A council has backtracked over a fine issued to a cyclist in London and admitted the £100 fixed-penalty notice should never have been given to the rider who was using a shared-use crossing when he was stopped by an enforcement officer.
Academic Dr Paulo Ceppi was cycling to Imperial College in London when he was stopped and fined as he rode across a shared-use crossing island in the middle of the A4 West Cromwell Road. Now, having raised his experience with The Standard, the newspaper has helped hold the council to account and get the fine rescinded.

Despite signage clearly showing the crossing as a shared-use route, Dr Ceppi was stopped by an agent “hidden behind bushes” and issued a fixed-penalty notice at about 9am on July 3.

“I was cycling very slowly and she caught me by surprise. She said: ‘Please show me your ID’,” he recalled to the newspaper, later questioning if the decision to stop him there was an “insidious, unjust tactic” to “trap” cyclists and make money.
“I thought I was fully within the law by cycling carefully on what looks like a shared pathway. I wouldn’t have wanted to run away — I don’t want to do something that seems criminal.”

The Standard reporter Ross Lydall raised the case with Kensington & Chelsea Council who have now admitted the fine was “issued in error” and would be cancelled. An investigation is underway to determine if more riders have been incorrectly fined at the location, the local authority’s private enforcement contractors apparently “reminded” not to issue fines to cyclists using the shared-use route.
It’s the latest PSPO (Public Spaces Protection Order) controversy concerning cycling bans in urban areas, councils able to enforce the orders in the name of stopping anti-social behaviour. Just as in this case, other locations have seen issues with private enforcement agents incorrectly fining law-abiding riders.
Last summer, Colchester City Council apologised and waived fines after local campaigners complained that people on bikes were being unfairly targeted by third-party “cowboy” wardens “running amok”, discouraging people from cycling in the city.
In one case a female rider was slapped with a £100 fine despite riding on a designated cycle path, the council warden having claimed the cyclist was riding on a footway, that despite the route being clearly marked as a shared-use path since 2011.
Similarly, we recently revealed that another PSPO, banning cycling in Grimsby (which has become infamous due to hundreds of riders being fined, some being ordered to pay more than £1,000 in court), was being incorrectly enforced too, signage banning cycling wrongly placed on a shared-use route in the town.

Last week, North East Lincolnshire Council told us that no cyclists had been fined in the part of the town centre where the cycling ban sign was wrongly placed, but that signage would be amended “as soon as possible”.
Back in London, Dr Ceppi said he’s “pleased” Kensington & Chelsea’s council has owned up to the error, but said it’s a “shame it only happened after The Standard contacted them and not when I initially challenged the fine, when they backed their agent’s decision.”
He was initially told by an administrator for the private enforcement company that they are “satisfied that the fixed penalty notice was issued correctly”. The council has now admitted this was wrong and the fine will be cancelled.
Dr Ceppi continued: “I hope other cyclists experiencing similar unjust tactics will also have their fines cancelled. More importantly, using this strategy that contracts out to a private company, is at best short-sighted and at worst insidious.
“It does nothing to safeguard pedestrians as it only informs those cyclists who are fined, while many will continue to use this pathway completely unaware. Ultimately, it benefits no one apart from their bank balances.
“Rather than trapping cyclists, K&C need to improve infrastructure and signage for pedestrians and cyclists – particularly along the treacherous A4, notorious for cyclist accidents.
“To me, it sounds more like a money-making operation rather than ensuring the long-term safety for pedestrians and cyclists.”
A spokesperson for the council apologised to the cyclist “for the inconvenience” and said officers would be reminded “to check shared use spaces before issuing penalties for cycling”.
They said: “After a council officer has reviewed this complaint and location, we can see that this fixed penalty notice was issued in error and have asked Kingdom for it be cancelled, which they have agreed to.”
Last week, a council spokesperson told us it was prioritising “the safety and well-being of our residents and visitors, and the PSPO’s restriction on cycling on pavements helps to protect everyone, especially vulnerable pedestrians who have no alternative place to walk”.
That came after a cyclist shared a post on Reddit suggesting that riders were being fined for riding on a pavement beside the “very dangerous” A4.
The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea has long been controversial with London’s cyclists, the borough often cited as one of the worst parts of the capital to cycle due to its lack of cycling infrastructure compared with other nearby areas.
During the pandemic the council installed a cycle lane on Kensington High Street but then controversially ripped it out a short while later, prompting much criticism and a High Court challenge. The council thought adding a painted, advisory cycle lane would appease those who used the formerly segregated infrastructure, a move that attracted further criticism.

In fact, in 2023, the council was labelled “embarrassing” and “dinosaurs” for installing a painted, advisory cycle lane on sections of a road where protected cycling infrastructure had been ripped out two years previously. The local authority claimed the painted lanes would allow “space for everyone”, something which cycling campaigners took particular issue with.























25 thoughts on “Cyclist’s £100 fine for riding on cycle route cancelled after rider accuses council of “insidious” money-making “trap””
Good for Dr Ceppi for
Good for Dr Ceppi for standing up to them, though it would have been interesting to see the outcome if he had refused to give his details and said if you’re convinced you have the right to issue me a fine please call the police to adjudicate as I believe you are in error – would the warden have had the guts to do so? I did this quite recently in Kensington when one of their lackeys tried to pinch me for riding on the pavement around the scene of a bus vs car accident that was blocking the road. I went slowly up on a dropped kerb outside a driveway, nobody on the pavement bar the warden, and down the next dropped kerb maybe three metres further on. I refused to give my name but pointed to the five or six police officers standing about and said let’s ask them if they think what I’ve done is worthy of a ticket; the warden turned tail and slunk off.
Bus vs car accident collision
Bus vs car
accidentcollision.Fixed it for you 🫡😉
Haha, love that
Haha, love that
road.cc wrote:
Is London so Europhile that they’ve brought in ID cards, or do some boroughs require you to be over 18 before you can cycle on the road?
… or does one qualify for additional penalties if you’ve a CyclingUK / British Cycling membership card on you (as an “agitator” or “extremist”)?
Kensington and Grimsby seem
Kensington and Grimsby seem to be in a no-holds-barred battle to the death over which of them is to crowned as Thickhead Anti-Cyclist Champion of the UK. What a pair of of Ineptster councils, dreaming of the days when they can get away with ‘Ausweis Terrorfahrräder!’
Not sure why the chap didn’t
Not sure why the chap didn’t just tell the warden to feck off and carry on, no legal right to detain AFAIK.
bobbinogs wrote:
Because it’s a criminal offence, they will be wearing a bodycam and your picture would be shared with police and they can summon any nearby officers and have you arrested and charged for refusing to obey a legal order from a warranted council officer.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Because it’s a criminal offence, they will be wearing a bodycam and your picture would be shared with police and they can summon any nearby officers and have you arrested and charged for refusing to obey a legal order from a warranted council officer.— bobbinogs
With this, there’s an added complication in that the “legal order” was completely bogus. AIUI if the warden “believed” the order to be valid, then it can be considered a “legal order”, but it’d be interesting to see that challenged in court as a sufficiently trained warden would clearly not “believe” that cycling on a cycle route is forbidden. Just because they’re a warden doesn’t mean that they can stop people for no reason.
That’s true and had it gone
That’s true and had it gone to court Dr Seppi would undoubtedly have won, but fairly sure you can’t just refuse to provide your details on the basis that you believe you haven’t committed an offence, however obvious it is that you haven’t. After all, if it police officer stops you for speeding when you know for certain you were under the limit you can’t just ignore them and drive away, can you?
Rendel Harris wrote:
AFAIK there’s different laws around refusing to stop for a police officer. The offence of refusing to stop for an authorised council officer issuing a legal instruction has a potential loophole of it not being a legal instruction.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Exactly what crime is being committed by refusing to follow an order from a council officer? Do you really think the police will be interested?
The solution in this case is to cheerfully ride on your way.
Fursty Ferret wrote:
Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 it is an offence to obstruct an authorised council officer issuing a legal instruction. Refusing to provide your name for an FPN or giving false details counts as an obstruction. And yes, the police will act if they are in the area and in a position to do so – as you can see in the picture above from Grimsby, the police often support council officers issuing FPNs. By all means “cheerfully ride on your way” if you wish but you will be committing an offence for which you can be arrested and charged.
Rendel Harris wrote:
It seems to be a tricky area of enforcement, but the 1976 Act doesn’t provide general powers to require name and address (or, specifically, for a suspect to provide them). As far as I can tell, any inferred power given to an authorised council officer (which would include contracted warden companies) may depend on power borrowed from another provision (which I’m not sure exists) – such as the Environmental Protection Act 1990; that applies specifically to littering, so I don;t think it applies.
So, according to the letter of the laws that I can find, there is a power for an enforcement officer to isse a FPN, which must include the recipient’s name and address, but there is no corresponding obligation to provide a name and address (although provision of false details would be an offence). If the warden calls upon a police officer or authorised* PCSO, they can demand your name and address and an offence is committed if you fail to provide it. (* but the PCSO can’t detain you if you fail to provide details… unless the particular PCSO is specifically given power to detain).
Under s68, “A constable or an authorised person may issue a fixed penalty notice to anyone he or she has reason to believe has committed an offence under section 63 or 67 in relation to a public spaces protection order”
“Reason to believe” may be conditional on that reason being well-founded. So even if there is an implied obligation to provide an authorised officer with your name and address, that is conditional on the power to issue a FPN, which is not reasonable if the PSPO does not apply.
So, I find it difficult to believe that an offence is committed by refusing to give name and address to a council officer (unless you also drop litter or apply for a taxi licence at the same time). But investigation may be escalated so that, if you are identified, a FPN can subsequently be issued.
I can only comment on the legislation I’ve discovered, not on how it may be interpreted. I would strongly advise people:
The police can’t be ass’d to
The police can’t be ass’d to catch bugulars and people that physically assault people , do you think they will be there to catch a cyclist who told a member of the public to F off.
Larold wrote:
You only need to read the little onion’s thread on the forum to see that the police will take action (in his case unfairly) about cyclists who tell members of the public to fuck off. The police have plenty of time to arrest people carrying Private Eye cartoons at demonstrations, why is it always assumed that just because they don’t respond properly to burglaries any longer they will let any minor “crime” go? They don’t.
I’m not sure that quite
I’m not sure that quite stands up – in TLO’s case, they had actively handed the police their identity and the ammunition to trump up a case, and it was clearly done in an effort to avoid doing further work (by dissuading further submissions). In this case, they would have to voluntarily take on additional work of tracking down and pursuing the ‘offender’, when they could avoid it by the equivalent of a ‘NFA’.
Not that that means I’m necessarily recommending this course of action, mind.
…but the Private Eye
…but the Private Eye cartoon arrest is a true story – although after being held for some hours the chap arrested has since been told there would be NFA.
BUT you might have to attend the wrong kind of protest though (peaceful, expressing solidarity for another non-violent but now illegal group). Though it does somewhat remind one of the folks in e.g. Hong Kong, China and Russia arrested for protesting by holding up blank sheets of paper. Although in their case they’re unlikely to be back out the same day…
EDIT: in fact, that can get you nicked in the UK also (link to Telegraph story). Looks like the “right to protest” may need to be qualified in several ways e.g. “…only in places where it won’t attract any attention and won’t cause any disruption”.
Larold wrote:
Yes, many in the police would much rather do that – it’s a lot easier and safer than going after the really bad guys.
An interesting legal
An interesting legal conundrum: should K&C and their agents be paying a fine for illegally fining cyclists?
K&C fining cyclists for not
K&C fining cyclists for not doing anything wrong after ignoring safety issues for years that ended up in a major disaster causing many fatalities. It makes you sick.
Riding slow and careful on a
Riding slow and careful on a pavement or shared-use path: hard enforcement.
Riding fast and furious on a pavement or shared-use path: no enforcement.
Therein lies the intrinsic flaw in cycling-based PSPOs, irrespective of whether or not the officer knows whether cycling is ‘allowed’.
What a shock K&C ****tards
What a shock K&C ****tards strike again; shame they weren’t so vigilant on Grenfell Tower.
There needs to be a
There needs to be a compensation route for all tickets issued in error, which means any that are cancelled should be paid that equates to the amount of stress ,anxiety and time it has taken to deal with such poor fining antics which would makes these idiots think twice before making false allegations and the money coming from the company and not the council.
“satisfied that the fixed
“satisfied that the fixed penalty notice was issued correctly”
Also know as fraud in this instance.
This is really the worst part
This is really the worst part in all this; mistakes will, regrettably, always be made by enforcement officers on the ground, which is why a robust appeals process is so important, yet this proves there isn’t one. It also appears to be entirely self-regulated, and relies on the same entity whose representative made the error officially admitting as much. This in itself should be illegal, IMO. At the very least they should be forced to show what investigation was done and how they arrived at the conclusion that no error had been made, because my suspicion is they wouldn’t be able to.