DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 128032--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth PCN - Prohibition of certain types of vehicleCode 52
- Lingham Street Conflicting Signage
DIR By: pred02
Date: August 17, 2026, 9:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
I’ve now received another PCN for the same alleged
contravention, so there is quite a lot at stake if I challenge
both.
It would be helpful to understand whether it’s worth making an
informal challenge at this stage. In particular:
If I make an informal challenge, do I retain the option to pay
the reduced penalty if the challenge is rejected?
Should I reference both PCNs in each challenge, given that they
relate to the same location and circumstances?
Is there any argument that two PCNs for the same contravention
within a relatively short period should be treated as a
continuous contravention, rather than two separate penalties?
Thanks for any advice.
HTML https://share.icloud.com/photos/0beebAt0v09bE3dN6Sgcj7FSg
HTML https://share.icloud.com/photos/089U_PKVQ2nCbcau9X05qDNOg
HTML https://share.icloud.com/photos/0c3LNWl70v5tLrIRfvAOeO2YA
HTML https://share.icloud.com/photos/0e8OlH72yXJnqZlu1WwvqckhA
#Post#: 128050--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth PCN - Prohibition of certain types of vehicleCode 52
- Lingham Street Conflicting Signage
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 17, 2026, 11:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There is no informal challenge and they usually reoffer the
discount.
#Post#: 128056--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth PCN - Prohibition of certain types of vehicleCode 52
- Lingham Street Conflicting Signage
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 17, 2026, 11:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pl answer the question: does the video you took show the
entrance to the 24/7 area and the council's video the exit?
#Post#: 128133--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth PCN - Prohibition of certain types of vehicleCode 52
- Lingham Street Conflicting Signage
DIR By: pred02
Date: August 18, 2026, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> Pl answer the question: does the video you took show the
entrance to the 24/7 area and the council's video the exit?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes the video I took does show the enterance to the 24/7 area.
Here is the picture. There is no whjere to turn through as
mentioned before.
HTML https://share.icloud.com/photos/0c0yiLB-Pds-esEWdRCfXqZgg
Do I have a case?
Thanks
#Post#: 128167--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth PCN - Prohibition of certain types of vehicleCode 52
- Lingham Street Conflicting Signage
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 18, 2026, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO yes.
You start at the turn into Lingham which objectively reveals a
part-time Pedestrian and Cycle zone. You entered when the
prohibition was not in effect.
The next sign is your video which shows on the same road a new
and 24/7 prohibition i.e. Motor Vehicles prohibited.
You passed these signs and were caught by the council's camera
exiting.
IMO, the signage does not meet the legal test i.e. to introduce
without warning on the same length of street such an onerous
prohibition which leaves motorists no alternative than to stop
in the road(there aren't any alternative)and perform U-turns.
Contravention did not occur would be my grounds.
#Post#: 128195--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth PCN - Prohibition of certain types of vehicleCode 52
- Lingham Street Conflicting Signage
DIR By: pred02
Date: August 19, 2026, 4:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks - I’ve incorporated the feedback into the below note,
would appreciate any feedback before submitting today.
PCN references: LJ38789898 and LJ38738803139
Ground of representation: The alleged contravention did not
occur
I was driving north-west along Lingham Street towards Clapham
Road, having turned right into Lingham Street from Stockwell
Green.
At the entrance to Lingham Street, the prescribed Pedestrian and
Cycle Zone signs state that the restriction operates
Monday–Friday, 08:15–09:15 and 14:45–15:45. I entered outside
those restricted hours. The signage therefore objectively
indicated to me that the prohibition was not then in force and
that I could lawfully proceed along Lingham Street.
However, after I had already committed to Lingham Street and
travelled approximately 100 metres along it, I encountered a new
and materially different restriction: a 24-hour Motor Vehicles
Prohibited restriction.
There was no advance warning at the entrance to Lingham Street
that, despite the part-time restriction displayed there,
motorists would encounter a separate 24/7 prohibition further
along the same road. Nor was there an alternative road or exit
available before reaching the second restriction. By the time
those signs became apparent, the only apparent means of avoiding
passing them would have been to stop in the carriageway and
perform a U-turn.
I submit that this arrangement does not adequately convey the
restriction to a motorist. A driver is expressly presented with
a part-time prohibition on entering Lingham Street and, having
lawfully entered outside its hours of operation, is subsequently
confronted without adequate advance warning by a continuous 24/7
prohibition on the same road.
The Council’s camera subsequently records my vehicle exiting the
restricted section. However, the issue is not simply whether my
vehicle passed the later signs, but whether the restriction was
adequately and clearly conveyed to a motorist before the
motorist had committed to the route.
In these circumstances, I submit that the signage was
insufficient to adequately convey the restriction and therefore
that the alleged contravention did not occur.
I have received two PCNs — LJ38789898 and LJ38738803139 — for
the same alleged contravention at this location on separate
occasions. Both journeys occurred in materially identical
circumstances and arose from precisely the same signage
arrangement.
I therefore ask the Council to consider these representations in
respect of both PCNs. If the Council accepts that the
restriction was not adequately conveyed in respect of one
journey, the same issue necessarily applies to the other.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that both PCNs,
LJ38789898 and LJ38738803139, be cancelled.
#Post#: 130238--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth PCN - Prohibition of certain types of vehicleCode 52
- Lingham Street Conflicting Signage
DIR By: pred02
Date: September 12, 2026, 5:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks, I've now had both my initial appeals rejected with the
below details. Do I have a strong case to make an appeal and
risk double jeopardy against two PCN for the same violation as
above?
HTML https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/022JLGUrOcWL189EGUBjdO28A#Our_Response_to_you
HTML https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/046jERRnKZFmvDSW-H8C9akHQ#Our_Response_to_you_(1)
Is there anything that I should change with my formal appeal
letter?
Thanks!
#Post#: 130242--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth PCN - Prohibition of certain types of vehicleCode 52
- Lingham Street Conflicting Signage
DIR By: tincombe
Date: September 12, 2026, 6:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pl stop transcribing, your wrists must be shot with all that
typing.
Post the docs themselves. If uncertain how, read the top of the
Forum main page: READ THIS FIRST...
You have made formal reps, so the next stage is to appeal or
pay.
I can't work out what they've said in their response because the
format makes this very difficult, hence the need to post actual
docs with whose format we're familiar.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page