DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 70568--------------------------------------------------
52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: Sherin
Date: May 8, 2025, 10:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello everyone. I was in Romford and receive this PCN through
the post. I don’t believe I passed a No Entry. I am a disabled
blue badge user. I was travelling in my motability vehicle. The
sign stated “no entry (access only)”. So I went in as I needed
closer access. After I followed the road, it split into two, one
with no entry and the other that allowed entry with no
restrictions. So I’m confused as to why I received this PCN. The
video shows no actual violation also.
Do I have a case?
HTML https://share.icloud.com/photos/04d_VmQnXVZsJBmKIrWxra3BQ
#Post#: 70571--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 8, 2025, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For meaningful advice please to have a read of
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and post up here all sides of the PCN (only redact name &
address - leave all else in),
the video and any Council photos,
and a GSV link to the location.
#Post#: 70575--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: Sherin
Date: May 8, 2025, 12:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[float=right max=45%][/float]
Sorry forgot to add the link for images. Please see OP now
#Post#: 70723--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: Sherin
Date: May 9, 2025, 12:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Could anyone provide some advice please?
#Post#: 70733--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 9, 2025, 1:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the location on GSV, but GSV latest is April 2021, so
clearly the restriction wasn't there then. A look at their video
shows no signs passed at all. I suggest this is a major failure
of evidence, and the OP should submit reps on that basis.
Even better would be photos taken of the site locally, since GSV
is too out-of-date.
#Post#: 70748--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 9, 2025, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Choose the last ground re traffic order (which belongs to an
entirely different legislation) and let's see what they say to
that! I am serious. Their website is even worse still.
#Post#: 70833--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 10, 2025, 3:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=1]cp8759[/member] How fast can we obtain the TMO for
this? Strategic question.
#Post#: 70889--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 11, 2025, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=5376]Sherin[/member] I hope you haven't submitted
anything yet!
I've asked for the traffic order but it might not come back
until 11 June, however I don't think it matters too much. See
these cases:
Roger Marlow v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
(2170021610, 23 February 2017)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lEGiMYisrwPJkHb8oz-Qdq2CByNSeeSu/view
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v London Borough of Brent
(223050929A, 13 January 2024)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L3OEwynmO8a3iWg8Qs5pPSE8BlA_3Nl-/view
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v London Borough of Havering
(223050945A, 13 January 2024)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MEAhzT8Df7MWJhCskE7Fnl5KnqII0DQz/view
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Greenwich
(2240260573, 15 July 2024)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aw9Rf6MYyNsJHzsT3701sFaY2DcO_oFz/view
Those decisions explain that the allegation of "Failing to
comply with a prohibition on certain types vehicle" is
inadequate because it doesn't tell you what type of vehicle is
prohibited, so you don't know what the accusation actually is.
If there are photos of the signs on the PCN that remedies the
problem, but in this case there are no photos of any signs on
the PCN, so this looks like quite a strong ground to challenge
the penalty.
Here's a simple representation:
[indent]
Dear London Borough of Havering,
I challenge liability because the penalty charge notice does not
specify what type of vehicle is prohibited, it therefore does
not provide the grounds on which the council believes a penalty
is payable. Because the penalty charge notice does not comply
with the requirements of section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, no penalty may be
demanded.
Yours faithfully,
[/indent]
Once submitted, take timed / dated screenshots of the
confirmation page.
#Post#: 70896--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: Sherin
Date: May 11, 2025, 7:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you all. I have just submitted the challenge using the
simple template provided by @cp8759. Thanks
#Post#: 83463--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M Havering South Street RM1 PCN
DIR By: Sherin
Date: July 30, 2025, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE:
Just received a notice of rejection today dated 27/07/2025. I
submitted reps on 11/05/25. This means they responded more than
56 days after! I’m sure that’s an automatic cancellation?
NoJ below:
HTML https://share.icloud.com/photos/0da7bvILlwOw4bfH0p9X2REcw
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page