DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 52518--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition –
Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
DIR By: AFMAC
Date: January 8, 2025, 4:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is the other way round. The sign that you link to clearly
allowed me to enter as a permit holder.
It was subsequently replaced with this one:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN2KUVH5MTaA2ghfFKLb0U-F4XA_dJ4/view?usp=sharing
Streetview does not yet show this sign.
The change of wording is the problem.
#Post#: 52542--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition –
Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 8, 2025, 6:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: AFMAC link ---
>
>
> It is the other way round. The sign that you link to clearly
allowed me to enter as a permit holder.
>
> It was subsequently replaced with this one:
>
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tHN2KUVH5MTaA2ghfFKLb0U-F4XA_dJ4/view?usp=sharing
>
> Streetview does not yet show this sign.
>
> The change of wording is the problem.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yeah, I get it now, sorry ! So your argument is that with the
new sign, you took it that 'authorised vehicles' meant the same
as 'permit holders' on the old sign. Not an unreasonable
assumption. Are you taking them to London Tribunals ?
#Post#: 52544--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition –
Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
DIR By: AFMAC
Date: January 8, 2025, 7:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
I am trying to work out whether it is worth doing that, or
whether I should just pay the discounted £65 while I still can.
Hippocrates kindly offered to represent me at the Tribunals on
my previous PCN, which was then cancelled, but he has not
commented on this one.
#Post#: 52720--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition –
Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
DIR By: AFMAC
Date: January 9, 2025, 4:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I have taken the easy way out, and have paid.
#Post#: 52835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Lambeth code 52 – Failing to comply with a prohibition –
Stockwell Terrace, SW9 0QD
DIR By: AFMAC
Date: January 10, 2025, 8:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When I paid the PCN online, I was astonished to have to pay £130
and not £65, with no option. I did so to ensure that it was
paid.
The reject letter said
“You can pay the discount charge of £65.00. You have 14 days
from the date of this letter being served to do this and it will
close the case.”
Assuming that the letter was posted on its date of 24 December
2024, I believe that the deemed date of service is on the second
business day after that. 25 and 26 December were not business
days, so deemed service took place on 28 December. 14 days
after that is 11 January 2025.
It seems clear that the Lambeth system is incorrect so that I
have overpaid.
Am I right in this, and am I best to complain by telephone or by
email or by post?
Thanks.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page