DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 115342--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: tincombe
Date: April 8, 2026, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You have posted:
I received a Notice of Rejection to a PCN I appealed 130 days
ago.
The driver has misunderstood directions given
And, in the context of a different PCN, We received a Charge
Certificate October 16 2024 for a PCN we didn't receive.
So, as you weren't the driver what weight would the adjudicator
give to the issue of signage - as it appeared to the driver in
real time- as opposed to just looking at the council's 'cold
light of day' video and photos?
This question probably doesn't need to be asked, but I
will...are you the person to whom the PCN was addressed or are
you a corporate entity? If the latter, then do you have the
addressee's authority to submit an appeal?
More info about a company background could help IMO.
For example, IMO if you should try to give the adjudicator some
real practical and operational background rather than just go in
cold with your 'unconscionable' argument.
If it applies maybe.......
***** is a haulage company which operates X vehicles from ** to
** tonnes. Such an activity in London invariably includes the
risk of poor directions from clients in combination with what
appears to us to be a proliferation of useage restrictions on
main access roads. Consequently, being served with PCNs is not
an unknown. We make every attempt to deal with these within
procedural time frames and could at any time have one or more
PCNs in various stages of enforcement.
Dealing with these is not a full-time establishment post within
the company but recently has been taking up more of our time as
authorities' responses, when strict regulatory limits do not
apply, seem to be taking longer. This makes effective management
more difficult and could even lead to drivers and authorised
persons concerned having left.
....
#Post#: 115353--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: April 8, 2026, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I took on board what you said and this is my draft atm
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OWYHlxvDCru14Mjwm3OtPFToHAcxAZiC/view?usp=drivesdk
And I'm presuming I go with "The contravention did not occur" as
the grounds of appeal.
#Post#: 115406--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: tincombe
Date: April 9, 2026, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Your argument relates to substantive and procedural issues, I
therefore suggest you go with 'contravention did not.' and
'penalty exceeded.....circumstances of the case..'.
#Post#: 115420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: April 9, 2026, 6:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for clarifying, I will do that. I had not considered that
it applied to anything other than the literal charge value. And
actually just reading the London Tribunal site would have
dispelled my assumptions.
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/grounds-appeal/grounds-appeal-moving-traffic
#Post#: 116384--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: April 20, 2026, 3:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Council submitted a DNC and sent me an email saying
"Thank you for writing to us about the above Penalty Charge
Notice (PCN).
I am writing in connection with your appeal to the London
Tribunals Environment and Traffic Adjudicators.
We have decided, without prejudice to our position, to cancel
this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
We will therefore not be contesting your appeal and have advised
London Tribunals of our decision.
However, this is not an acceptance of your arguments.
The PCN was correctly issued, and your vehicle did not have an
exemption.
This is purely a one-off discretionary gesture of goodwill, with
important advice that you must now follow.
For delivering to the Imperial Road development site, drivers
must access the area from Wandsworth Bridge Road and then via
Townmead Road, and must then depart back the same way to
Wandsworth Bridge Road.
The centre part of Imperial Road cannot be used.
Please inform your drivers.
As you have now been fully informed, any future PCN issued in
similar circumstances may not be cancelled."
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QMT7jaUlI3-AyRiwlhcLAdtd-3VN7Q8X/view?usp=drivesdk
#Post#: 116396--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 20, 2026, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Their usual arrogant tosh.
#Post#: 116413--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham PCN - 130 Days to respond to Appeal
- Issued Notice of Rejection
DIR By: TheParkingmeister
Date: April 20, 2026, 7:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps I should offer my own important advice that they must
now follow... that they should act with due diligence and in a
timely manner lol
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page