DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 114827--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 30, 2026, 10:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Recent case.
----------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
to serve a notice of acceptance or rejection only applies to
parking penalty charges. It does not apply to moving traffic
penalty charges such as this. Whilst, however, there is no
requirement that the council respond to representations made on
a moving traffic PCN within any set time period it is, on the
decided cases, required to act with due diligence and in a
timely manner. Representations were received by the council in
these proceedings on 19/05/25, it issuing a rejection notice
letter on 21/08/25, over three months later. I am satisfied
given that delay that the criteria set out above were not met,
and find that enforcement may not therefore be pursued. The
appeal must accordingly be allowed without consideration of any
of the other issues raised by either party to the proceedings.
#Post#: 114875--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 30, 2026, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Neil B link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
No, I haven't appealed yet but the unreasonable delay will be
the main point in the appeal.
I saw Davies vs Kensington was referenced in each of the
decisions so I had read it a few days ago. In this instance what
ground for appeal would be selected?
And the vehicle was delivering to a construction site (Kings
Road Park) on the road though, it just happened to be on the
other side of this short restricted section of road. But if the
goal is to prevent vehicles using certain roads would it not
make more sense to have distance plates so a driver doesn't have
to drive right upto it to know here it actually starts? Which
causes the vehicles the Council don't want using the roads
leading upto the restriction, to use them not just once, but
twice. The signs say no through road, but the vehicle wasn't
attempting to use Imperial Road as a through road.
So, the scheme actually only fulfills it's purpose if people
have pre planned their route and know before hand where exactly
the restriction is on this road and which end to enter from.
Once the vehicle is at the restriction signs what can it
realistically do? It could maybe turn into Emden Street and
reverse out to turn around but I don't think it could do that
without crossing into the restricted zone and setting off the
cameras anyway, or otheriwse crossing into the bus lane, it's
16.5m long.
The driver has misunderstood directions given, but frankly
should have been sent a map by their planner of the exact route
to take here.
Had the driver gone the correct way though they are seeing
advance signage that to me indicates that they can't go the
correct way. Which is what doesn't seem right to me.
I'm not trying to be argumentative btw, just wanting to better
understand why it could backfire I guess
#Post#: 114876--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 30, 2026, 4:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Recent case.
>
> ----------
>
>
> Case reference 2250468796
> Appellant Balbinder Suman
> Authority London Borough of Hounslow
> VRM BT66YPO
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for providing that, thts very helpful. I’m curious what
justification the council could provide for the delay that would
satisfy an adjudicator that they acted with due diligence and
within a reasonable timeframe.
#Post#: 114877--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 30, 2026, 4:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've not read your case details - if there's no excuse for going
well beyond 3 months you should win this.
Another case.
---------
Case reference 2250537855
Appellant Nicholas Dunham
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM MM22VOP
PCN Details
PCN BT24867530
Contravention date 15 Mar 2025
Contravention time 10:46:00
Contravention location Salusbury Rd / Hartland Rd
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Mar 2026
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant has attended for his appeal by video link,
the Authority was not in attendance.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped
in the box junction when prohibited when in Salusbury Road /
Hartland Road on 15 March 2025 at 10:46.
The Appellant denies the contravention advancing a number of
points, which I considered.
I find that the principal reason advanced by the Appellant, in
relation to the time delay from the Appellant's submission of
their representations and the time taken to respond, to be well
founded.
There is no statutory time limit in relation to a Notice of
Rejection in relation to moving traffic case.
However, an Authority is required to act with due diligence and
in a timely manner. The key case of Paul Richard Davis - v - The
Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (case number 1970182813)
where this matter was dealt with comprehensively by the
Adjudicator Mr G Hickinbottom (as he then was), is good case law
for the requirement of an Authority to act with due diligence.
The PCN in this case was in relation to a contravention on 15
March 2025. The PCN was issued on 20 March 2025 and
representations were received from the Appellant on the 31 March
2025. The Notice of Rejection is dated 17 September 2025. This
is well in excess of 5 months.
I find that the time taken to deal with this case is not
justified and is excessive. Previous cases have found that
delays in excess of 3 months without a sufficient explanation to
be unacceptable.
Whilst I have considered the explanation advanced by the
Authority, I do not find that it is sufficient to justify the
long delay in this particular case, which is not far off 6
months.
Accordingly, I find, as a fact, that the Authority has failed to
act with due diligence and in a timely manner in this case.
The appeal is allowed.
#Post#: 114881--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 30, 2026, 6:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Wow, I can belive that, last year Brent were taking 130-170 days
to respond to my appeals. They were all for a 7.5 tonne weight
restriction for HGVs with an exception for access. Our vehicle
was delivering to a Travis Perkins site on the road every time.
I gave them a test earlier this year to see if they would
respond quicker. I appealed a PCN without Proof of Delivery
(partially because I hadnt received it from the relevant
department yet) but I included the GPS tracking data to show
where the vehicle had been. Brent responded in 75 days that
time, rejecting the appeal and providing an email address to
send further evidence to, so they may reconsider the charge. I
submitted the POD and 5 days later they accepted. This one
simple trick will cut your council appeal response times in half
lol
Back in 2023 they were taking less than a month to respond.
#Post#: 114886--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: Ex CPS here
Date: March 30, 2026, 9:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
That history actually helps you, because although moving traffic
PCNs under the 2003 Act do not carry the 56-day statutory
response limit that applies to parking cases, London Tribunals
say an authority should normally respond within 3 months, so
evidence that Brent answered similar cases in 75 days and even
within a month in 2023 makes it harder for a council to dress up
a 131-day delay as due diligence rather than simple unreasonable
delay.
#Post#: 114892--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 31, 2026, 1:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You know who acted with due diligence in and in a timely manner
recently? Transport for London. Last week I appealed a box
junction PCN, they accepted my appeal in 23 hours and 52
minutes. That has to be some kind of world record for them.
#Post#: 114900--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: March 31, 2026, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unrelated to this PCN, but is a Council also required to act
with due diligence and in a timely manner in regards to
registering the debt with the TEC after issuing a Charge
Certifcate?
We received a Charge Certificate October 16 2024 for a PCN we
didn't receive. This year they started sending letters offering
us an extra-statutory reduced charge of £65. But I want to
submit a Witness Statement saying we didn't receive the PCN, and
eventually appeal the PCN once it has been reissued.
#Post#: 114903--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: March 31, 2026, 4:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One case one thread.
#Post#: 115326--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: April 8, 2026, 3:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough. Just to clarify though, which appeal grounds am I
choosing here (a pcn issued under the LLA and TfL Act 2003) for
appealing to London Tribunal for unconscionable delay?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page