DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 127690--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 2 PCNS same offence within 17 hours.
DIR By: scarter1
Date: August 13, 2026, 1:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Decision date: 19th of August
Postal hearing
"Your case has been scheduled for a postal hearing and will
enter the list for decision on 19th August 2026,"
#Post#: 127692--------------------------------------------------
Re: Haringey 2 PCNS same offence within 17 hours.
DIR By: scarter1
Date: August 13, 2026, 1:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Evidence type:
"B. Case Summary & Traffic Management Order | 51"
"CONTRAVENTION CODE 12(r)"
Traffic management order extract
RESTRICTIONS Resident permit holders, Monday-
Saturday, 8am-6.30pm, WG (Wood
Green Outer CPZ).
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ORDER
LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ORDER
2021 No. 182
The Haringey (Charged-For Parking
Places) Order 2021
Summary section copy and pasted
Grounds of appeal
The appellant has filed an appeal on the grounds that there was
a procedural impropriety on the part
of the enforcement authority.
Case summary
A Penalty Charge Notice was issued on 22/05/2026 at 17:20 at the
location Langham Road, N15 . The
vehicle was parked without displaying a permit or voucher in a
resident bay.
The signage in place indicates the restrictions: Resident permit
holders, Monday-Saturday, 8am-6.30pm,
WG (Wood Green Outer CPZ). The vehicle was observed to have
parked on a residents permit bay
without displaying a valid permit or visitors voucher. Haringey
Council is therefore satisfied that a
contravention occurred.
The appellant has stated that there has been a procedural
impropriety on the part of the enforcement
authority. A procedural impropriety is a failure by the
enforcement authority to observe any requirement
imposed upon it by the Traffic Management Act 2004, The Civil
Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022 and The Civil Enforcement
of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging
Guidelines and General Provisions)
(England) Regulations 2022 in relation to the imposition or
recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.
Haringey Council is satisfied that there was no procedural
impropriety.
The Authority submits that the Notice of Rejection complies with
the requirements of the Regulations and
does not amount to a procedural impropriety.
The Notice clearly informed the Appellant of the available
options, the applicable time limit for payment
or appeal, and the consequences of taking no action. When read
as a whole, the Notice adequately
conveyed the statutory position and provided the information
necessary for the Appellant to understand
and exercise their rights.
The Authority notes that the Appellant has successfully
exercised their right of appeal, demonstrating
that they were not misled or prejudiced by the wording of the
Notice. Any alleged deficiency identified
by the Appellant is one of form rather than substance and did
not affect their ability to understand the
enforcement process or challenge the penalty charge.
The Authority therefore submits that the Notice substantially
complies with the requirements of Regulation
6(6), that no prejudice has been caused to the Appellant, and
that no procedural impropriety has occurred.
The Authority respectfully invites the Adjudicator to reject
this ground of appeal.
Summary of events
Notice to owner issued- 22/06/2026
Representation- 26/06/2026
Notice of rejection- 08/07/2026
London Borough of Haringey would advise that the full charge of
the Penalty Charge is due for payment.
London Borough of Haringey have rechecked the original
representation and all its PCN processes and
is fully convinced that due diligence has been performed in the
aspects relating to this case and therefore
the appeal should not be allowed
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page