DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 127497--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 11, 2026, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will wait until the deadline to file
Do you have a reason for waiting until, presumably, the 1 Sept?
#Post#: 127499--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: espindel
Date: August 11, 2026, 9:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Based on earlier advice from Hippocrates - that Lambeth may
issue a charge certificate before then and shoot themselves in
the foot. Unless you think my argument is already watertight and
that this would not add any further weight?
#Post#: 127505--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 11, 2026, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As I posted before, one PCN was served out of time. Time limits
are strict.
But Hippocrates has more experience with this particular council
and as long as you don't miss the deadline then follow that
advice.
#Post#: 127508--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: espindel
Date: August 11, 2026, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought it was the PCN that was served out of time, not the
NOR? Sorry if I'm getting confused.
And this only applies to the first of the PCNs.
So, unless the non-compliance of the NOR is itself a watertight
argument for overturning the second PCN, I thought best to wait
in case Lambeth make another mistake that bolsters my argument.
#Post#: 127514--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 11, 2026, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My typo, now rectified.
#Post#: 127518--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: espindel
Date: August 11, 2026, 11:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One last point, the NOR states that 'There are advance warning
signs in the view of motorists when travelling on Minet Road
before the junction'. This is actually untrue - there is no
advance warning sign if you have joined Minet Road from
Loughborough Road. Their own map shows this:
HTML https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-12/Loughborough%20-%20Minet%20Rd%20Closure.pdf
I don't intend to argue about whether there's adequate signage,
but does this inaccuracy of info on the NOR give me any further
ammunition?
#Post#: 127521--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 11, 2026, 12:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You make your key points first and with as much detail as
required, it'll make the adjudicator's job easier.
#Post#: 127605--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: espindel
Date: August 12, 2026, 6:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The appeal forms enclosed with the NOR are required to contain
the date of posting of the NOR because these is copied to the
tribunal and used by them to calculate your statutory appeal
period.
To confirm, these were enclosed with the original PCNs, not the
NORs. Assume this doesn't affect the argument here, but just
double checking?
#Post#: 127608--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 12, 2026, 6:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A recent case here - and an older one.
---------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
link; the Authority was not represented.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to
comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone
when in Minet Road on 1 and 4 December 2025.
The Appellant denies the contravention.
I find that the Enforcement Authority has not provided a map
tile from the Traffic Order; they have provided a screenshot
from their website.
Adjudicator Walsh (as he then was) remarked in his decision,
case number 2230474242 that: "The screenshot lacks the formality
and precision to be a schedule to a traffic management order..."
I find that the Authority has not provided the map tile/schedule
to the Traffic Management Order in these two appeals.
Without the map tile I find that there is no case to answer.
The appeals are allowed.
--------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Reasons
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued
for failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a
pedestrian zone (Code 53).
2. This appeal was scheduled as an online hearing at which the
Appellant appeared in person. The Enforcement Authority (EA) was
not due to attend but instead provided their evidence
electronically. The appeal commenced on time on 27 September
2025. However, the Appellant confirmed due to her computer being
hacked, it had not been possible for her to obtain a copy of a
permit she considered to be key evidence. In the interest of
justice, the matter was therefore adjourned to allow for this
document to be obtained.
3. This is the adjourned hearing, which, with the agreement of
the Appellant is being dealt with as a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
4. The Appellant’s case is that she is a resident of the area,
with a valid permit, a copy of which is provided. Due to the
medical conditions of a close family member, there are sometimes
emergency situations that arise, of which the EA has been made
aware. On the date in question, such an emergency occurred,
which required the Appellant to enter the restricted area, as
the situation was potentially life-threatening. Evidence has
been provided to support the Appellant’s account.
5. The Appellant refers to personal and financial circumstances.
6. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be
cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
7. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on footage to show the
contravention occurred. A plan and photographs of the signage
has been provided. The EA says this shows the restriction is
signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid
Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided.
8. The EA state they have considered the Appellant's
representations.
9. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
10. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
11. In the first instance, it is for the EA to show, on balance,
that there has been a potential contravention. Based on the
footage provided, I am satisfied that there are clear
restriction signs in place, and that the Appellant’s vehicle
entered the restricted road. This is not in dispute.
12. I have therefore turned to the TMO provided, since there
must be a valid one in place to validate the contravention, and
allow for enforcement of the penalty. In this respect, the EA
state in the Case Summary, ‘Please see a copy of the Traffic
Management Order enclosed under Evidence Type (B) and its map.’
13. Under ‘Evidence Type (B)’ the EA has provided a screen shot
of a document ‘streets’, which is headed ‘Minet Road’, although
there are no names on the map itself, and a side panel of
dialogue boxes with very small writing. There is no further
explanation as to this page. A copy of TMO LBC 2024 No 13 is
provided, which under Part 1, sets out ‘Compulsory and
Prohibited Movements’. The Order is signed 19 April 2024.
Reference is made to ‘map-based schedule’ throughout. However,
no explanatory information is set out in the Case Summary, as to
which, if any, sections relate to this appeal. The only
reference I have found to Minet Road, is at Schedule 1, which
relates to speed limits of 20 mph.
14. There is then a ‘Consolidation Order’ dated 26 April 2024.
There is no information as to how this relates to this appeal.
15. There are then 7 pages of diagram/maps headed ‘Schools
Streets Phase 3’, one of which includes Minet Road, and sets out
the restriction times when only permit holders can enter, which
is also set out on a plain A4 page. There is then a single A4
page headed ‘School Streets Phase 3’, which sets out at Part 1:
Implementation and citation’. This sets out ‘This Order is made
on July 02 2024 and shall come into operation on TBD and may be
cited as ‘Schools Streets Phase 3’. This document is not sealed,
signed or dated. There is no evidence it has come into effect.
16. The final document in a single page document ‘SCHOOL STREETS
SCHEME - EXPERIMENTAL ROAD CLOSURES AND PEDESTRIAN AND CYCLE
ZONE MOUNTEARL GARDENS AND ADARE WALK’, dated 22 March 2024.
This appears to have no relevant to this appeal.
17. Therefore, based on the evidence provided by the EA, I am
unable to satisfy myself there is a valid TMO in place. I
therefore find the Appellant has any case to answer.
18. I further note, for completeness, although the EA state they
have ‘fully considered Miss Muraina’s comments that she is a
resident of the area and due to mitigating circumstances, she
drove through the pedestrian zone signs during the restricted
times’, there is no indication that the representations have
been considered. There is no reference to the urgent medical
situation. I accept there was a medical emergency, and this is
the reason the Appellant entered the zone. The EA has made no
reference to why they have not used their discretion in this
instance; despite the effort the Appellant has taken to explain
and evidence the mitigating circumstances.
19. For the reasons I have set out I find no contravention
occurred and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
20. The appeal is allowed on the basis that there is no case to
answer.
#Post#: 127639--------------------------------------------------
Re: 2 x PCNs for entering a school street in Lambeth, Minet Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 12, 2026, 10:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> I will wait until the deadline to file
>
> Do you have a reason for waiting until, presumably, the 1
Sept?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes becaiuse I know as a fact they have a tendency to issue a
charge certificate before the 28 dys elapse.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page