DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 85993--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 17, 2025, 6:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> 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?
>
--- End Quote ---
I'll stick with the shorter one and attach the screenshot from
legislation.gov.uk
There's no evidence of any signs being passed, in either the
video or the stills. So I'm guessing in that instance I have a
strong defence?
Don't understand this though "Has the authority complied with
mandatory procedure in pursuing any penalty?"
Thanks for your response.
#Post#: 86247--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 19, 2025, 2:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm going to send this for my appeal. From what I'm gathering
the council will reject the appeal and once It goes to online
tribunal do I submit the same thing or shall I come back for
advice on how to proceed?
I make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge
Notice on the following grounds:
1. Procedural Impropriety – Defective Wording
Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for
London Act 2003 requires that a Penalty Charge Notice must
state, among other things:
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice”; and
“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.”
The PCN served in this case fails to include the first
requirement in the prescribed form. Instead, it uses wording
that conflates the 28-day payment period with the 28-day period
for making representations. This omission of mandatory statutory
wording renders the PCN defective and invalid.
2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided shows only my vehicle within the
alleged restricted area. It does not show the vehicle passing or
failing to comply with any prescribed restriction signs.
As the alleged contravention relies entirely upon the presence
and visibility of such signage, the Authority is required to
prove that compliant signs were in place and that the vehicle
failed to comply with them. In the absence of such evidence, the
alleged contravention is not made out.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the PCN is invalid and
unenforceable. I therefore respectfully request that it be
cancelled.
#Post#: 86421--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 20, 2025, 1:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] it does state on the third page
about the penalty charge being increased by 50% to £240 so I
can't really quote
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;
How should I proceed with this. Do I just stick to the fact
there's no signage?
I contest this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my
vehicle passing any restriction signs. It only shows the vehicle
already within the alleged restricted area.
The contravention is based on non-compliance with prescribed
signs, and the authority must prove that such signs were
present, lawful, and visible at the time. In the absence of such
evidence, the alleged contravention is not proven.
2. Procedural Impropriety – Defective Wording
The PCN misstates the statutory time periods. Under the London
Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, the 28-day
period for payment runs from the date of the notice, while the
28-day period for making representations runs from the date of
service of the notice. By conflating these distinct periods, the
PCN is unclear and potentially misleading to the motorist. This
amounts to a procedural impropriety.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the PCN is invalid and I respectfully
request that it be cancelled.
#Post#: 86452--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 20, 2025, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Procedural impropriety is not a ground. We say: collateral
challenge instead. What does the website say please as I cannot
access it? I need to see the grounds page.
Also add: The ground about the Traffic Order being invalid is
NOT a ground in this legislation.
#Post#: 86459--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 20, 2025, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a)state—
(i)the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be,
Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable
with respect to the vehicle;
(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the
period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the
amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified
proportion;
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the
28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi)the amount of the increased charge;
(vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be
sent; and
(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be
entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1
to this Act; and
(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be
made.
#Post#: 86460--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: seventhson1975
Date: August 20, 2025, 5:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[member=24]Hippocrates[/member] Thanks for your response....
Shall I just stick to this ... also the grounds on which
website, sorry i'm a bit confused here.
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.
#Post#: 101586--------------------------------------------------
Re: 52M PCN. Havering: South St/ Eastern Road RM1
DIR By: HBFOOT
Date: December 8, 2025, 2:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi there, I seem to have a PCN from exactly the same place - did
your appeal work?
--- Quote from: seventhson1975 link ---
>
> [member=24]Hippocrates[/member] Thanks for your response....
Shall I just stick to this ... also the grounds on which
website, sorry i'm a bit confused here.
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page