DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 68540--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: bertie21980
Date: April 24, 2025, 7:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I haven't written anything yet as not had the time :-[ but I
will get on to it from tomorrow evening. I will post on here for
others to see
#Post#: 68547--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: April 25, 2025, 2:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There are issues outstanding:
Is the PCN addressed to you by name?
You referred to your 'employer', please explain what form the
proof of delivery would take.
I raise these points because we (too often) see accounts which
start with 'I have received' only to find that vans are
company-owned, that PCNs are addressed to the company, that
'someone in the office' has simply passed it on with an
instruction to get it sorted and that an employee(or sometimes
contractor) will make reps only to find that they're disregarded
because only the person to whom the PCN is addressed may make
reps.
Let's just get the fundamentals clear pl.
If the PCN isnot addressed to
#Post#: 68821--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: bertie21980
Date: April 26, 2025, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> There are issues outstanding:
>
> Is the PCN addressed to you by name?
> You referred to your 'employer', please explain what form the
proof of delivery would take.
>
> I raise these points because we (too often) see accounts which
start with 'I have received' only to find that vans are
company-owned, that PCNs are addressed to the company, that
'someone in the office' has simply passed it on with an
instruction to get it sorted and that an employee(or sometimes
contractor) will make reps only to find that they're disregarded
because only the person to whom the PCN is addressed may make
reps.
>
> Let's just get the fundamentals clear pl.
>
>
>
> If the PCN isnot addressed to
>
--- End Quote ---
Ah I see. The PCN is addressed to me as its my van. The company
I work for is a self employed role. I have appealed in the past
using the notes that my company send to me but I think its the
first time I will be appealing about an offence where I have to
prove that I was allowed to access a particular road.
Anyway, here is the appeal that I have written...
----------------------------------
I am writing to challenge the Penalty Charge Notice: WA92081137
I am a delivery driver for a company called Gophr and I deliver
regularly within the City. These range from street-based retail
outlets to corporate clients with penthouse offices and security
arrangements. On the day in question, I had a delivery to
collect at the Jack and Beyond shop on Battersea High Street,
which were to be delivered to two locations in the Central
London area.
Although the road is restricted to motor vehicles, there is a
clear sign showing that there is an exemption for vehicles for
loading to be able to access that road.
I have attached documents showing details of the delivery
including the recipient name, the address and the time of the
completed delivery. I have also attached a document from my
company providing additional information about my delivery.
Hopefully with that in mind and with the documents attached, you
will see that its necessary to cancel the ticket.
HTML https://ibb.co/LDFxFvnH
HTML https://ibb.co/RkNqcBMP
HTML https://i.ibb.co/jPhnsn1P/battersea-hs-delivery-details-edit.png
HTML https://ibb.co/NdxcbcHd
I have deleted out the customer names, address and phones
numbers from the delivery sheets
#Post#: 68895--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 27, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN vailidity?
#Post#: 68904--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: bertie21980
Date: April 27, 2025, 8:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> The PCN vailidity?
>
--- End Quote ---
Are you saying the PCN is invalid? I can use that in my appeal
as well? It does seem confusing in that it says I should pay the
£130 charge but it will be reduced if paid within 14 days,
suggesting they will refund me back by 50%
#Post#: 68933--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: April 27, 2025, 2:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please use my post above re the PCN and make it your first
point.
I make this collateral challenge re the validity of the PCN. The
period in which you may serve a charge certificate is wrongly
expressed as it is truncated. Please see Schedule I of the 2003
Act which clearly states from the date of service as provided at
para. 5(2)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted
In light of the above, please cancel.
***
A case won:
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eBqcDMk8dp08Xgxs1BP9IzxXz8n5Jv6s/view
#Post#: 68945--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: bertie21980
Date: April 27, 2025, 4:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok then this will be my appeal...
[center]I am writing to challenge the Penalty Charge Notice:
WA92081137
I wish to make this appeal on two points. Firstly, I make this
collateral challenge re. the validity of the PCN. The period in
which you may serve a charge certificate is wrongly expressed as
it is truncated. Please see Schedule I of the 2003 Act which
clearly states from the date of service as provided at paragraph
5(2).
Secondly, although the road is restricted to motor vehicles,
there is a clear sign showing that there is an exemption for
vehicles for loading to be able to access that road. On the day
in question, I had a delivery to collect at the Jack and Beyond
shop on Battersea High Street, which were to be delivered to two
locations in the Central London area.
I have attached documents showing details of the delivery
including the recipient name, the address and the time of the
completed delivery. I have also attached a document from my
company providing additional information about my delivery.
Hopefully, in light of the above information provided, you will
see that its necessary to cancel the ticket.[/center]
#Post#: 68966--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: April 28, 2025, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with this - where there's no contravention or as here
the traffic order has an exemption to the contravention, that
should be the primary ground for representations.
#Post#: 68973--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: April 28, 2025, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> I disagree with this - where there's no contravention or as
here the traffic order has an exemption to the contravention,
that should be the primary ground for representations.
>
--- End Quote ---
+1
#Post#: 73801--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52m - Failing to comply with prohibition on certain types of
vehicles - Battersea High Street SW11
DIR By: John_S
Date: May 29, 2025, 8:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry that I’m a little late with this post, but I’ve just begun
dealing with a similar PCN relating to this location. Having
checked the signs at the location I’m confident that the main
pedestrian zone signs and the advance warning sign(s) do not
comply with the TSRGD. I’m just waiting for a reply to a FOIA
request and I’ll be able to add more detail. This is on top of
the other grounds already mentioned.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page