DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121369--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 10, 2026, 8:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
+1.
But I would suggest amending 1 to read:
Procedural impropriety - the PCN is not compliant as it does not
state the time of contravention, only the date. The time is a
mandatory item under the legislation. If the authority's
position is that the time of contravention could be inferred
from the photo in the PCN, then this would clearly be untenable
because the photo reads 18.26 whereas your website(see snapshot
enclosed) states '..time of contravention 18.27'.
The PCN does not comply with the regulations and must be
cancelled.
#Post#: 121371--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 10, 2026, 8:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought of mentioning the picture but it isn't part of the
mandatory fields on the PCN, and I don't think mentioning what's
on the website is relevant. The PCN is what it is. Or isn't.
#Post#: 121374--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 10, 2026, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's an attempt to pre-empt them taking the simple and lazy way
out.
#Post#: 124117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: Tod
Date: July 8, 2026, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've now received the Notice of Rejection.
They state that the timestamp on the photograph forms part of
the PCN, so they consider the time of contravention to be shown.
They also maintain that the CEO had begun preparing the PCN and
that the vehicle was driven away before it could be served.
I've attached the Notice of Rejection. I'd be grateful for your
views on whether it's worth taking this to the tribunal.
HTML https://ibb.co/4n0w549k
HTML https://ibb.co/93ndPK7H
HTML https://ibb.co/R4jrKfgQ
HTML https://ibb.co/prb4v8vZ
HTML https://ibb.co/YBJ6mLTz
HTML https://ibb.co/zHRBRbB3
HTML https://ibb.co/CpXTzwKm
#Post#: 124118--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 8, 2026, 4:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Your actual reps pl.
#Post#: 124119--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: Tod
Date: July 8, 2026, 4:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
These were my representations:
"I am challenging the PCN on two grounds.
1. Procedural impropriety - the PCN is not compliant as it does
not state the time of contravention, only the date. The time is
a mandatory item under the legislation.
2. Procedural impropriety - at no point did I prevent service of
the PCN either to me or on my car. I had a conversation with the
CEO in which I said I had just completed a drop-off as an Uber
driver and he advised me it would be better to wait on yellow
lines.
I request that the PCN be cancelled."
#Post#: 124122--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 8, 2026, 4:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They took the simple and lazy way out, as I feared.
The PCN is flawed because it omits a date. A non-mandatory
element cannot replace a mandatory one, IMO at all but certainly
without an explanation. This is not a guessing game where the
keeper is required to join up dots.
The Traffic Signs Regs state:
Where the bay is reserved for an individual disabled badge
holder, an alphanumeric identifier, with or without the word
“ONLY” may be added after “DISABLED”.
But when so reserved, the upright traffic sign must include the
alphanumeric identifier, otherwise the road marking and sign
would conflict.
Contrary to their assertion, an upright traffic sign may include
the word "ONLY".
It makes you wonder whether there is a TMO in this case and what
it provides.
#Post#: 124131--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 8, 2026, 4:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just a note to say that photographs are not a legal requirement
on a PCN or, indeed, to accompany it, therefore the PCN is still
non-compliant. They are bluffing their way, as usual.
#Post#: 124142--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 8, 2026, 6:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So tincombe was right to anticipate their reference to pictures
but that doesn't rescue the PCN.
Note it's the time not the date that is missing.
The rejection also doesn't deal with the service issue in my
view.
The legend/sign is a possible third line issue.
You should appeal and ask for a telephone or online hearing.
#Post#: 124487--------------------------------------------------
Re: Blackfriars/Playhouse Yard area PCN Contravention Code 40
DIR By: Tod
Date: July 13, 2026, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks for all your help so far.
I've drafted my tribunal appeal based on your advice. Before I
submit it, would you mind having a quick look to see if there's
anything you would change or add?
Ground of Appeal: Procedural Impropriety
I rely on the following grounds.
1. The PCN does not state the time of contravention.
The PCN states the date of the alleged contravention but does
not state the time of contravention as a mandatory item on the
notice itself.
In its Notice of Rejection, the authority contends that the
timestamp shown on the accompanying photograph satisfies this
requirement. I do not agree.
A photograph is not a mandatory component of a Penalty Charge
Notice and cannot be used to supply information which the
legislation requires the PCN itself to state. The authority has
therefore failed to comply with the statutory requirements.
2. The authority has failed properly to address the issue of
service.
I explained in my representations that I returned to my vehicle,
had a conversation with the Civil Enforcement Officer and that
at no stage did the CEO attempt to serve a PCN on me or affix
one to my vehicle.
The Notice of Rejection merely repeats the statutory wording
that the vehicle was driven away before service could be
effected. It does not address my account or explain how I
prevented service.
I respectfully submit that the authority has failed properly to
consider my representations on this point.
3. Signage (if appropriate).
If the authority relies upon the particular signing of this bay,
I invite it to produce the relevant Traffic Management Order and
any authorisation relied upon in support of the signage, as
questions have been raised regarding whether the bay is
correctly signed and authorised.
For the above reasons I respectfully ask the Adjudicator to
allow the appeal.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page