DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 82880--------------------------------------------------
Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: July 26, 2025, 5:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone, My partner was driving down openview road, how she
has done so many times in the past, but she hadn't noticed that
they had started a school street time until she got this PCN.
Lesson learned.
Is there anything on this PCN that I could appeal on, I recieved
it on Wednesday in the post so hasn't given me much time to
appeal, I can't believe that fines are £160 without the
discount, it's crazy.
Kind regard
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 82886--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 26, 2025, 7:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN penalties are about double the rest of the UK, because the
Mayor of London can set them, not the government, so they set
them as high as they think they can get away with.
I had a look on GSV, but latest for this street is 2022, so I
can't see the signs. However, the council photos are very clear
and show you passing two "Flying Motorbike" signs that mean No
Entry for motor vehicles. The sign also has a plate giving the
restriction times of 08.30-09.15 am and 2.45-3.45 pm. PCN
contravention time is 15.05, well into the afternoon
restriction. It is a School Street restriction and there is a
yellow panel at the top of the signs announcing this. As GSV
isn't up-to-date, we can't check to see if there are any advance
warning signs.If you could look and tell us if there are any and
take photos it would help for fuller advice.
There may also be a 'technical' appeal argument unrelated to the
contravention, based on Wandsworth mismanagement of the
enforcement process, so wait and see if anything is suggested by
someone more knowledgeable than me. However don't miss the
deadline for paying or submitting reps, or it's game over.
#Post#: 82895--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: July 27, 2025, 3:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your reply Incandescent.
I will take a drive down that road later on today and get some
pictures.
Kind regards
#Post#: 82901--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 27, 2025, 4:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
28 day period (above) is wrong. C.C. can be served 28 days from
date of service. Back later.
#Post#: 83213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: July 28, 2025, 4:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi everyone.
I went to the location today and took a few pictures of the
signage on the approach to openview which is on Burntwood lane.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/CSp9FdVsK77eUoxb6?g_st=ac
This is the signage on approach to openview. It is very
restricted due to the overgrown tree. Which you can already see
on google street view, the tree is even more overgrown now. I
have taken a few pictures from different angles on foot. There
is no signage to signal a school street up ahead, instead it is
"no through road" at certain times sign, not sure if this makes
any difference. On openview itself, there is just the standard
school no entry times sign. But nothing before these signs.
Kind regards
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rjhptm
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rjnKmd
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rjmApA
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rjnKmi
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rjmArp
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rjnQcS
HTML https://flic.kr/p/2rjoicV
#Post#: 83222--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 28, 2025, 4:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
OK, the sign is a bit of disaster, with the tree in the way, but
it is also rather misleading because not all of Openview is
restricted. Only when one gets to Lydiard road that the rest of
OPenview is restricted.
However, even if the sign is not seen or noticed, one can turn
into Openview, and after a short distance at 20 mph, one
approaches the signs from head-on. So it would be very
difficult explaining to an adjudicator that you missed seeing
the two prominent "Flying Motorbike" signs when driving at
20mph.
I think Hippocrates has the strongest appeal argument, which is
a 'technical' one, as it has no relation to the actual
contravention, but argues that Wandsworth have mismanaged the
enforcement process.
#Post#: 83224--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 28, 2025, 4:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Case reference 2240512370
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240512370
Appellant Franklin Durand-Vibert
Authority London Borough of Wandsworth
VRM WF14 TWA
PCN Details
PCN WA91071794
Contravention date 19 Sep 2024
Contravention time 13:24:00
Contravention location Clapham Common North Side JCT. Stormont
Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Performing a prohibited turn
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
I heard these is Appeals by telephone speaking to Mr
Murray-Smith representing the Appellant and Mr Inge, an officer
of the Council. Having done so I reserved my decision.
The grounds of appeal are as set out in Mr Murray--Smith’s
detailed skeleton argument and the Tribunal decisions there
cited. These are, in bare summary, that the PCN is defective in
that it incorrectly states that a Charge Certificate may ne
issued after the expiry of 28 days from the date of the notice;
whereas the Regulations require 28 days from the date of service
of the notice. His second ground is that there is no evidence
that the required authority to enforce has been given by TfL –
something that is required on what is a GLA road.
I will take the second point first. Section 4 of London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 that a Council may
not exercise the power to enforce on a GLA road unless they have
obtained the written consent of TfL. The Council does not
challenge that as a result of the Designation cited by Mr
Murray-Smith both the roads in question in the present case were
GLA roads. In response to Mr Murray-Smiths submissions the
Council has produced a letter dated the 19th September2011
giving consent. However as Mr Murray -Smith was quick to point
out, the consent is expressed to run only for the duration of an
Experimental Traffic Order which has long since expired. Mr Inge
stated that he believed that further correspondence could be
obtained but I did not consider it in the interests of justice
to adjourn the hearing for that purpose. The Council was clearly
on notice of what it was being required to produce and ought to
have been in a position to produce the necessary consent if they
had it. If follows that on the evidence I am unable to be
satisfied that the Council had the power to issue a PCN at this
location and the Appeals must be allowed on that ground.
The first ground raises a more difficult issue and one which has
on many occasions been the subject of decisions by Adjudicators.
The difficulty arises from what I do not shrink from calling
sloppy drafting of the legislation which requires a PCN to state
that the penalty may be increased if not paid within 28 days
from the date of the Notice whereas additional requirements in
the Schedule prevent the issue of a Charge Certificate within 28
days of the date of service of the Notice. My learned colleague
Mr Walsh sets out the difficulty with clarity and precision in
his decision in Mohammad Ahmed v City of London (2240382490, 14
December 2024) as follows:-
“If the penalty is not paid within the period of 28 days from
the date of the penalty charge notice (PCN), then may be payable
at the increased amount. A charge certificate may be served if,
within the period of 28 days from the date of service of the
PCN, payment is not made and no representations have been made.
The legislation creates an odd anomaly in that there is a period
(likely to be a couple of days or so) within which the penalty
is now payable at the increased amount, but the enforcement
authority (EA) is not yet empowered to serve a charge
certificate because the time within which a recipient is
permitted to make representations has not yet elapsed. There is,
however, a clear distinction between the point in time when the
increased penalty is payable and the point in time when the EA
is empowered to serve a charge certificate”.
The Council in the present case can point to the fact that the
PCN states what it is required to state under s 4; and the real
question in this and other cases is whether the inclusion of
other information not required by virtue of S4 renders the PCN
either non-compliant, or otherwise non-enforceable, if that
additional information is not correctly stated. As Mr Walsh
noted, S4 does not require any reference to a charge
certificate.
If the additional information were positively to contradict or
undermine the matters specifically required to be stated by S4
there would in my view be no difficulty, One would
find that, as a result, the PCN did not contain the information
required by that Section. In the present case, however that is
not the position. The wording in issue is as follows:- “If the
Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period
the charge may increase to £195 and we may serve a Charge
Certificate seeking payment of the increased amount”. “The 28
day period “clearly refers back to date of the notice previously
mentioned ; and the statement therefore if anything reinforces
the s4 requirement rather than contradicting it.
One is therefore left to decide whether the mis-statement as to
when the Charge Certificate may be issued is so grave or
misleading as to render the enforcement of a penalty impossible
on the basis of a collateral challenge. The wording in this case
does in my view amount to such a mis-statement “and we may serve
a Charge Certificate” being given its natural meaning that one
may be served at that point i.e the expiry of the 28 day period.
The point has been raised before numerous Adjudicators with only
one dissenting voice. The decision in the present case is of
course my own, but where there is a substantial body of
decisions on the point, I naturally give the views of so many
colleagues some weight and I find myself in agreement with them,
particularly the careful decision of Mr Walsh. Motorists are
entitled to know exactly where they legally stand when it comes
to enforcement procedures.
I would therefore in addition allow the Appeal on the first of
Mr Murray-Smiths grounds. The Council might be wise to consider
revising its wording to make it clear the correct point at which
a Charge Certificate may be served.
PCN WA91081506
Contravention date 20 Sep 2024
Contravention time 14:14:00
Contravention location Clapham Common North Side JCT. Stormont
Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Performing a prohibited turn
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
I heard these is Appeals by telephone speaking to Mr
Murray-Smith representing the Appellant and Mr Inge, an officer
of the Council. Having done so I reserved my decision.
The grounds of appeal are as set out in Mr Murray--Smith’s
detailed skeleton argument and the Tribunal decisions there
cited. These are, in bare summary, that the PCN is defective in
that it incorrectly states that a Charge Certificate may ne
issued after the expiry of 28 days from the date of the notice;
whereas the Regulations require 28 days from the date of service
of the notice. His second ground is that there is no evidence
that the required authority to enforce has been given by TfL –
something that is required on what is a GLA road.
I will take the second point first. Section 4 of London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 that a Council may
not exercise the power to enforce on a GLA road unless they have
obtained the written consent of TfL. The Council does not
challenge that as a result of the Designation cited by Mr
Murray-Smith both the roads in question in the present case were
GLA roads. In response to Mr Murray-Smiths submissions the
Council has produced a letter dated the 19th September2011
giving consent. However as Mr Murray -Smith was quick to point
out, the consent is expressed to run only for the duration of an
Experimental Traffic Order which has long since expired. Mr Inge
stated that he believed that further correspondence could be
obtained but I did not consider it in the interests of justice
to adjourn the hearing for that purpose. The Council was clearly
on notice of what it was being required to produce and ought to
have been in a position to produce the necessary consent if they
had it. If follows that on the evidence I am unable to be
satisfied that the Council had the power to issue a PCN at this
location and the Appeals must be allowed on that ground.
The first ground raises a more difficult issue and one which has
on many occasions been the subject of decisions by Adjudicators.
The difficulty arises from what I do not shrink from calling
sloppy drafting of the legislation which requires a PCN to state
that the penalty may be increased if not paid within 28 days
from the date of the Notice whereas additional requirements in
the Schedule prevent the issue of a Charge Certificate within 28
days of the date of service of the Notice. My learned colleague
Mr Walsh sets out the difficulty with clarity and precision in
his decision in Mohammad Ahmed v City of London (2240382490, 14
December 2024) as follows:-
“If the penalty is not paid within the period of 28 days from
the date of the penalty charge notice (PCN), then may be payable
at the increased amount. A charge certificate may be served if,
within the period of 28 days from the date of service of the
PCN, payment is not made and no representations have been made.
The legislation creates an odd anomaly in that there is a period
(likely to be a couple of days or so) within which the penalty
is now payable at the increased amount, but the enforcement
authority (EA) is not yet empowered to serve a charge
certificate because the time within which a recipient is
permitted to make representations has not yet elapsed. There is,
however, a clear distinction between the point in time when the
increased penalty is payable and the point in time when the EA
is empowered to serve a charge certificate”.
The Council in the present case can point to the fact that the
PCN states what it is required to state under s 4; and the real
question in this and other cases is whether the inclusion of
other information not required by virtue of S4 renders the PCN
either non-compliant, or otherwise non-enforceable, if that
additional information is not correctly stated. As Mr Walsh
noted, S4 does not require any reference to a charge
certificate.
If the additional information were positively to contradict or
undermine the matters specifically required to be stated by S4
there would in my view be no difficulty, One would find that, as
a result, the PCN did not contain the information required by
that Section. In the present case, however that is not the
position. The wording in issue is as follows:- “If the Penalty
Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period the
charge may increase to £195 and we may serve a Charge
Certificate seeking payment of the increased amount”. “The 28
day period “clearly refers back to date of the notice previously
mentioned ; and the statement therefore if anything reinforces
the s4 requirement rather than contradicting it.
One is therefore left to decide whether the mis-statement as to
when the Charge Certificate may be issued is so grave or
misleading as to render the enforcement of a penalty impossible
on the basis of a collateral challenge. The wording in this case
does in my view amount to such a mis-statement “and we may serve
a Charge Certificate” being given its natural meaning that one
may be served at that point i.e the expiry of the 28 day period.
The point has been raised before numerous Adjudicators with only
one dissenting voice. The decision in the present case is of
course my own, but where there is a substantial body of
decisions on the point, I naturally give the views of so many
colleagues some weight and I find myself in agreement with them,
particularly the careful decision of Mr Walsh. Motorists are
entitled to know exactly where they legally stand when it comes
to enforcement procedures.
#Post#: 83272--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: July 29, 2025, 6:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for the replies.
How would I put this into a representation Hippocrates?
Kind regards
#Post#: 83278--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 29, 2025, 6:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ground: the penalty charge exceeded the amount.
The 2003 Act states that representations may be made on “one or
other grounds”. Clearly, your website only allows me to choose
one ground. This is a clear ambiguity which must be resolved in
the favour of the owner. Furthermore, the PCN states: “If the
Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period,
the charge may increase to £240.00.” Clearly, the period to
which this refers is 28 days from the date of the notice. This
flies in the face of paras. 5(1) and (2)(a) as provided at
Schedule 1 which states that a charge certificate may be issued
28 days from the date of service of the PCN.
I have considered Adjudicator’s reasoning in Adam Jones v London
Borough of Havering Case No 2190374806 in adopting this ground
of appeal since procedural impropriety is not afforded to an
appellant in this legislation.
Considering the above, I ask the the PCN be cancelled. Should
you not agree to do so, I am quite prepared to take the matter
to the Tribunal.
*****
Stick in the signage issue too and report back. Please
screenshot the reps page as you cannot enter 2 grounds.
#Post#: 83283--------------------------------------------------
Re: Wandsworth Contravention 52M openview junction leckford road
DIR By: Torenaga
Date: July 29, 2025, 7:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you so much Hippocrates,
I will sort this out shortly.
Kind regards
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page