially increasing the risk of “trap” fines.
- Enforcement resources & fairness: With nearly 9.5 million PCNs, managing processing, appeals, and ensuring fairness becomes a major administrative task. The reduction in appeal-success rate may raise questions about consistency in decision-making.
- Broader budget context: PCN revenue supports transport services, but the reliance on such income may influence policy priorities and the balance between deterrence vs revenue.
Summary
In sum: drivers in London faced a record number of fines in the last year — over 9.4 million PCNs issued. The number is rising rapidly (13.5 % increase year-on-year, ~70 % since 2010). While enforcement is justified on safety and traffic grounds, the scale and growth raise scrutiny about whether the system might be being used more as a revenue-tool than purely as a safety measure.
Here are some case studies and comments related to the record 9.4 million+ penalty charge notices (PCNs) issued to drivers in London during the latest year.
Case Studies
Case Study 1: Overall volumes and trends
- In the past year the capital’s 32 boroughs + Transport for London (TfL) + the City of London jointly issued 9,462,185 PCNs for parking, bus-lane and moving traffic offences. (The Standard)
- This is an increase of about 13.5% compared with the prior year, and about a 70% rise since 2010. (The Standard)
- Appeals numbered 47,935 (~0.45% of all PCNs) and the success rate of appeals fell from ~54.9% to 49.4%. (The Standard)
Implications: The scale of enforcement is very large and rising rapidly; the very low appeal rate suggests most drivers just pay rather than fight the PCN.
Case Study 2: Yellow-Box Junction Fines – “Most lucrative junction in Britain”
- At one particular junction in southwest London (Kingston Road at Elm and Westbury Roads, Kingston upon Thames) the yellow box junction issued 6,568 PCNs in eight months (≈27 per day). (The Times)
- That junction alone generated over £450,000 in fines over that period. Critics say this particular set-up is “more about revenue than traffic control”. (The Times)
Implication: Enforcement sometimes happens at very specific locations where volumes and revenue are high, raising fairness and design-issue questions.
Case Study 3: Rising fine levels and deterrence effect
- From 7 April 2025, London borough councils increased Band A PCN fines (for the first time in over a decade) up to £160 (or £80 if paid within 14 days). (We Pay Your PCN)
- This coincides with the large rise in overall PCN volumes.
Implication: The higher levels of fines may contribute to increased revenue and may influence driver behaviour — but also potentially raise concerns of disproportionate cost for minor contraventions.
Comments & Reaction
- Edmund King, President of the Automobile Association (AA), said:
“While there is a need to protect parking spaces and bus lanes from drivers who break rules and make life difficult for other road users, London enforcement that used to be for deterrence is now a money-making exercise for TfL and London councils.” (The Standard)
He further commented:
“Sadly, too many drivers, who are certain they did nothing wrong … paid the half-rate within 14 days instead of contesting the PCN. Such is the fear of having to pay fines that are more than a day’s wages and often don’t fit the nature of the offence, such as being one wheel over the line.” (AOL) - From a spokesperson of London Councils:
“London boroughs and TfL only issue PCNs when there’s clear evidence that a breach of parking or moving traffic rules has occurred. All PCN income goes straight back into essential traffic and parking services, with any surplus ring-fenced to invest in other important transport projects and services such as the Freedom Pass for older and disabled Londoners. Enforcement of the rules leads to positive behaviour change among road users.” (The Standard)
Theme: Conflict between enforcement as a genuine traffic-management tool vs concerns it has become heavily revenue-driven.
Key Themes from the Case Studies & Comments
- Disproportionate burden: For some drivers the cost of fines (up to £160) may be large relative to income. The comment about “fines … more than a day’s wages” reflects real concerns about fairness.
- Design & clarity issues: The yellow-box junction example suggests that layout/design may trap drivers, generating many fines rather than improving safety.
- Behaviour change vs revenue: The official line emphasises behaviour change (deterrence, making streets safer) but critics emphasise the revenue side — especially given steep rises in fine volumes.
- Low appeal rate: Very few drivers appeal PCNs (~0.45% of all PCNs). Many may pay simply to avoid escalation rather than because they accept the fine.
- Targeting high-volume enforcement locations: Some locations (e.g., junctions) yield high volumes of PCNs and revenue, raising questions about priorities and equity.
- Need for transparency & measurement: With such large volumes and rising fine levels, there’s increasing scrutiny of whether the enforcement is fair, consistent, and justified from a safety perspective — not just a revenue perspective.