DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87050--------------------------------------------------
London Borough of Merton, Code 53J Entering School Zone, Lake
Road JW Leopold Road.
DIR By: fzym0831
Date: August 24, 2025, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/a/5nN0lLK
<— PCN and response from council
Thank you in advance to anyone reading this. I entered a school
zone at a prohibited time. I went on the website to initially
try and appeal by getting them to cancel out of goodwill but
noticed their system wasn’t pulling up my case. That’s when I
noticed they’ve entered my address incorrectly on the letter.
I’ve had a number of other PCNs mailed to me showing my full,
correct address so I KNOW it is up to date and correct on DVLA.
Here was my appeal:
I must raise a serious concern about the accuracy of the address
used on the Penalty Charge Notice. Although my address is
correct and up to date with the DVLA, the PCN was issued with an
incomplete postcode. The letter is addressed to SW2 *** rather
than SW20 ***. As a result, your website does not recognise the
postcode printed on the notice and will not allow me to submit
an appeal through the online form. Under the Traffic Management
Act 2004, enforcement authorities must serve PCNs to the
registered keeper's address as held by the DVLA. This error is
not only a failure to accurately address the notice in
accordance with DVLA records, but also obstructs my ability to
exercise my legal right to respond. I only received the letter
by chance. Had it not been mistakenly delivered to me despite
the incorrect postcode, I may never have seen it. I ask that
this be treated as a procedural impropriety and taken into full
consideration when reviewing this appeal. Evidence attached.
I don’t know how the letter even made it to my house with an
entire digit missing from the postcode. They only got back to me
today, rejecting my appeal and saying that the error must be on
my side because they got my address from the DVLA so I must
check my address is up to date there.
What’s the best thing to do now?
#Post#: 87055--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Merton, Code 53J Entering School Zone,
Lake Road JW Leopold Road.
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 24, 2025, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Check your logbook for the address.
#Post#: 87056--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Merton, Code 53J Entering School Zone,
Lake Road JW Leopold Road.
DIR By: fzym0831
Date: August 24, 2025, 5:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Check your logbook for the address.
>
--- End Quote ---
I've just checked, it is correct in my logbook. Incorrect on the
letter the council mailed me. My address hasn't ever been
changed
#Post#: 87077--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Merton, Code 53J Entering School Zone,
Lake Road JW Leopold Road.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 25, 2025, 4:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN
as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 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;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay
the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a
period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this
notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable” adds to the
lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the
required information was included or not, it is also arguable
that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many
would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the
statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still
no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that
it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.
******
I suggest Tribunal time.
#Post#: 87230--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Merton, Code 53J Entering School Zone,
Lake Road JW Leopold Road.
DIR By: fzym0831
Date: August 26, 2025, 5:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
So is the error they made in my address not grounds enough to
appeal it further? Because as far as I was concerned, if they
make an error in your address, the PCN is invalid.
#Post#: 87250--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Merton, Code 53J Entering School Zone,
Lake Road JW Leopold Road.
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 26, 2025, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Depends whose error.
#Post#: 87258--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Merton, Code 53J Entering School Zone,
Lake Road JW Leopold Road.
DIR By: John_S
Date: August 26, 2025, 7:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You may be able to challenge this PCN on signage grounds.
See this thread
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/merton-s-pcns-for-contravening-pedestrian-and-cycle-zone-signs-to-diagram-618-3c/?topicseen
([member=3617]Bustagate[/member] for info)
#Post#: 87460--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Merton, Code 53J Entering School Zone,
Lake Road JW Leopold Road.
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: August 27, 2025, 11:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree with [member=1715]John_S[/member] that the signage can
be challenged as inadequate.
If you're driving south along Leopold Road and turn right into
Lake Street, you're forced to the left of the traffic islands.
There's a small yellow sign on the left with tiny writing
pointing to the right. That sign will be out of date and really
doesn't give any advance notice that you shouldn't be turning
right.
As you turn, the signs about the Pedestrian and Cycle Zone
(diagram 618.3C) are so far from your line of sight as to be in
your peripheral vision. To make the turn you position yourself
opposite the centre-line of Lake Street and wait for a gap in
the oncoming traffic. Paragraph 4.5.3 of Chapter 1 of the
Traffic Signs Manual states:
[indent]For safety reasons, drivers should not need to divert
their eyes more than ten degrees away from the road ahead,
meaning that the message on a sign must be fully absorbed before
a driver reaches that position... The effect of the line of
approach of a vehicle has to be considered separately as part of
the design process to ensure the satisfactory performance of the
sign[/indent]
The problem which Merton have created here is that they have
restricted Lake Street from its junction with Leopold Road, but
there is a wide splay at its entrance. The regulations require
the placing of the diagram 618.3C signs at the junction, i.e.
where they are. But this makes them unreadable to motorists
approaching from either direction. What Merton could have done,
given the width of the splay, was to put a traffic island in the
middle of the junction, on which they could have put a diagram
618.3C. This would at least be in the line of sight of traffic
from the north.
For both directions they should also have proper map-type
advance notice signs, not the yellow signs which are meant to be
temporary (maximum of 6 months). Map-type advance direction
signs show the road ahead as a vertical black line with a stub
to the left or right, beyond which are a "flying motorcycle"
roundel and the days and times when the restrictions apply. That
gives approaching motorists notice of what's coming ahead. This
sign might require special permission from DfT for the multiple
days and times, but as Merton have already obtained special
permission for their signs, there should be no issue about
obtaining further permission.
Given the poor legibility of the diagram 618.3C signs from the
line of sight of approaching motorists, map-type advance notice
signs really are required to provide adequate signage. In their
absence, no contravention occurred; see James v. Cavey [1967] 2
QB 676. The following excerpt is from the judgment by Lord
Justice Winn in the Court of Appeal (so an important precedent):
--- Quote ---
>
> The short answer in my view which requires that this appeal
should be allowed is that the local authority here did not take
such steps as they were required to take under that regulation.
They did not take steps which clearly could have been taken and
which clearly would have been practicable to cause adequate
information to be given to persons using the road by the signs
which they erected.
>
--- End Quote ---
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1