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#: 129280--------------------------------------------------
       52M Hammersmith and Fulham is PCN Compliant?
   DIR By: JLA
       Date: September 1, 2026, 9:11 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Hi, got this PCN last week, the driver rarely visits that area
       so wasn't aware of restrictions and they honestly didn't see
       signs (no excuse I know), but after reading other posts on the
       forum am I right in thinking that this PCN is not fully
       compliant with regards to the fact that it states 2 different
       time frames for payment ie:
       'A penalty charge of £160 is now payable and must be paid before
       the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this
       notice'
       But then goes on to state
       'If you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations
       before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of
       service of this notice'
       Or is the date of service the same as the date of the notice?
       
       Would appreciate any advice on this. Thanks.
  HTML https://i.ibb.co/rf4kmGhg/20260821-160916.jpg
  HTML https://ibb.co/rf4kmGhg
  HTML https://i.ibb.co/7NSf7p2D/20260821-160922.jpg
  HTML https://ibb.co/7NSf7p2D
  HTML https://i.ibb.co/39zGRt5N/20260821-160935.jpg
  HTML https://ibb.co/39zGRt5N
       #Post#: 129310--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 52M Hammersmith and Fulham is PCN Compliant?
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: September 1, 2026, 1:16 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The two periods is a result of a stupid drafting error in the
       LLA & TfL Act 2003, not because the council are thickos. However
       some councils got it wrong when stating the two periods, and
       some adjudications were won at London Tribunals. So wait a bit
       until "the experts" have looked over the PCN. There have to be
       specific errors in stating the two periods.
       This one example of the law being a complete ass, because if you
       submit reps against the PCN on the 28th day since service,
       you're already over the limit for paying it !
       #Post#: 129347--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 52M Hammersmith and Fulham is PCN Compliant?
   DIR By: JLA
       Date: September 2, 2026, 1:47 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks for response, i only have the 2 timing issue point to
       appeal on, but if that's not a strong enough appeal point then i
       have to pay the £80 today (14 days since date of notice).
       If i don't pay the reduced rate or submit an appeal by today
       will i lose the right to pay the reduced rate when they reject
       my appeal if i submit it after the 14 day period?
       #Post#: 129363--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 52M Hammersmith and Fulham is PCN Compliant?
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: September 2, 2026, 5:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Most councils re-offer the discount when rejecting reps
       submitted within the discount period, and some will also
       re-offer it outside that period but within the 28 days. However
       this is not a legal right, and Havering have decided to not
       re-offer the discount in any circumstances.
       So it's up to you, pay the £80 or submit reps.
       However, if you can find out the exact route the driver took to
       pass the restriction signs we3 can assess the case for adequacy
       of signage. Here is the approach to Broomhouse Lane
       restriction:-
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/gqBaZBAdrgF2zLJHA
       and here is the approach on Daisy Lane: -
  HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/UDan5om5PHN1xi5Y8
       GSV doesn't have any closer views I'm afraid, but the signs seem
       clear enough
       #Post#: 129404--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 52M Hammersmith and Fulham is PCN Compliant?
   DIR By: JLA
       Date: September 2, 2026, 11:42 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Unfortunately the driver can't remember the route they took.
       Think I'll probably just try appeal using timescales, knowing
       they'll reject, but just buy a bit of time!
       What grounds can I appeal under as there isn't one for
       procedural impropriety or other?
       #Post#: 129407--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 52M Hammersmith and Fulham is PCN Compliant?
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: September 2, 2026, 11:49 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The LLA & TfL Act 2003 statutory grounds for PCN cancellation
       does not include Procedural Impropriety; that applies only to
       the Traffic Management Act 2004. The various Acts which allow
       councils to issue PCNs are a complete dog's breakfast, I'm
       afraid.
       #Post#: 129416--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 52M Hammersmith and Fulham is PCN Compliant?
   DIR By: JLA
       Date: September 2, 2026, 12:58 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Does that mean i can't appeal for this reason then so have to
       pay up?
       #Post#: 129447--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 52M Hammersmith and Fulham is PCN Compliant?
   DIR By: fraser.mitchell
       Date: September 2, 2026, 5:42 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: JLA link ---
       >
       > Does that mean i can't appeal for this reason then so have to
       pay up?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Not at all.  Before the TMA 2004 came along, the 1991 Act had no
       "procedural impropriety" grounds.The one to use is: -
       "(e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in
       the circumstances of the case."
       The circumstances being the council have not followed the law
       and the regulations so cannot demand a penalty.
       #Post#: 129454--------------------------------------------------
       Re: 52M Hammersmith and Fulham is PCN Compliant?
   DIR By: JLA
       Date: September 3, 2026, 4:50 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks, appeal submitted on that ground because of different
       timescales using info from other cases on the forum.
       Will update when I get their rejection.
       *****************************************************
       Page 1 of 1