DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119935--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 28, 2026, 12:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Continuous contravention has, up to now, been used for cases
where several PCNs were served to a car, but the car didn't move
over the period when the PCNs were served.
I've not seen "repeated contravention" at the adjudicators, but
if it is in use, I would think that it applies to a person
receiving a postal PCN on a particular date, then several more
for the same location, dated between the first PCN, and the date
it was served, (arrived) at the person's address.
#Post#: 119950--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: ihateinjustice24
Date: May 28, 2026, 2:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Exactly, That is essentially the basis on which I intend to
continue the formal representations for the remaining PCNs.
however if i lose my formal appeal ill be looking at 2x the fine
amounts of which i have already shown evidence to the council i
cannot afford to pay, evidence of which they have ignored
completely.
#Post#: 119957--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 28, 2026, 2:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ihateinjustice24 link ---
>
> additionally, If this progresses to London Tribunals, is there
anyone here who undertakes representation or drafting assistance
for these types of cases? i'd be willing to pay.
>
--- End Quote ---
I sir. Free.
#Post#: 119983--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: ihateinjustice24
Date: May 29, 2026, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=518]ryan93[/member]
Thank you, that is really helpful.
The “failure to consider” point is something I had not properly
considered before, especially as the rejection responses seem
almost entirely focused on signage and do not appear to engage
with the actual timeline/proportionality arguments I raised
regarding all subsequent PCNs occurring before service of the
first notice.
I also appreciate the advice regarding screenshots and portal
dates. I will make sure to document everything carefully from
this point onwards, including submission dates, portal status
and discount deadlines in case any inconsistencies arise.
The discretion point is also interesting, particularly given
that I provided evidence of financial hardship and immediate
behavioural change once notified, yet the responses do not
appear to address that context at all.
Thanks again for taking the time to explain this.
#Post#: 119986--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: ihateinjustice24
Date: May 29, 2026, 5:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] Ive PM'ed you!
#Post#: 120048--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: ihateinjustice24
Date: May 29, 2026, 11:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Take a look at the signage:
HTML https://postimg.cc/8jCMMFyM
another member has pointed out that by the time the sign becomes
fully readable, the manoeuvre to turn on the road has already
begun. add to that, most people will be focused on pedestrians
and oncoming cars when turning. (in my pcn you can literally see
pedestrians crossing right where this picture is taken)
“While signage may technically comply, the nature and
positioning of the restriction meant the issue was not
immediately obvious to a driver unfamiliar with the area turning
into the road. This contextualises why repeated contraventions
occurred before the first PCN was served.”
this could potentially support my appeal, curious to know what
you guys think.
#Post#: 120120--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 30, 2026, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What representation's exactly were written as I need these to
file the appeal(s)?
#Post#: 120124--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: ihateinjustice24
Date: May 30, 2026, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
ive just sent it over to you via Email ;)
#Post#: 120181--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: ryan93
Date: May 31, 2026, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just replying to OP, yes valid point indeed, they have not given
much consideration to signage placement, as one of the signs is
not roadside compared to its respective counterpart, the sign is
placed on the pavement boundary, rather than curbside. Read LT
case reference: 2250620799 vs 2240515459, I suspect the signage
argument was recently refused due to blue advance warning sign.
Unfortunately it’s classic Lambeth, poor signage placement for
restriction that’s caveated with a blue advance warning sign.
Noticed a similar situation on Crescent Lane / Elm Crescent, GSV
not up to date. Just wish the LA would appreciate that an
advance warning sign is not there to nullify the flaws in the
placement of a restriction, rather both should meet the
requisite standard to give effect. Presuming it’s a ‘penalty
exceeded amount applicable in the circumstances of the case’,
after listing the collateral points of appeal, if there are any
flaws in legal notices, PCN portal, procedural improprieties (if
applicable), then one can always mention signage as
supplementary point. Be interesting to hear the outcome.
#Post#: 128028--------------------------------------------------
Re: **PCN Lambeth - 53J - multiple PCNs before first notice
received / proportionality**
DIR By: Findingaway
Date: August 17, 2026, 9:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HI OP - how did it go? I am in a very similar situation... do
you have any tips you could kindly share?
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page