DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 81715--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 19, 2025, 12:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
We're not there yet. I note the point but the OP would be
entitled to put this point at the informal stage and while as
regards the PCN they may well be on separate lines adjudication
would be against the RK, an NOR and a NTO ..and where and how
this info would be presented in the latter is an unknown at
present.
OP, IMO it would help to know whether you are the registered
keeper before thinking how, if at all, to present this issue.
#Post#: 81746--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: Al
Date: July 20, 2025, 5:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I am the registered keeper.
That's a good spot on the location. Although on Derwent Road not
at the specified number. However, I assume the council would
reject the appeal. This leaves it to the adjudicators
discretion. I will do some research later on the tribunal. A
slight issue is Im off on holiday soon so won't be able to
recieve postal communications.
#Post#: 81753--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 20, 2025, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: mrmustard link ---
>
> If you read the two location lines separately they are true so
an adjudicator will probably not cancel for that especially as
the vehicle is on doible yellows.
>
--- End Quote ---
whilst you are correct in reading both lines but I suggest an
address should be read as a whole. there in "Derwent road OS No
85" which is not the correct location
it could also be argued the OP was "Derwent road OS No 3" as
there is also a door numbered "3"
#Post#: 81765--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 20, 2025, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, this is the informal stage only.
The process:
If informal reps are rejected then the authority may serve a
Notice to Owner on the registered keeper, in this case you;
The RK may make formal representations and only if these are
rejected in a Notice of Rejection would the option of
adjudication come in. Many authorities re-offer the discount
even with unsuccessful reps.
#Post#: 81836--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: Al
Date: July 20, 2025, 5:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With the help of my AI friend how is this for an appeal?
If possible, would it be worth adding image evidence such as the
traffic order map highlighting the actual 85 Derwent Road
I am writing to appeal against the issuance of PCN EF11590749,
issued on 17/07/25, for an alleged contravention on Derwent Road
N13 os 85.
Upon reviewing the notice and the location details provided, I
must raise concern regarding the accuracy of the location as
stated in the PCN. The alleged contravention is reported to have
occurred “outside 85 Derwent Road.” However, house number 85 is
not situated on Derwent Road, but on Fox Lane, which intersects
with Derwent Road. The house referenced (number 85) is
positioned on the corner and has its official address on Fox
Lane, not Derwent Road.
Furthermore, number 85 Derwent Road is located further down the
street and was not in proximity to the location where the
alleged contravention took place. This discrepancy in the
recorded location raises doubt about the correctness of the PCN,
as the stated location does not match where the vehicle was
parked.
As such, I respectfully request that this PCN be reviewed and
cancelled on the grounds of incorrect or misleading location
information, which affects the validity of the charge and fails
to clearly identify the place of the alleged contravention.
#Post#: 81852--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 21, 2025, 1:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
(Please note: GSV accepted my edit and searching on '85 Derwent
Road, London' now goes to the correct location.)
-----------------------
--- Quote ---
> With the help of my AI friend how is this for an appeal?
> If possible, would it be worth adding image evidence such as
the traffic order map highlighting the actual 85 Derwent Road
--- End Quote ---
Not my style - for the initial challenge I'd go for something
much simpler, perhaps along the lines of:
Dear Enfield,
re PCN EF11590749 issued 17th July 2025.
This PCN alleges the vehicle was parked o/s 85 Derwent Road. As
the your own photos clearly show it was not parked outside or
near 85 Derwent Road.
You will be aware that a PCN must show the correct location. As
it does not, I look forward to receiving your early
cancellation.
Yours etc.
See what others say, but Enfield's expected rejection might be
helpful.
I comment below on AI's draft, but generally it spoonfeeds the
Council info, rather than making them work. (By the way at this
stage it's a challenge, rather than an appeal.)
--- Quote from: Al link ---
>
>
> I am writing to appeal against the issuance of challenge PCN
EF11590749, issued on 17/07/25, for an alleged contravention on
Derwent Road N13 os 85.
>
> Upon reviewing the notice and the location details provided, I
must raise concern regarding the accuracy of the location as
stated in the PCN. The alleged contravention is reported to have
occurred “outside 85 Derwent Road.” However, searching Google
Maps for '85 Derwent Road, London' house number 85 is not
situated on Derwent Road, but on Fox Lane, which intersects with
Derwent Road. The house referenced (number 85) is positioned on
the corner and has its official address on Fox Lane, not Derwent
Road. Furthermore, number reveals 85 Derwent Road is located
further down the street and was not in proximity to the location
nowhere near where your own photos show the car to be.the
alleged contravention took place. This discrepancy in the
recorded location raises doubt about the correctness of the PCN,
as the stated location does not match where the vehicle was
parked.
>
> As such, I respectfully request that this PCN be reviewed and
cancelled on the grounds of incorrect or misleading location
information, which affects the validity of the charge and fails
to clearly identify the place of the alleged contravention.
>
--- End Quote ---
Throw the ball into their court and see what they come back
with.Also see what others here say. I see that the Council
photos helpfully do not show the white house at 85 Fox Lane.
#Post#: 81857--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: July 21, 2025, 1:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
AI is not an adequate substitute for the real intelligence of a
human. Why were you stopped there anyway?
All you need is:
I was not waiting at the location alleged on the pcn and
accordingly the vehicle was not in contravention. Please cancel
the PCN.
#Post#: 81862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 21, 2025, 2:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With respect Mr M, because unless the specifics and effect of
'o/s 85' are included then the council would be free to simply
interpret 'at the location' as being on the yellow lines in the
photo in Derwent Street. Which the car was.
We need them to respond to 'o/s 85' and IMO the issue and effect
of 'o/s 85' must be included.
#Post#: 81863--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: July 21, 2025, 2:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ok, change location to 85 derwent rd.
#Post#: 81870--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield PCN 01: Double yellow line former junction is now a
dead end from LTN
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 21, 2025, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with HCA
let them assert location was O/S 85 Derwent.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page