DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82348--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: July 23, 2025, 10:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jamezz65 link ---
>
> Thanks for the help so far.
> If I make representation for the out of time PCN should I also
state about the fact the other car moved into my space
preventing me from exiting the box?
>
--- End Quote ---
No - if the PCN is out of time it is a nullity.
#Post#: 82355--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 23, 2025, 10:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If for some reason it gets that far, you can still mention the
other point at a future adjudication, even if you didn't raise
it now.
#Post#: 82361--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: Jamezz65
Date: July 23, 2025, 10:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for all your help.
should my representation to Havering be the short paragraph
HIPPOCRATES suggested or does it need more meat on it?
#Post#: 82364--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: MrChips
Date: July 23, 2025, 10:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Less is more :)
The more you add, the higher likelihood Havering will just
respond to the other bits and completely ignore the fact the PCN
is void.
#Post#: 82365--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 23, 2025, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
But is an authority whose systems issued this in the first place
to be relied upon to know the difference between 'issue' and
'service'?
I wouldn't risk it.
Dear Havering
You have served this PCN out of time.[for the following reason:
'...no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after
the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on
which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred.'
(S6 of London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act
2003 refers).] This PCN was served on day 32.
Please cancel it forthwith. Should you not agree to do so and
force me to go to the Tribunal, I shall without any hesitation
be claiming costs.
Would be my suggested change.
#Post#: 82368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: Jamezz65
Date: July 23, 2025, 11:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks
I have compiled this representation from suggestions across this
forum
Is this suitable?
Dear Havering
Ref: PCN HG6210069A VRM EA61 EEB
I am writing to make this formal representation against the said
PCN. I contend that the PCN should be cancelled on the following
grounds:
The Penalty Charge Notice was served on the 32nd day following
the alleged contravention.
- Date of the alleged contravention: 21 June 2025
- Date of issue: Fri, 18 July 2025
- Deemed date of service: Tue, 22 July 2025
- Elapsed period: 32 days.
According to paragraph (6) of Regulation 10 of The Civil
Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions Regulations 2022,
an enforcement authority must serve a PCN within "28-day period"
beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention
occurred.
Serving the PCN on the 32nd day falls outside this statutory
timeframe, rendering the PCN invalid.
Please cancel it forthwith. Should you not agree to do so and
force me to go to the Tribunal, I shall without any hesitation
be claiming costs.
#Post#: 82403--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 23, 2025, 2:50 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jamezz65 link ---
>
> Thanks
>
> I have compiled this representation from suggestions across
this forum
>
> Is this suitable?
>
>
>
> Dear Havering
>
> Ref: PCN HG6210069A VRM EA61 EEB
>
> I am writing to make this formal representation against the
said PCN. I contend that the PCN should be cancelled on the
following grounds:
>
> The Penalty Charge Notice was served on the 32nd day following
the alleged contravention.
>
> - Date of the alleged contravention: 21 June 2025
> - Date of issue: Fri, 18 July 2025
> - Deemed date of service: Tue, 22 July 2025
> - Elapsed period: 32 days.
>
> According to paragraph (6) of Regulation 10 of The Civil
Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions Regulations 2022,
> an enforcement authority must serve a PCN within "28-day
period" beginning with the date on which the alleged
contravention occurred.
> Serving the PCN on the 32nd day falls outside this statutory
timeframe, rendering the PCN invalid.
>
>
> Please cancel it forthwith. Should you not agree to do so and
force me to go to the Tribunal, I shall without any hesitation
be claiming costs.
>
--- End Quote ---
NO
Let them do the work as you are doing their job for them. Please
just send my draft. They are quite challenged at Havering.
Recently they are attending hearings just to learn - from guess
whom? Us.
From where did you get the part I crossed out? Have you not read
my post above with the correct legislation?
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
#Post#: 82454--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: ynx
Date: July 24, 2025, 3:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe that my thread
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/havering-code-47j-stopped-on-bus-stop-station-rd-balgores-rd-rm2-notice-served-l/msg82257/#msg82257<br
/>may have been the inspiration behind Jamezz65's draft. Looks
like Havering is really struggling to serve the PCNs in time.
However, my case is a different contravention and has a couple
of other defects, so please heed the advice of the more
experienced members. I'm still relatively new to this.
I'd be curious to know if I should also follow Hippocrates'
advice and remove the legalese from my representation as well,
or if this case is different. I don't want to hijack your
thread, though, so I'll ask the same question on my thread
instead. Good luck!
#Post#: 82455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: Jamezz65
Date: July 24, 2025, 3:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
morning Hippocrates. sorry if i annoyed you with my previous
post, this was not my intention.
This is the first time of dealing with anything like this and
finding it quite stressful.
I appreciate you time and knowledge on this subject and will be
sending my representation as per your draft.
Do I have to tick any boxes indicating what grounds I am
appealing on?
once again many thanks for your assistance with this matter.
#Post#: 82456--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN 31J Main road/Upper Brentwood road rm2
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 24, 2025, 3:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jamezz65 link ---
>
> morning Hippocrates. sorry if i annoyed you with my previous
post, this was not my intention.
>
> This is the first time of dealing with anything like this and
finding it quite stressful.
>
> I appreciate you time and knowledge on this subject and will
be sending my representation as per your draft.
>
> Do I have to tick any boxes indicating what grounds I am
appealing on?
>
> once again many thanks for your assistance with this matter.
>
--- End Quote ---
No worries and I am sorry if I have offended you too. I
appreciate your position - we all started from somewhere. I knew
nothing 17 years ago and it took me weeks to get my head around
just one legislation.
No contravention of an order or whatever it says on their
website. Could you hold fire please until this evening as I am
out all day and will check their website.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page