DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114279--------------------------------------------------
Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal -
Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 24, 2026, 3:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I received a Notice of Rejection to a PCN I appealed 130 days
ago.
I am aware that Penalty Charge Notices issued under Traffic
Management Act 2004 (for parking) require a response to appeals
within 56 days set out in the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) Regulations
(England).
However, LLATLA 2003 has no such statutory maximum time period.
But, I have read before that the London Tribunal have made
decisions applying a "reasonable time" of 90 days.
I'm wondering if this case precedent is frequently applied or if
it varies and what sort of reasons would the Tribunal accept for
a 130 day delay?
Whilst looking into this just now I found on their site:
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process
Which states, "The adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement
Authority should normally respond to representations within 3
months."
For context it is a HGV that has gone to a big construction site
(
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/VmFTnDuV7zKMMrmf8)
on a road called
Imperial Road, that has a "No motor vehicles" restriction on
part (between Emden St & Fulmead St) of the road (like a bus
gate but a no motor vehicle gate) as part of some Clean Air
Neighbourhood initiative. However, for the west end of the road,
the main road that it meets at a T junction, New Kings Road, has
signage indicating a "No motor vehicle" restriction on the
entire Imperial Road (
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/epUNdHf9WC4Bb7m16<br
/>&
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/nJc88j1ZUsx92bkn6).
And you would go
along this road around the block (King's Road, Lot's Road,
Harbour Aveneue, Townmead Road, Imperial Road) to the the east
end of the road having already gone past the "No motor vehicles"
sign. On the east end there is signage indicating:
"No motor vehicles
Imperial Road
No through route
to
New King's Road" (
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/XVHm1K4xXDs7JDAC7)
Which indicates to me there is a "No motor vehicles" restriction
on the entire road. However, the restriction is only between two
junctions about 50m apart so both the east and west ends of the
roads are open to motor vehicles until the restricted section.
But the signage on either end does not make it clear at which
point along the road the restriction begins. There are no "100
yards ahead" type signs that one might expect for such a strict
restriction. The correct route is entering the road from the
east, however, the signage on both ends is ambiguous and does
not clealry inform motorists as to the effect of the TRO imo. As
the whole road is not a no "Motor Vehicles" restriction, just a
section of it in the middle.
#Post#: 114298--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 24, 2026, 6:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post the usual document we require by reading this and
updating your thread accordingly:-
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
We do need to see your reps and their response.
#Post#: 114462--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 26, 2026, 8:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please see my appeal -
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z2YwTEj1lOIm34nKRgM3Mfp6Yzsk9PTz/view?usp=drivesdk
And the Notice of Rejection -
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ovc-hKaIQELHKKngdUPGzfq6CvEEgy3I/view?usp=drivesdk
Tbh I was trying my luck here, however the more I look at the
signage from either end of the road, the more I think it's not
right and doesn't convey the effect of the TRO as signage at
both ends of the road (and approachin the road) seem to suggest
the entire Imperial Road is 'No Motor Vehicles', which isn't the
case.
Now, the fact they have taken 131 days to respond to the appeal
just seems unreasonable to say the least.
#Post#: 114469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 26, 2026, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The signage at either end of Imperial Road seems to be
ineffective at conveying where the signage begins -
HTML https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1rkAypBWZLJPof-wKq5jcQ0fH-_25wTwG
I put an overlay of the TRO restrictions over the GPS tracking
trail of the vehicle -
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ib8KzvyCr7oAZmgUfgYBWEXl8llSVDSj/view?usp=drivesdk
Forget about the planning aspect of the HGV. A council must make
all motorists using the road aware of the effect of the order,
and most motorists are not planning every aspect of their route.
Neither end identifies where the restriction actually starts on
Imperial Road. The east end they even have just the 'no motor
vehicles' diagram on a map-type advance direction sign. But the
whole road isn't restricted. It should have a "360 yds" plate
under it.
#Post#: 114520--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 26, 2026, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Whay you have shown us are advance warning signs, (blue
background); the actual restrictions are ahead of these signs.
OK, they don't give the distance.
#Post#: 114544--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 26, 2026, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They are indeed advance warning signs.
But they imply the entire road is restricted. Which it isn't. A
general motorist could not possibly know where the restriction
actually starts without driving down either end of the road to
find out, as there are no distance plates at either end. Once
committed on the west end of Imperial Road there is no
alternative route. In this instance the vehicle was driving to a
construction site just on the other side of the restriction. And
so should have gone down the east end of the road to avoid it.
However, that end also has prohibition signs indicating the
restriction applies to the whole road (especially the map-type
advance direction sign before the roundabout). Therefore, the
signs surely do not effectively convey the effect of the Order
which only restricts from the Emden Street junction to the
Fulmead Street junction on Imperial Road.
But also, what about the collateral challenge for the Council
taking 131 days to respond to the appeal? I can't find any
specific cases where the 90 day reasonable response time was
actually applied at a London Tribunal, are you aware of any?
#Post#: 114559--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: March 26, 2026, 6:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your 130 days is a powerful appeal argument, the signs issue not
quite so powerful, but should be included in reps to London
Tribunals. However, I note they have re-offered the discount in
their response, but if you take them to London Tribunals, the
full £160 will be in play, (just so you know if you didn't
already).
#Post#: 114560--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 26, 2026, 7:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I will find the relevant case(s) re unconscionable delay
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oa-DnXdccFz_DXx_6Tj4hfO8pf3ZrxWK/view
BUT not all agree!
HTML https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=642784037#gid=642784037
571 ff: hence my drive for a change in the law. This is
ridiculous. Adjudicators should apply 56 days as per parking
PCNs.
Still WHO CARES as 95% people just pay up? Hence the failure of
my petition last year to consolidate the London Local
Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) with the The London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 which would have
created a MUST that all authorities attend to answer questions
re camera evidence.
Let's go for a Higher Tribunal too.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/the-need-for-a-higher-tribunal-9546/
#Post#: 114825--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 30, 2026, 8:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for providing that case and the spreadsheet.
It's interesting that the same adjudicator ruled a 3 - 4 month
delay is not acting in a timely manner during the pandemic but
the one from 2023 (2220948442) was rejected for a 3 month delay.
I wonder why it changed? Do you think that they were fed up of
councils using covid as an excuse, or perhaps there were less
cases as less vehicles on the road etc and they should have been
able to deal with the PCN numbers quicker. If 97 days is not
excessive, then would 131 days be. That's the £160 question I
guess.
#Post#: 114826--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: Neil B
Date: March 30, 2026, 10:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you registered your appeal yet?
I'm with colleagues on the unreasonable delay.
The relevant case we always used 'back in the day' was Davies vs
Kensington.
Your complaint about advance warning signs is liable to backfire
imho.
The whole point of the scheme is to prevent traffic using
certain roads; in this case using a short length of restricted
road, rendering the whole road or area restricted in effect, as
you say.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page