DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 86004--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: dingus
Date: August 17, 2025, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify i checked the road and seem to got things mixed
up. I took a left at the of the first picture which is Hawnthorn
Rd and turned left down Shaftesbury Road
#Post#: 86035--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 17, 2025, 3:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Their video shows you turning left there, and then drive all the
way down Shaftesbury Road. That is not in dispute, but it is the
Right Turn sign that is the problem. It is too easily obscured
by vans etc, and also is located within a mass of blue
commercial signs so easily missed anyway. The point really, is
that their video doesn't show your turning left against a blue
Right Turn sign, it only shows you existing Shaftesbury Road,
which you drove along the wrong way.
#Post#: 86062--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: MrChips
Date: August 18, 2025, 3:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
PCN is issued under LLA 2003.
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted
Section 4(8 )(a)(viii) states:
A penalty charge notice under this section must state that the
person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make
representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act.
Within paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, it states "The enforcing
authority may disregard any such representations which are
received by them after the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in
question was served."
Your PCN does not state this - it states the similar but
critically different "We may disregard any representations
received after the period of 28 days beginning with the date of
the notice of this Penalty Charge Notice."
Date of service is taken to be two business days after posting
(first class) so that law gives you additional time to make
representations than is set out in the PCN.
As it is a requirement of the LLA 2003 that Enfield MUST state
that you may be entitled to make representations under the terms
set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act, and Enfield
have not correctly done this, then I can't see how the PCN can
stand as it includes information that is different and contrary
to the wording that must be included.
#Post#: 86115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: dingus
Date: August 18, 2025, 7:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you Mr Chips and super helpful. I use chatgpt to draft an
appeal letter:
-----------
Dear Sir/Madam,
I make these formal representations against Penalty Charge
Notice (PCN) number EF99174738, issued on 13/08/2025, concerning
vehicle registration PJ60VYC.
Grounds of Representation – Procedural Impropriety
This PCN has not been issued in accordance with the requirements
of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act
2003 (“the Act”).
Section 4(8)(a)(viii) of the Act requires that a penalty charge
notice must state that the person on whom the notice is served
may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of
Schedule 1 to the Act.
Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 provides:
“The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations
which are received by them after the end of the period of 28
days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice
in question was served.”
However, this PCN instead states:
“We may disregard any representations received after the period
of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice of this Penalty
Charge Notice.”
This is a material misstatement of the law. The “date of the
notice” is not the same as the “date of service.” The law deems
service to occur two working days after posting if sent by
first-class post. The PCN therefore unlawfully shortens the
statutory representation period by at least two days.
1. Prejudice and Confusion
This defect is not trivial. It materially prejudices my legal
rights by misinforming me of the correct time limit for making
representations. A motorist relying on the PCN wording could
wrongly believe they are out of time when, in law, they are not.
The PCN therefore fails in its purpose of properly conveying
statutory rights.
2. Mandatory Requirement
The requirements of section 4(8) are mandatory, not optional.
Case law such as Camden LBC v The Parking Adjudicator & BHS
[2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) confirms that statutory wording must be
followed precisely. A PCN that misstates mandatory information
is invalid and cannot be enforced.
3. Inconsistency of Information
The PCN refers to deadlines being calculated from the date of
service for payment, but from the date of the notice for
representations. This inconsistency is confusing, contradictory,
and contrary to the requirement that a PCN must be clear,
accurate, and consistent in setting out the recipient’s rights.
4. Enfield’s Statutory Duty
As the enforcing authority, the London Borough of Enfield has a
statutory duty to issue PCNs that comply with the Act. A PCN
that misstates statutory rights is null and void ab initio, and
cannot lawfully be pursued.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the PCN is invalid due to procedural
impropriety. I respectfully request that it be cancelled
forthwith. Should you nevertheless reject these representations,
I will appeal to the independent adjudicator at London
Tribunals, where I will rely on the statutory wording and case
law cited above.
Yours faithfully,
-------
--- Quote from: MrChips link ---
>
> PCN is issued under LLA 2003.
>
>
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted
>
> Section 4(8 )(a)(viii) states:
>
> A penalty charge notice under this section must state that the
person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make
representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act.
>
> Within paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, it states "The enforcing
authority may disregard any such representations which are
received by them after the end of the period of 28 days
beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in
question was served."
>
> Your PCN does not state this - it states the similar but
critically different "We may disregard any representations
received after the period of 28 days beginning with the date of
the notice of this Penalty Charge Notice."
>
> Date of service is taken to be two business days after posting
(first class) so that law gives you additional time to make
representations than is set out in the PCN.
>
> As it is a requirement of the LLA 2003 that Enfield MUST state
that you may be entitled to make representations under the terms
set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act, and Enfield
have not correctly done this, then I can't see how the PCN can
stand as it includes information that is different and contrary
to the wording that must be included.
>
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 86131--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: MrChips
Date: August 18, 2025, 7:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm not legally qualified (or even that well informed) so can't
comment on your references to legal requirements or that case
from 2011 unfortunately. Others may be able to comment here.
One thing I do know, however, is that "Procedural Impropriety"
isn't a statutory ground of appeal under LLA 2003 so it would be
best not to claim this is the ground you are basing your
representations on. Better to state that "the penalty charge
exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case"
on the basis that with the PCN being defective under the law,
the amount which is applicable is zero.
Also, I haven't been following the previous discussion around
adequacy of signage etc. If that is a reasonable ground, I'd
also include that in your representations to increase
credibility in the future just in case you need to rely on this
at adjudication (adjudicators aren't always persuaded by 100%
technical arguments).
EDIT - point 3 in your draft is incorrect. LLA 2003 does impose
different requirements for payment and representations (which is
probably due to poor drafting of the Act rather than intention
and also likely the source of Enfield's confusion). The Act
imposes payment deadlines which are expressed in terms of time
commencing from the date of notice, while representations are in
terms of time commencing from date of service. So the PCN is
generally correctly worded in this regard. It's only Enfield's
statement about when they may disregard representations which is
incorrect. I'd therefore suggest removing this section from
your representations.
#Post#: 86165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 18, 2025, 9:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The contravention description is:
'Failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow on a
blue sign..'
It is not proceeding in the wrong direction along Shaftesbury,
this is simply the concomitant of failing to proceed in the
direction shown by the arrow.
IMO, your reps should be along the lines of:
On *** I was driving south along Hawthorne Avenue and turned
left at its junction with Shaftesbury Road. This is confirmed by
the authority's CCTV. I was not aware at the time that I had
done anything wrong and therefore was surprised to receive the
PCN.
On viewing the authority's CCTV I was still none the wiser as
with which blue direction sign I am supposed to have failed to
comply . For obvious reasons it cannot be the 'one-way' arrow in
the CCTV because this is not visible to drivers travelling in my
direction. I then looked at Google Street View which shows a
single blue sign with a white arrow on a lamp post on the
opposite side of the road at the junction of Hawthorne Avenue
and Shaftesbury. I presume this is the 'arrow on a blue sign'
referred to in the contravention description as there is no
other regulatory sign in the vicinity.
I am therefore making representations on the grounds that the
contravention did not occur because the council has failed to
sign the restriction to the standard required. Specifically,
according to the Traffic Signs Manual
(
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf)<br
/>the council should erect a 'Right turn' sign with the
supplementary plate 'One way' in combination with a sign to
diagram 609 'to be sited approx. 50m from the junction'. The
road marking Right Turn is an optional addition.
By placing only a single sign which sits within an environment
of blue signs with white writing (MOT TEST CENTRE, the MOT
symbol, AUTOTEKS) the council has done its best to obscure the
sign rather than bring it to a driver's attention. As if this
wasn't bad enough, the sign is placed immediately to the right
of an entrance to properties which would be visited by
high-sided commercial vehicles which would have to turn across
the line of sight of any driver at the junction.
The authority is required to explain why it has departed from
the TSM recommendation and instead chosen to place only one of
the two recommended signs and none of the road markings. Absent
cogent reasons, excluding lack of knowledge and for financial
purposes, the PCN must be cancelled.
#Post#: 86233--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: dingus
Date: August 18, 2025, 5:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> The contravention description is:
>
> 'Failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow on a
blue sign..'
>
> It is not proceeding in the wrong direction along Shaftesbury,
this is simply the concomitant of failing to proceed in the
direction shown by the arrow.
>
> IMO, your reps should be along the lines of:
>
> On *** I was driving south along Hawthorne Avenue and turned
left at its junction with Shaftesbury Road. This is confirmed by
the authority's CCTV. I was not aware at the time that I had
done anything wrong and therefore was surprised to receive the
PCN.
>
> On viewing the authority's CCTV I was still none the wiser as
with which blue direction sign I am supposed to have failed to
comply . For obvious reasons it cannot be the 'one-way' arrow in
the CCTV because this is not visible to drivers travelling in my
direction. I then looked at Google Street View which shows a
single blue sign with a white arrow on a lamp post on the
opposite side of the road at the junction of Hawthorne Avenue
and Shaftesbury. I presume this is the 'arrow on a blue sign'
referred to in the contravention description as there is no
other regulatory sign in the vicinity.
>
> I am therefore making representations on the grounds that the
contravention did not occur because the council has failed to
sign the restriction to the standard required. Specifically,
according to the Traffic Signs Manual
(
HTML https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf)<br
/>the council should erect a 'Right turn' sign with the
supplementary plate 'One way' in combination with a sign to
diagram 609 'to be sited approx. 50m from the junction'. The
road marking Right Turn is an optional addition.
>
> By placing only a single sign which sits within an environment
of blue signs with white writing (MOT TEST CENTRE, the MOT
symbol, AUTOTEKS) the council has done its best to obscure the
sign rather than bring it to a driver's attention. As if this
wasn't bad enough, the sign is placed immediately to the right
of an entrance to properties which would be visited by
high-sided commercial vehicles which would have to turn across
the line of sight of any driver at the junction.
>
> The authority is required to explain why it has departed from
the TSM recommendation and instead chosen to place only one of
the two recommended signs and none of the road markings. Absent
cogent reasons, excluding lack of knowledge and for financial
purposes, the PCN must be cancelled.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you H C Anderson!
I run the above through chatgpt:
I wish to make formal representations against the above PCN on
the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
On 01/08/2025 at 10:57, I was driving south along Hawthorne
Avenue and turned left at its junction with Shaftesbury Road.
This is confirmed by the authority's CCTV. At the time, I was
not aware that I had committed any contravention, and I was
therefore surprised to receive this PCN.
Upon viewing the CCTV evidence provided by the authority, I was
still unclear as to which blue directional sign I was alleged to
have failed to comply with. The ‘one-way’ arrow in the footage
cannot be the relevant sign, as it is not visible to drivers
travelling in my direction.
I subsequently consulted Google Street View and observed a
single blue sign with a white arrow mounted on a lamp post on
the opposite side of the road at the junction of Hawthorne
Avenue and Shaftesbury Road. I can only assume this is the sign
in question, as no other regulatory blue direction signs are
present nearby.
The contravention description is “failing to proceed in the
direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign.” However, the
Council has not signed the restriction in accordance with the
Traffic Signs Manual (TSM), Chapter 3. Specifically:
Section 4 of the TSM requires that a “Right Turn” sign, with a
supplementary “One Way” plate, should be erected in combination
with a diagram 609 sign, to be sited approximately 50 metres
before the junction.
The optional “Right Turn” road marking could also have been used
to provide clarity.
By placing only a single diagram 609 sign in a visually
cluttered environment—surrounded by blue commercial signs such
as “MOT TEST CENTRE,” the MOT symbol, and “AUTOTEKS”—the Council
has obscured rather than highlighted the restriction.
Additionally, the sign is placed immediately beside an entrance
used by high-sided vehicles, which regularly obstruct the line
of sight for drivers approaching the junction. This renders the
sign ineffective at conveying the restriction.
The Council is required to explain why it has departed from the
TSM recommendations by providing only one of the two prescribed
signs and omitting advance signage or road markings. Unless the
Council can provide cogent reasons for this deviation, other
than lack of resources or financial motives, the restriction
cannot be considered adequately signed and the contravention
cannot be enforced.
For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the alleged
contravention did not occur and request that the PCN be
cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
#Post#: 91784--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: dingus
Date: September 28, 2025, 2:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I submitted the above and i got it rejected. I guess i need to
pay and no other grounds to appeal.
#Post#: 91788--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 28, 2025, 4:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: dingus link ---
>
> I submitted the above and i got it rejected. I guess i need to
pay and no other grounds to appeal.
>
--- End Quote ---
Please post their letter of rejection.
Why do you think that the council know it all, and you must pay
? The final arbiter of your PCN is London Tribunals. Of course
if the council have re-offered the discount, you must decide
whether to pay or not, because the full PCN penalty is payable
if you lose your case at London Tribunals.
#Post#: 91803--------------------------------------------------
Re: Enfield Council PCN – Code 32J (Driving Wrong Way) – Sign
Obscured Behind Parking Bay
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 28, 2025, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
They rejected your reps because they can. They're not objective
and fair, they're cynical, narrow-minded, partial and
money-grabbing.
The argument is subjective, albeit based upon legal
requirements.
The wording of the rejection is important because we need to see
how they dealt with the TSM reference.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page