URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 128612--------------------------------------------------
       Waltham Forest 53c – Brookfield Ave / Shernhall Street – Lease
       transfer, 
   DIR By: Chris101
       Date: August 23, 2026, 11:42 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi all,
       I'd appreciate some advice on whether this is worth taking to
       London Tribunals rather than paying the re-offered £80 discount.
       This is a Waltham Forest moving traffic PCN, code 53c, for
       entering the Brookfield Avenue E17 / Shernhall Street E17 School
       Street pedestrian/cycle zone.
       The contravention itself isn't really what I challenged. My
       concern is whether the replacement PCN issued after the lease
       company transferred liability was served within the statutory
       time limit.
       Timeline
       - 05/05/2026 – alleged contravention at 08:42.
       - 12/05/2026 – Leasing Company received the original PCN.
       - 27/05/2026 – Leasing Company submitted a transfer-of-liability
       request.
       - 24/06/2026 – Waltham Forest wrote back saying the information
       supplied was insufficient and requested the hirer's name/address
       and the lease start and end dates.
       - 24/06/2026 – Leasing Company supplied the requested
       information, including the lease dates and signed statement.
       - 22/07/2026 – replacement PCN issued to my wife.
       - 23/07/2026 – replacement PCN received.
       - 23/07/2026 – formal representations submitted challenging the
       timing and specifically asking Waltham Forest to provide the
       date the original PCN was cancelled, Notice of
       Acceptance/cancellation, case chronology and date the
       replacement PCN was posted.
       - 17/08/2026 – Notice of Rejection issued.
       My understanding is that under section 6(2A) of the London Local
       Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (as amended),
       where an earlier PCN is cancelled, a fresh PCN cannot normally
       be served more than 28 days from the date of cancellation of the
       previous PCN.
       The problem is that Waltham Forest has still not disclosed the
       cancellation date.
       In the Notice of Rejection they simply state:
       "The legislation permits the authority to reissue a postal
       PCN/Notice to Owner (NtO) when valid evidence, such as a hire
       agreement or vehicle sale documentation, is received identifying
       the liable party. The statutory time limit starts again from the
       date the notice is reissued. The PCN was therefore reissued
       within the applicable statutory time limits and remains valid."
       They have not told us:
       - when Leasing Companies original PCN was cancelled;
       - when the transfer was actually accepted;
       - provided the Notice of Acceptance/cancellation;
       - provided the requested case audit trail; or
       - explained how they calculated the statutory deadline.
       Much of the remainder of the rejection deals with the School
       Street signs and exemptions, despite my representation being
       primarily about whether the fresh PCN was served in time.
       Leasing Company has confirmed that it cannot see any Notice of
       Acceptance on its records.
       The council has now re-offered the £80 discount for 14 days from
       service of the Notice of Rejection. Otherwise I can appeal to
       London Tribunals and risk the full £160 if unsuccessful.
       I'd be grateful for advice on:
       1. Is my understanding of the 28-day period from cancellation
       under s6(2A) correct?
       2. Is the council's statement that "the statutory time limit
       starts again from the date the notice is reissued" legally
       correct?
       3. Does their failure to disclose the cancellation date /
       properly address that part of my representations give me an
       additional appeal point?
       4. Would you take this to London Tribunals or pay the £80?
       5. If appealing, which ground should I use — "the penalty
       exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case"
       due to service out of time?
       6. Should I register an appeal now with detailed grounds to
       follow, or wait until nearer the discount deadline?
       I will upload the original PCN, representations, Leasing
       Companies correspondence and the full Notice of Rejection.
       Many thanks for any advice.
       #Post#: 128814--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Waltham Forest 53c – Brookfield Ave / Shernhall Street –
       Lease transfer, 
   DIR By: Hippocrates
       Date: August 25, 2026, 9:39 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       They must provide to the Tribunal:
       Hire agreement signed
       Copy of notice of acceptance to the lease company
       And as you say re issue the PCN to the hirer within 28 days.
       There is also a major issue with their website grounds if you
       select reasons. 6 of them are wrong.
       Will PM you later.
       #Post#: 128973--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Waltham Forest 53c – Brookfield Ave / Shernhall Street –
       Lease transfer, 
   DIR By: Chris101
       Date: August 26, 2026, 3:12 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thank you
       #Post#: 128977--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Waltham Forest 53c – Brookfield Ave / Shernhall Street –
       Lease transfer, 
   DIR By: tincombe
       Date: August 26, 2026, 4:15 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       What term is the 'leasing' agreement.
       7)This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of
       which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed
       period of less than six months (whether or not that period is
       capable of extension by agreement between the parties or
       otherwise);
       If your agreement is for six months or more then irrespective of
       what documents are provided and when etc. etc. YOU may not be
       considered to be the owner and YOU don't have any liability
       under road traffic legislation.
       Your contract with the lessor is a different matter.
       From the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report 2021-22
       While liability for a penalty normally falls on the registered
       keeper of the
       contravening vehicle, liability can be transferred in the case
       of vehicles hired for less than six months to the hirers. In the
       case of long leases, the lessees may become liable depending on
       the terms and conditions of the lease.
       Adjudicators have found that the legal difference between
       short-term hire and long leases are not well understood by
       motorists and authorities. Furthermore, for a transfer of
       liability to occur in short-term hires, the hire firm must
       provide documentation of the hire as required by law. These
       requirements are also not well understood with some authorities
       insisting on strict compliance while other would accept a
       transfer without ever seeing the documentation.
       #Post#: 128979--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Waltham Forest 53c – Brookfield Ave / Shernhall Street –
       Lease transfer, 
   DIR By: Chris101
       Date: August 26, 2026, 4:27 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: tincombe link ---
       >
       > What term is the 'leasing' agreement.
       >
       > 7)This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms
       of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed
       period of less than six months (whether or not that period is
       capable of extension by agreement between the parties or
       otherwise);
       >
       > If your agreement is for six months or more then irrespective
       of what documents are provided and when etc. etc. YOU may not be
       considered to be the owner and YOU don't have any liability
       under road traffic legislation.
       >
       > Your contract with the lessor is a different matter.
       >
       > From the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report 2021-22
       >
       > While liability for a penalty normally falls on the registered
       keeper of the
       > contravening vehicle, liability can be transferred in the case
       of vehicles hired for less than six months to the hirers. In the
       case of long leases, the lessees may become liable depending on
       the terms and conditions of the lease.
       > Adjudicators have found that the legal difference between
       short-term hire and long leases are not well understood by
       motorists and authorities. Furthermore, for a transfer of
       liability to occur in short-term hires, the hire firm must
       provide documentation of the hire as required by law. These
       requirements are also not well understood with some authorities
       insisting on strict compliance while other would accept a
       transfer without ever seeing the documentation.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       The lease is for four years: 07/10/2022 to 06/10/2026.
       So it is definitely more than six months. I can post the
       relevant lease agreement/terms with personal details redacted.
       The leasing company is the DVLA registered keeper, but my wife
       has had exclusive use of the vehicle under the long-term lease.
       Waltham Forest's correspondence specifically requested the
       hirer's details and the lease start/end dates and said that once
       supplied they would “transfer liability”.
       I don't currently know whether the leasing company's original
       representations were accepted under the statutory hire-firm
       ground or on the basis that they were not the person
       keeping/owning the vehicle.
       Would the correct next step therefore be to establish exactly
       which statutory ground Waltham Forest accepted when it cancelled
       the leasing company's PCN?
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1