DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 117666--------------------------------------------------
RYE LANE JUNCTION HANOVER PARK 29/04/26
DIR By: kragnar
Date: May 3, 2026, 2:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
I’m looking for some advice regarding a PCN I’ve received for
driving through the Rye Lane / Hanover Park junction.
I was working at the time and relying on Uber navigation, which
in hindsight was not suitable for this area. As I approached the
junction at around 20mph, I did see a sign but misinterpreted it
in the moment. I believed it indicated a time-based restriction
(such as no entry during certain hours), and since it was
exactly 10pm, I assumed I was outside the restricted period and
proceeded.
I accept that this was my mistake; however, the conditions made
it more difficult to properly interpret the signage. It was dark
at the time, and although the sign is illuminated, it was not
immediately clear enough to process correctly while driving. I
have attached a JPEG of the first sign I saw.
Upon reviewing the location afterwards on Google Maps, I noticed
there is an additional sign near the bus stop stating “No left
turn for motor vehicles except for access,” which I did not see
on the night. I am unsure whether the “except for access”
element is relevant in my case, as I was entering the road
specifically to pick up a passenger.
Regarding the final sign positioned near the traffic lights, I
did notice it, but due to its placement and angle, I was unable
to properly register its meaning in time to safely stop or
change direction. By the time it became apparent, I had
effectively committed to the route, and there was no clear
opportunity to exit or turn around once at the traffic lights.
After entering and reaching the pickup point, I immediately felt
something was off — there were no regular vehicles around, only
buses, and the layout felt unusual given how I had just come out
of normal traffic. I hesitated but assumed I had misunderstood
the situation and waited for the passenger.
Shortly after, a passer-by kindly approached me and warned that
it was a bus-only route and that I would likely receive a
ticket.
Since then, I’ve done some research and found that a significant
number of drivers seem to have been caught out at this exact
location, many of whom have shared similar experiences here and
elsewhere. It appears to be a recurring issue rather than an
isolated mistake. I have browsed this forum and found instances
of others asking for help for the same location. So far from
what i have found on the forum, the cancel only cancelled it
once.
From what I’ve seen so far:
* Most people end up paying the PCN
* Some have taken it to the London Tribunal
* I’ve only come across a couple of cases where the council
cancelled the ticket
What I’m struggling to understand is whether there is any
consistent or successful argument for appeal in cases like this
— particularly where:
* The signage may be misread in real-time driving conditions
* Navigation apps route drivers directly into the restriction
* There is a clear pattern of repeated confusion among drivers
I fully accept I drove through the restriction, but I’m trying
to determine whether it’s worth appealing based on signage
clarity and the volume of similar cases.
Has anyone here successfully challenged a PCN at this specific
junction, or does anyone have insight into whether it’s
realistically worth taking this further?
Appreciate any guidance.
Photos and Video:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/H4WF9mi
Google Maps:
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/hzxszKcbLjFGu58A8
Note: On the google maps, please make sure to set the date as
the latest 2022 as before then sign is not there. It is the road
turning left toward Baba LTD and toward KFC.
#Post#: 117674--------------------------------------------------
Re: RYE LANE JUNCTION HANOVER PARK 29/04/26
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 3, 2026, 3:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As far as I know, "taxis" on the sign applies only to black cabs
("Hackney Cabs").
The sign does not say "Except for access", but only the Traffic
Order can tell you if access is allowed.
#Post#: 117682--------------------------------------------------
Re: RYE LANE JUNCTION HANOVER PARK 29/04/26
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 3, 2026, 4:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They cannot serve a charge certificate 28 days from the date of
the notice.
#Post#: 117687--------------------------------------------------
Re: RYE LANE JUNCTION HANOVER PARK 29/04/26
DIR By: kragnar
Date: May 3, 2026, 6:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=12]Incandescent[/member]: Sorry, I thought I had
uploaded everything. My mistake. after your comment, I noticed
that I hadn't added the "Except for access" signs JPEG. I have
since corrected this and have now added it to the rest of the
images.
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member]: Can you expand on what you
mean?
"They cannot serve a charge certificate 28 days from the date of
the notice." are you advising me to use that as a defence for
the appeal and beyond or is that just a statement?
Please have patience with me as I don't want to misunderstand
anything and as such will ask questions on anything that I don't
understand.
Much appreciated.
#Post#: 117708--------------------------------------------------
Re: RYE LANE JUNCTION HANOVER PARK 29/04/26
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 4, 2026, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The sign with "except for access" is on the 2021 GSV view, and
has been replaced with the current sign where those words do not
appear. However, the Traffic Order may still have access
allowed, so this needs checking. And it's for the left turn only
is my interpretation.
Best if you submit reps stating you are a private hire vehicle
picking up a person on the street, so needed access. YSay that
you are reasonably certain such access is allowed.
#Post#: 117759--------------------------------------------------
Re: RYE LANE JUNCTION HANOVER PARK 29/04/26
DIR By: kragnar
Date: May 4, 2026, 3:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=12]Incandescent[/member]: They do not appear to accept
that I was legitimately picking up a passenger as a private hire
driver as sufficient grounds to cancel the PCN.
I have come across previous cases on this forum where private
hire drivers received tickets for picking up passengers on the
same road, and those appeals were consistently rejected. Based
on this, it seems unlikely that the PCN will be cancelled on
that basis alone.
Thank you for the advice. I will include it if I am unable to
identify a stronger ground for challenging the PCN when I submit
the appeal.
#Post#: 117770--------------------------------------------------
Re: RYE LANE JUNCTION HANOVER PARK 29/04/26
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 4, 2026, 5:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Are you prepared to take them to London Tribunals ? You have
that right in law, but have to risk the full PCN penalty. There
are no additional costs, and hearings are by phone or video.
#Post#: 118295--------------------------------------------------
Re: RYE LANE JUNCTION HANOVER PARK 29/04/26
DIR By: kragnar
Date: May 10, 2026, 8:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, if there is a legitimate basis to challenge the PCN and a
reasonable prospect of success, I would be prepared to take it
to London Tribunals.
Naturally, nobody wants to pay a penalty they feel has been
unfairly issued or disproportionate to the circumstances.
#Post#: 118297--------------------------------------------------
Re: RYE LANE JUNCTION HANOVER PARK 29/04/26
DIR By: SunSunSuu
Date: May 10, 2026, 10:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey! Hippocrates is right they cannot serve a charge certificate
28 days from the date of the notice. By law, you have 28 days
from the Date of Service (when it arrives) to challenge it. By
saying they can increase the charge 28 days from the Date of
Notice, they are effectively threatening to fine you more before
your legal window to challenge has actually expired. You can
cancel it under ground of procedural impropriety. You have to
read into the law for London Local Authorities and Transport for
London Act 2003. In essence look below:
This is your right to make representation 28 days on serving.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted
Under Schedule 1, Paragraph 5 (2)(a) of the 2003 Act:
"Charge certificates
5(2)The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice
is the period of 28 days beginning—
(a)where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above,
with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;"
_____________________________________
This is 28 days after notice.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
Under Section 4, Paragraph 4 (8)(a)(iii)(v)(viii) of the 2003
Act:
"(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a)state—
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be
entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1
to this Act; and"
_________________________________
Therefore:
The PCN is non-compliant with Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act.
Conflation of Dates: The PCN incorrectly states that a Charge
Certificate may be issued 28 days from the Date of Notice. Under
the Act, a Charge Certificate can only be issued after 28 days
from the Date of Service.
Prejudice: This wording is confusing and prejudices the
recipient by suggesting the time to pay/challenge is shorter
than it legally is.
The PCN is defective as it fails to comply with the mandatory
requirements of Section 4 (8)(a) of the London Local Authorities
and Transport for London Act 2003. By stating a Charge
Certificate may be issued 28 days from the Date of Notice, the
authority is threatening to increase the charge before the
statutory period for making representations (28 days from the
Date of Service as per Schedule 1) has expired. This conflation
of periods creates a lack of clarity and constitutes a
procedural impropriety.
_________________________________
You can read a post Hippocrates managed to get appealed:
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-pedest-10716/msg118293/#msg118293
Here is a drive link he has on it too
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WSBVHktf6Yu3twJANacn8mmlTQKt1-t_/view
You can appeal first, but most likely they will deny it and make
you pay as the london council and government are out for your
money with no care of context or situation. It'll most likely be
tribunal where they'll appeal it.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1