DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114779--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from YBJ in Sydenham when the junction had been closed
in two directions for roadworks. Do I
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 29, 2026, 2:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Lefeuvre76 link ---
>
> Here is a draft letter. Let me know what you think and thank
you for your continued help with this.
>
> Dear Lewisham Council,
>
> I am writing to formally challenge the above-referenced
Penalty Charge Notice issued for a perceived yellow box junction
contravention at Westwood Hill / Sydenham. I am contesting this
PCN on the following grounds:
>
> 1. The Contravention Did Not Occur: No Statutory Purpose
>
> At the time of the alleged contravention, the location did not
function as a "junction" as defined by the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).
>
> Due to extensive roadworks, the side road and the oncoming
traffic lanes were completely obstructed by cones and barriers.
As a result:
>
> No vehicles could emerge from the side road.
>
> No vehicles could turn right into the side road.
>
> The box junction markings served no traffic management
purpose.
>
> The purpose of a yellow box junction is to prevent the
obstruction of a junction to crossing or turning traffic. Where
a road is closed, the box junction ceases to serve its statutory
purpose. I draw your attention to the London Tribunals Costs
Decision 2240295228, where the Adjudicator ruled that enforcing
a box junction when roadworks render the junction unusable is
"wholly unreasonable."
>
> Furthermore, as the markings extended through a section of
road that was effectively sealed off, they were not "at a
junction of two or more roads" at the material time, rendering
the enforcement invalid (see Case 2090257179).
>
> 2. Procedural Impropriety: Defects in the PCN Paperwork
>
> 2. I make a collateral challenge against the validity of the
PCN itself. The document is non-compliant with the London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
>
> Missing Mandatory Information: The PCN fails to state the
mandatory information required under Section 4( 8 ) (a)(v) of
the Act, specifically in relation to the statutory timeframes
for the service of a Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice.
>
> Payment Options: The PCN fails to clearly offer a "payment by
post" option as required for a valid notice of this type.
>
> Legal Uncertainty: The wording regarding the 28-day period for
payment is conflated and fails to provide the clarity required
by the High Court (as per the Hackney Drivers ruling). It
incorrectly suggests that the period begins from the date of the
notice rather than the date of service, which is a significant
legal error.
>
>
>
>
> Given that the "junction" was physically non-existent due to
the road closures and the paperwork contains significant legal
defects, I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.
>
> Should you choose to reject these representations, I will not
hesitate to take this matter to the London Tribunals and will be
applying for costs on the basis that enforcement in these
circumstances is "wholly unreasonable," as established in
previous case law.
>
> Yours faithfully,
>
--- End Quote ---
2.:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639
3.: I make this further collateral challenge:
Payment Options: The PCN fails to clearly offer a "payment by
post" option as required for a valid notice of this type.
#Post#: 114787--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from YBJ in Sydenham when the junction had been closed
in two directions for roadworks. Do I have grounds?
DIR By: Lefeuvre76
Date: March 29, 2026, 6:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well this is strange. I just went into the website to challenge
the PCN and it says this
HTML https://imglink.cc/cdn/IBfT5fracX.png
I've never seen this before? Could I be a mistake or have they
realised that the shouldn't be giving these out when the road is
completely shut off?
#Post#: 114790--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN from YBJ in Sydenham when the junction had been closed
in two directions for roadworks. Do I have grounds?
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 29, 2026, 6:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Lefeuvre76 link ---
>
> Well this is strange. I just went into the website to
challenge the PCN and it says this
>
>
>
HTML https://imglink.cc/cdn/IBfT5fracX.png
>
> I've never seen this before? Could I be a mistake or have they
realised that the shouldn't be giving these out when the road is
completely shut off?
>
--- End Quote ---
Looks like somebody with a brain in their enforcement office
has looked at what are probably a load of representations
against this barminess, and decided to cancel all of the PCNs.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page