DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 78790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Possible Procedural Impropriety on NoR - can someone confirm
for me?
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: June 29, 2025, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=102]GRYOUT[/member] Why all this cloak and dagger stuff?
#Post#: 78950--------------------------------------------------
Re: Possible Procedural Impropriety on NoR - can someone confirm
for me?
DIR By: Neil B
Date: June 30, 2025, 12:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: GRYOUT link ---
>
> Haven't managed to scan it as of yet. I'll ensure to do it
this evening or by tomorrow at the latest.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
You can just take pics on a mobile phone?
We don't even know if you've registered an appeal yet?
#Post#: 82832--------------------------------------------------
Re: Possible Procedural Impropriety on NoR - can someone confirm
for me?
DIR By: GRYOUT
Date: July 26, 2025, 10:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Neil B link ---
>
> [quote author=GRYOUT link=topic=6984.msg78469#msg78469
date=1751025694]
> Haven't managed to scan it as of yet. I'll ensure to do it
this evening or by tomorrow at the latest.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
You can just take pics on a mobile phone?
We don't even know if you've registered an appeal yet?
[/quote]
Made the appeal to London Tribunal. Highlighted incorrect charge
on the NoR. Council cancelled the PCN upon reviewing evidence in
the appeal portal. I didn't upload the paperwork here as it
really looked like a slam dunk and didn't want to bog you guys
down with what seemed like an easy win.
#Post#: 82852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Possible Procedural Impropriety on NoR - can someone confirm
for me?
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 26, 2025, 12:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well done, and thanks for letting us know the outcome
#Post#: 82870--------------------------------------------------
Re: Possible Procedural Impropriety on NoR - can someone confirm
for me?
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 26, 2025, 3:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well this cloak and dagger approach has hardly helped others,
has it?
#Post#: 83113--------------------------------------------------
Re: Possible Procedural Impropriety on NoR - can someone confirm
for me?
DIR By: GRYOUT
Date: July 28, 2025, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Well this cloak and dagger approach has hardly helped others,
has it?
>
--- End Quote ---
Couple things... First off - Given firms (public and private)
are upskilling and leveraging data, I do genuinely question how
long it'll be until councils are scouring forums such as these
to try and get ahead of the community. If I were working on the
other side, I'd be checking these spaces regularly and running a
few AI Agents through new posts to train the systems to be
smarter and tight up any loopholes, which is partially why I
held off publishing the official docs. I'd really like to see a
portal that's somewhat locked down or restricted in access that
people can upload their docs to without it being so easily
available on the clearnet.
Secondly, Whilst drip-feeding info to you isnt the most helpful,
pls know I'm hugely grateful for all of your help.
Have written up an events-based timeline below. Hope this helps
others. Anything else of interest just let me know.
The main points listed below:
Contravention: 53C - Driving down a School Street during
restricted hours. Council: Sutton
1) PCN: Received PCN 7 days after contravention.
2) PCN Appeal: Made representation to council 3 days later.
Requested PCN be cancelled as contravention was a first-time
mistake.
3) NoR: Received NoR 1 day later. Noticed NoR incorrectly
referenced pre-April full charge/uplift amount (£130 -> £195)
instead of £160 -> £240 when describing effects of no
action/response to NoR. Researched using GPT-o3, Claude,
Perplexity. Created appeal to be filed later to Lon.Trib
4) NoR Appeal: Waited 24 days to respond to the NoR. My
understanding of the rule is council must issue one valid NoR
within 56 days. If I say the NoR is invalid, and the council
agree, they could then technically argue a valid NoR has yet to
be issued, and may be within their rights to issue another NoR
(this time without a mistake in it). There's nothing in the 2003
Act that says only one NoR may be issued. The wording is that
only one valid NoR may be issued. Key word here valid. I'm aware
this is contrary to some views in this thread. I couldn't
confirm for sure on the stance here so decided to at least draw
out the process for 24 days which would have given them a little
less of the 56 days to respond, if indeed that was an option
available to them. I think the 2004 Act tightens things up a
bit.
Filed to London Tribunals the following.
--- Quote ---
> The NoR must warn that a charge certificate will be served
unless you pay or appeal within 28 days, and it must describe
the effect of that certificate - i.e. the penalty increases by
50% of the full charge.
>
> 1. Wrong financial uplift: Schedule 1, (5)(1) states that a
charge certificate increases the penalty by 50% (one-half).
Sutton’s full penalty for this contravention is £160, so the
Charge Certificate amount specified in the NoR should be £240.
The NoR instead warns of an increase from £130 to £195. It
therefore mis-states a mandatory statutory consequence.
>
> 2. Wrong timing statement: Schedule 1, (3)(a) requires the NoR
to say that a charge certificate may be served unless, before
the end of 28 days, I pay or appeal. The NoR received says the a
Charge Certificate may be sent before 28 days, implying it can
act during that 28-day window. This reverses the statutory
sequence and is potentially misleading.
>
> Because the NoR fails on both the amount and the timing
required by Schedule 1, it is invalid. That is a clear
procedural impropriety and the penalty charge exceeds the amount
permitted by law. I ask the adjudicator to allow the appeal and
cancel the PCN.
--- End Quote ---
5) DnC: Council filed a Do not contest 1 week later.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page