DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85387--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 12, 2025, 11:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
>
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/havering-council-charge-notice-without-pcn/msg85265/#msg85265
>
> Have a look at this please. Obviously, disregard the prices
and the last sentence asking for the original PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
Is this the part you mean?
1. This PCN is missing mandatory information. as provided at 4
(8 ) (v) of
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of
the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
2. I make this collateral challenge regarding the wording of the
sentence "If after...." Since the PCN omits mandatory
information that the PCN must be paid by 28 days beginning with
the date of the notice, the said statement therefore conflates
the two distinct time periods and renders the PCN unclear and
invalid. In light of the above, please cancel.
#Post#: 85420--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 12, 2025, 1:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I would also screenshot their website.
#Post#: 85463--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 13, 2025, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Really appreciate the help and responses.
So all I would need to do is quote the 2 paragraphs and attach
the screenshot when appealing?
Would I need to mention that there isn't any signage in their
photo or video evidence that shows any motor contravention?
#Post#: 85473--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 13, 2025, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Screenshot of website? Can't see it.
#Post#: 85476--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 13, 2025, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Screenshot of website? Can't see it.
>
--- End Quote ---
I attached it above... also uploaded
HTML https://imgur.com/dvCMfue
#Post#: 85478--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 13, 2025, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP,....
As the authority knows and can see clearly in the CCTV evidence,
there are no traffic signs in view therefore the PCN, which is
based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed by prescribed
signs, is predicated upon an assumption by the authority as to
the presence, condition and visibility of these signs on the
day.
I put the authority to strict proof on this matter i.e. library
pictures would not suffice because these cannot address the
issues of condition and visibility on the day.
..but could you say to an adjudicator that you did not see the
signs?
#Post#: 85498--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 13, 2025, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Would this be ok to send when appealing?
1. The PCN is Missing Mandatory Information
Under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act
2003, Section 4(8)(v), a PCN must state:
“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased charge may be payable”
and
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”
This PCN fails to include the second requirement in full and
instead uses wording that conflates payment and appeal
timeframes, rendering the notice unclear. As the PCN omits
mandatory statutory wording, it is invalid and must be
cancelled.
2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my
vehicle passing the relevant restriction signs. It merely shows
the vehicle already inside the alleged restricted area.
Since the PCN is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed
by prescribed signs, the absence of these signs in the evidence
means the contravention has not been proven.
I put the authority to strict proof of:
The presence, condition, and visibility of the signs on 13 July
2025; and
That my vehicle passed them.
Library images or generic stock photographs would not suffice
because they do not address the condition and visibility of the
signs on the actual date and time in question.
3. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage
There was no clear advance warning before entering the
restricted zone.
Furthermore, diversions in Romford around the date of the
contravention may have contributed to driver confusion and
reduced sign visibility. I request disclosure of any temporary
traffic orders or diversion records for this area at that time.
4. Request for Disclosure
Please provide:
The full Traffic Management Order for this restriction.
All CCTV footage showing my approach to the restriction and any
signs passed.
Proof of posting and date of service of the PCN.
Conclusion
Given the PCN’s legal defects, lack of conclusive evidence, and
inadequate signage, I respectfully request that this PCN be
cancelled. If the representation is rejected, I will pursue the
matter with the independent adjudicator.
#Post#: 85631--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 14, 2025, 3:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Or do i just keep it short and to the point?
I contest this PCN on the following grounds:
1. The PCN is Missing Mandatory Information
Under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act
2003, Section 4(8)(v), a PCN must state:
“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased charge may be payable”
and
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”
This PCN fails to include the second requirement in full and
instead uses wording that conflates payment and appeal
timeframes, rendering the notice unclear. As the PCN omits
mandatory statutory wording, it is invalid and must be
cancelled.
2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my
vehicle passing the relevant restriction signs. It merely shows
the vehicle already inside the alleged restricted area.
Since the PCN is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed
by prescribed signs, the absence of these signs in the evidence
means the contravention has not been proven.
Given the above, I request that this PCN be cancelled.
Do I have to submit this appeal by tomorrow the latest to stick
within the 14 days, or is it now the case that it doesn't matter
as long as I appeal within 28 days?
#Post#: 85985--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 17, 2025, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to be a pain here, just need a bit of advice how to
proceed here. I don't wanna send anything yet until I know what
I've written is ok . All help has been much appreciated. Thank
you.
#Post#: 85990--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 17, 2025, 6:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I prefer the shorter version. The more you start speculating
about what a driver may or may not have seen, the more you stray
from the upper level considerations in this matter:
Where is the authority's evidence that compliant and visible
signs were passed;
Has the authority complied with mandatory procedure in pursuing
any penalty?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page