DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 123206--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southwark PCN – Order for Recovery received – police report
later revealed TRACE relocation
DIR By: zclhe03
Date: June 28, 2026, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN I paid was JK17263522 following the Order for Recovery.
I don't believe I ever paid an Amelia Street PCN because I have
never been sent one. All the PCNs I've seen relate to Crampton
Street.
#Post#: 123209--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southwark PCN – Order for Recovery received – police report
later revealed TRACE relocation
DIR By: zclhe03
Date: June 28, 2026, 1:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again for all the time you've spent helping me with
this.
Based on the advice I've received, I think the appropriate route
now is to write to the Strategic Director responsible for
Parking Services and copy in the Head of Law, relying on the
evidence disclosed in the SAR rather than the parking
enforcement process itself.
I've drafted the letter below. Before I send it, I'd be very
grateful if anyone could cast an eye over it and let me know if
there's anything you would change, add or remove.
Many thanks again.
**For the attention of:**
Aled Richards
Strategic Director, Environment, Sustainability and Leisure
**Copied to:**
Sarah Feasey
Head of Law
**Re: PCNs JK17263522, JK17298185, JK17309044 and JK17310112 –
relocation of vehicle by Southwark Council**
Dear Mr Richards,
I write following receipt of Southwark Council's response to my
Subject Access Request relating to the above Penalty Charge
Notices.
Having now reviewed the material supplied by the Council, it is
clear that the factual basis on which these PCNs were issued is
fundamentally different from that previously understood.
The Council's own records confirm that:
* my vehicle was lawfully parked in a residents' permit bay on
Amelia Street;
* a filming suspension was subsequently introduced on 25
September 2025;
* Council officers attended and photographed the vehicle in the
suspended bay;
* the vehicle was then relocated by the Council from Amelia
Street; and
* following that relocation, the vehicle was left in a Pay by
Phone bay on Crampton Street, where the subsequent PCNs were
issued.
These are not matters of recollection or assumption. They are
demonstrated by the Council's own suspension records and
photographs disclosed under the Subject Access Request.
At no stage was the vehicle under my control when it was
relocated. The Council made the decision as to where the vehicle
should be placed.
Had I personally parked the vehicle in a Pay by Phone bay and
left it there without payment, I would understand why
enforcement action followed. However, that is not what occurred.
Instead, the Council chose to relocate a residents' permit
holder's vehicle into a location where it immediately became
liable to enforcement. The subsequent penalties arose solely
because of the location selected by the Council.
I fully acknowledge that my handling of the later enforcement
process was less than ideal. In particular, I did not pursue an
appeal following the Notice of Rejection relating to PCN
JK17263522, and I have now paid that PCN in order to avoid
further enforcement action and the substantial additional costs
associated with the Order for Recovery process.
However, payment was made solely to prevent further enforcement
and should not be taken as an admission that the underlying
liability was properly incurred.
The Council's own evidence now demonstrates that the sequence of
events began with the Council relocating my vehicle. In those
circumstances, I ask the Council to consider whether it is fair
or lawful for penalties to have arisen as a direct consequence
of that relocation.
I therefore request that the Council:
1. Immediately cease enforcement of any outstanding PCNs arising
from the relocation.
2. Cancel any outstanding penalties associated with the vehicle
following its relocation to Crampton Street.
3. Refund the payment made in respect of PCN JK17263522.
4. Explain why the vehicle was relocated to a Pay by Phone bay
rather than to an equivalent residents' permit bay or another
lawful location.
I hope the Council will now review this matter in light of its
own records and resolve it without the need for a formal
complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman or
any further escalation.
I look forward to your response.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 123211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southwark PCN – Order for Recovery received – police report
later revealed TRACE relocation
DIR By: tincombe
Date: June 28, 2026, 1:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
To emphasise the point, I would make a slight change as follows:
'..the vehicle was left in contravention :o in a Pay by Phone
bay..'
#Post#: 123522--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southwark PCN – Order for Recovery received – police report
later revealed TRACE relocation
DIR By: zclhe03
Date: July 1, 2026, 4:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Since posting, I've now received an Order for Recovery for
JK17309044 (deadline 17 July). I've already written to the
Strategic Director and Head of Law enclosing the SAR bundle and
asking for a senior review. I've also asked them to place
enforcement on hold while they consider it.
Does anyone think I should now pay this Order for Recovery as
well to avoid bailiff action, or should I wait for a response to
my letter?
#Post#: 124577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southwark PCN – Order for Recovery received – police report
later revealed TRACE relocation
DIR By: zclhe03
Date: July 14, 2026, 2:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
:D
I wanted to come back and update everyone, and most importantly
to thank you all for your time and advice.
Following the advice on this thread, I obtained the Subject
Access Request, which confirmed that the council had relocated
the vehicle from Amelia Street to Crampton Street.
I then wrote to the Strategic Director and copied in the Head of
Law, enclosing the SAR bundle.
I’ve now received their response. They have accepted that the
vehicle was relocated by the council into a Pay by Phone bay,
acknowledged that the subsequent PCNs arose following the
council’s relocation, agreed to cancel all outstanding PCNs and
refund the payment I made for JK17263522.
They have also confirmed they have instructed their parking
contractor that vehicles relocated from suspended permit holder
bays should, wherever possible, be moved to another permit
holder bay so that they remain lawfully parked.
A special thank you to tincombe. Your advice that this had
become an extra-procedural matter and that I should write to the
Strategic Director and Head of Law proved to be exactly the
right approach. I honestly don’t think I’d have reached this
outcome otherwise.
Thank you as well to everyone else who took the time to read the
documents, ask questions and point me in the right direction.
Your expertise and patience were invaluable!
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page