DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 74173--------------------------------------------------
PCN, Enfield, failure to comply with prohibition of Motor
Vehicle, Weir Hall
DIR By: Abi90
Date: June 1, 2025, 12:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Its me again. This time, my husband was driving (he is also
insured on our lease car).
The pcn states he entered the road at 09.10am where the
prohibition ends at 9.15am. We have not seen the sign showing
this do not remember it and the images they provide does not
show the sign. I had to go online and find the road name to try
and get details of the restricted access, it's a school road.
There is video footage but it only shows my husband turning into
the road at 9.10:52 seconds. No signage in the video either but
it's onward facing as you come into the road and not from our
perspective.
I intended to wait near 28 days and file an appeal to say I am
not the driver but Enfield council have removed this ground for
appeal! Can they do that?
How can I proceed?
Many thanks for your help.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 74964--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN, Enfield, failure to comply with prohibition of Motor
Vehicle, Weir Hall
DIR By: Abi90
Date: June 5, 2025, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Has anyone dealt with Enfield council on this?
If so, can you offer any advice at all?
It would be much appreciated.
Many thanks
#Post#: 75034--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN, Enfield, failure to comply with prohibition of Motor
Vehicle, Weir Hall
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 5, 2025, 5:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, so their video, (the sole evidence BTW), shows your car
turning into the restricted street. The signs passed are not
shown, so you can state this in any reps, and indeed in an
appeal at London Tribunals, but it is not necessarily a winning
argument. This is because the civil test of evidence is "the
balance of probabilities". Your car turned left into the
street, so the restriction signs would not be fully visible
until the turn is started. This means, in order to fulfill their
duty under LATOR 2016, the council should place an advance
warning sign before the turn. And indeed they have placed such a
sign (GSV September 2024): -
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/viRtk2XRJYdqyJih9
Here is Reg 18 of LATOR 2016
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
I have to say, (sorry to say it), but this is a prominent
sign,and I would think difficult to miss when driving. Your
narrative indicates a possible timing issue, (entered street
0910, restriction ended 0915, but this is not really a candidate
for a de minimis appeal. I say 'appeal', because the only place
where you'll get an unbiased opinion is London Tribunals; the
council will always reject whatever you say, because they keep
the money if you pay-up. The big hurdle with London Tribunals is
that the full PCN penalty is in play there. This is why most
people just fold and cough-up, most without even submitting any
representations at all.
Despite the above, there may also be a 'technical' appeal
argument not related to the contravention in any way. Such
appeal arguments are based on council mismanagement of the
enforcement process, and have won many appeals at London
Tribunals. SO wait a bit to see what may be suggested, but don't
miss the deadline on the PCN to pay or submit representations.
#Post#: 81073--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN, Enfield, failure to comply with prohibition of Motor
Vehicle, Weir Hall
DIR By: Abi90
Date: July 15, 2025, 7:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So we made an appeal on the website stating I was not the
driver. They then sent a letter asking for evidence that there
is another hirer/leasee of the vehicle and we should respond
within 8 days of RECIEVING the letter. I have spoken to my
leasing company and can't get hubby's name on the contract
although he is on the insurance and his name is on the cuurrent
certificate of insurance (recently updated on their system
automatically from 30th June), we have no previous certificates
confirming (never needed to download them) his additional to the
insurance although he has been on the insurance since the start
of the contract in 2023.
Please see copy of correspondence attached.
Any further advice?
P.s. the back of the attachment has no other information. Just
finishes the signature with ' HEAD OF PARKING SERVICES'
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 81131--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN, Enfield, failure to comply with prohibition of Motor
Vehicle, Weir Hall
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 15, 2025, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Who was driving is irrelevant in law, it is the registered
keeper who has full legal responsibility for a PCN issued for
the vehicle. Hire companies can submit representations that they
are a hire company and must name the person and address hiring
the vehicle on the relevant date. A new PCN, or Notice to Owner,
can then be sent.
#Post#: 81146--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN, Enfield, failure to comply with prohibition of Motor
Vehicle, Weir Hall
DIR By: Abi90
Date: July 15, 2025, 12:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The leasing company has informed them I am the hirer, why are
they asking me to sign something admitting liability?
#Post#: 81151--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN, Enfield, failure to comply with prohibition of Motor
Vehicle, Weir Hall
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 15, 2025, 1:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Back to the PCN pl.
Date of contravention: 25 Feb. 2025
Date PCN issued(presumably to the OP, but who knows?): 6 May.
Prima facie the PCN is out of time and void.
OP, pl FORGET all about the contravention and who was driving,
IMO they are secondary to procedural priorities.
Who is the addressee in the posted PCN? We don't need names,
let's use code:
A = the registered keeper;
B = the lease company.
C = the person who leased the vehicle;
D = you, the OP.
As you will see from the legislation(it's referred to at the top
of the PCN):
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/6/enacted
This is procedural.
#Post#: 124773--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN, Enfield, failure to comply with prohibition of Motor
Vehicle, Weir Hall
DIR By: Abi90
Date: July 15, 2026, 7:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I completely missed this,
My apologies.
The hiring company first notified me via email on 23rd April
2025 that they had received the PCN. They advised me to await a
letter addressed to me if I wanted to challenge it. This letter
is dated 06/05/2025.
So you are saying the PCN should be cancelled as it has expired?
We have been going back and forth with them because they never
property replied to our appeal and sent a charge certificate and
then registered with TEC. We had a baby around he time and hubby
was dealing with it but he sent the PE2/3 ion his name rather
than mine so it was rejected and now they have sent the debt to
debt collectors. We are looking to submit another PE2/3 but in
my name this time.
ANything else you think we can do at this time?
MAny thanks in advance
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1