DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 121442--------------------------------------------------
Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: Tod
Date: June 11, 2026, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all, will appreciate any advice.
I have received a postal PCN from Thurrock. The allegation is
parking in an EV charging bay without charging. I spoke directly
to the CEO. The PCN states the vehicle was driven away before
service, but I remained at the location and subsequently
connected the vehicle to the charger. The CEO photographed the
vehicle at 13:15. The driver's door and boot are open, I am
present at the vehicle, and shortly afterwards I connected the
vehicle to the charger as shown in my photographs. Before making
representations I intend to request the CEO notes and TRO. Any
observations welcome.
HTML https://ibb.co/WS0F8mV
HTML https://ibb.co/wrQ95pwp
HTML https://ibb.co/rKLgD07t
HTML https://ibb.co/rKLgD07t
HTML https://ibb.co/4wDhHK5m
HTML https://ibb.co/hFgGMKMp
HTML https://ibb.co/4g5c2357
#Post#: 121449--------------------------------------------------
Re: Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: June 11, 2026, 7:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This time there is a time on the PCN.
But if you didn't even move the car there is no reason for a
postal PCN. I can't see any way you won't get this cancelled.
I wouldn't worry about asking for anything - just say the car
remained in place, you spoke to the CEO and a PCN could have
been served on the car or to you, so the postal PCN is a
procedural impropriety and must be cancelled.
#Post#: 121459--------------------------------------------------
Re: Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 11, 2026, 8:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
+1
But don't expect them to fold when they see your reps, because
they are only interested in your money. You may have to go all
the way, certainly to the Notice to Owner stage, anyway. It's
how they game the system to get the money in.
London councils and Transport for London between them get
between £600 and £700 million per annum from PCN penalties. It's
an enormous scam.
#Post#: 121462--------------------------------------------------
Re: Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 11, 2026, 8:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Surely the PCN acts as the NTO, hence one bite at the cherry
before adjudication.
If these facts fit...I would suggest..
The council alleges that my car was in contravention at 13.10
and served a PCN by post because it claims that:
A contravention had occurred, and
The CEO......a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a
penalty charge notice for service but the vehicle was driven
away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil
enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge
notice or ..
In support, the council has posted photos taken by the CEO, one
of which shows my car and me (together with the CEO) in situ at
13.15 therefore fundamentally undermining the second limb of its
assertion that the 'vehicle was driven away [at or immediately
after 13.10] or that the CEO was 'unable to serve [the PCN]'.
It therefore follows that based upon the council's evidence
alone there was no legal power to serve the PCN which must
therefore be cancelled.
#Post#: 121507--------------------------------------------------
Re: Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 11, 2026, 1:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah yes, Regulation 10 PCN, so no Notice to Owner, next step is
Traffic Penalty Tribunal, I think, because Thurrock is not
within London Tribunals sphere for adjudications.
#Post#: 125464--------------------------------------------------
Re: Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: Tod
Date: July 23, 2026, 5:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've now received the Notice of Rejection. One thing I noticed
is that the original postal PCN relied on the vehicle being
driven away before service, whereas the rejection now simply
says the CEO was 'prevented' from serving it. They still don't
explain how, and they haven't supplied the CEO notes. Is that
significant?
HTML https://ibb.co/0R1BDxwS
HTML https://ibb.co/60qBCwXj
HTML https://ibb.co/BVRCjP35
HTML https://ibb.co/vCcL3PVn
#Post#: 125481--------------------------------------------------
Re: Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: July 23, 2026, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
These situations often hinge on who the adjudicator finds more
credible. If you made no attempt to prevent service and indeed
didn't drive away an adjudicator is likely to side with you as
it looks like they have no evidence you prevented service.
They may not contest this when you register the appeal.
Make sure you opt for a telephone or online hearing.
If they do contest you'll get a pack with what they rely on.
#Post#: 125519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 23, 2026, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Citing one legal basis for issuing a reg. 10 PCN on its face and
another in the NOR is a mega-PI IMO. It also implies that your
reps, which themselves were against the basis for issuing the
reg. 10 as well as the contravention itself, were not given
consideration because in their minds they were judging these
against 'being prevented' and not 'vehicle driven away'.
#Post#: 125520--------------------------------------------------
Re: Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: July 23, 2026, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do you have evidence of a charging session starting shortly
after 3:15? If so that would certainly add credibility to your
case.
#Post#: 125542--------------------------------------------------
Re: Thurrock postal PCN – EV charging bay - allegation that the
vehicle drove away before service.
DIR By: Tod
Date: July 23, 2026, 5:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I've checked the metadata on my photographs. They were taken at
13:17:43, approximately 2–3 minutes after the CEO's photographs
taken at 13:15.
They show the charging cable connected between the vehicle and
the charging point. I had never used that charger before, did
not have the required app and was unable to start the charging
session before I had to leave for a retreat.
My point is not that I completed a charging session, but that I
remained at the location after speaking with the CEO. The CEO
took his photographs, made no attempt to hand me a PCN, then
left with his colleague. I remained there attempting to start
charging before eventually leaving.
HTML https://ibb.co/hFgGMKMp
HTML https://ibb.co/4g5c2357
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1