DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87799--------------------------------------------------
RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester Way
(52M)
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: August 30, 2025, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello knowledgeable people,
I have received TWO PCNs from Greenwich council, they got my
details from my EV leasing company for both. I am the Hirer of
this leased vehicle.
Both are FIRST time contraventions respectively. Both
essentially happened cause driver didn't have Google maps
working and missed reading the exact signs.
In case of Rochester Way, driver had never gone before but
thought it was a bus stop rather than bus lane.
In car of Westcombe Hill, driver took the same route multiple
times but this one was before 7pm by 15 minutes so the camera
got the vehicle.
I attaching both PCNs here along with challenge options, please
advise if any hope in either or both?
HTML https://i.imgur.com/r9c1RaO.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/0a8VWKq.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/4GEWwOw.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/nd1HsDy.jpeg
My options to challenge:
HTML https://i.imgur.com/d9pTVPu.jpeg
#Post#: 87803--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 30, 2025, 9:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, back to basics pl.
I have received TWO PCNs from Greenwich council, they got my
details from my EV leasing company for both. I am the Hirer of
this leased vehicle.
No.
Firstly, there's no need to dance around who was driving - this
is not a private parking charge - so if you were driving pl say
so.
Secondly, you cannot be the 'hirer' of a leased vehicle, you can
only be the lessee and as regards the contraventions these are
chalk and cheese. So, is the vehicle hired - for period of no
more than 6 months - or leased for a longer term?
To whom are the PCNs actually addressed i.e. you by name or the
hire/lease company and simply passed to you? Your post implies
the former, but let's be clear.
#Post#: 87814--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: August 30, 2025, 11:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> OP, back to basics pl.
>
> I have received TWO PCNs from Greenwich council, they got my
details from my EV leasing company for both. I am the Hirer of
this leased vehicle.
>
> No.
>
> Firstly, there's no need to dance around who was driving -
this is not a private parking charge - so if you were driving pl
say so.
>
> Secondly, you cannot be the 'hirer' of a leased vehicle, you
can only be the lessee and as regards the contraventions these
are chalk and cheese. So, is the vehicle hired - for period of
no more than 6 months - or leased for a longer term?
>
> To whom are the PCNs actually addressed i.e. you by name or
the hire/lease company and simply passed to you? Your post
implies the former, but let's be clear.
>
--- End Quote ---
Apologies, I am the driver and the letter I attached was
sent/addressed to me.
I used "Hirer" lingo from ftla's private parking thread, I am
indeed the lessee as this is a longer than 6 months lease.
#Post#: 87850--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: August 31, 2025, 2:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please advise on my defence draft for Rochester way PCN 52M
Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
(motor vehicles)
I have also adding pictures at the end of the post.
Defence draft:
"I was unaware of the rules"
Text:
I was unaware of the traffic prohibition on Rochester Way, there
was no advance warning as I approached the Bus Stop and there
were cars parked right up to it. I was committed to cross before
I could comprehend the signs, and couldn't reverse from there
which would have potentially caused trouble for anybody coming
from behind. I am terribly sorry, this was an honest mistake,
could happen to anyone, first offence, I won't do it again.
Please cancel the PCN.
Thanks,
HTML https://i.imgur.com/cJTQRaA.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/FsN1o03.jpeg
HTML https://i.imgur.com/Lb8uvU5.jpeg
#Post#: 87870--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: SITR
Date: August 31, 2025, 5:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've passed the "No through road" signs when turning in to
Rochester Way approx 100m previously and then the prohibited
vehicles signage on the busway. TBH you're lucky the signage has
been changed - it used to be a "No Entry except buses" and you
would've got 3 penalty points for "contravening a No Entry sign"
(or something to that effect). I know, I did it once and got
pulled by the police on the other side.
Your defence on both your PCNs seems to be relying on "I wasn't
looking where I was going and I can't read traffic signs". I'd
suggest you look for a technicality on the actual PCN notices
instead and open your eyes a bit more when driving!
#Post#: 87910--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: August 31, 2025, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: SITR link ---
>
> TBH you're lucky the signage has been changed - it used to be
a "No Entry except buses" and you would've got 3 penalty points
for "contravening a No Entry sign" (or something to that
effect).
>
--- End Quote ---
I would consider myself unlucky an explicit no entry except
buses would have definitely made me stop, but that's theoretical
at this point.
--- Quote from: SITR link ---
>
> Your defence on both your PCNs seems to be relying on "I
wasn't looking where I was going and I can't read traffic
signs". I'd suggest you look for a technicality on the actual
PCN notices instead and open your eyes a bit more when driving!
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks, reality is that Google maps saved me from this near
Westcombe Hill previously, it knows the times when entry is
permitted there. In this instance I was following the route
previously shown by gmaps manually and got caught in the window
by 15 minutes, is there any grace/defence there for this?
For Rochester Way, it was my first time there and I was
exploring the area without gmaps which I deeply regret now.
Any suggestions what "technicality" I could find on the PCNs, I
attached them in the first post of this thread. Appreciate help.
#Post#: 87913--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: SITR
Date: August 31, 2025, 11:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: 8vaibhav link ---
>
> [quote author=SITR link=topic=7860.msg87870#msg87870
date=1756637987]
> TBH you're lucky the signage has been changed - it used to be
a "No Entry except buses" and you would've got 3 penalty points
for "contravening a No Entry sign" (or something to that
effect).
>
--- End Quote ---
I would consider myself unlucky an explicit no entry except
buses would have definitely made me stop, but that's theoretical
at this point.
--- Quote from: SITR link ---
>
> Your defence on both your PCNs seems to be relying on "I
wasn't looking where I was going and I can't read traffic
signs". I'd suggest you look for a technicality on the actual
PCN notices instead and open your eyes a bit more when driving!
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks, reality is that Google maps saved me from this near
Westcombe Hill previously, it knows the times when entry is
permitted there. In this instance I was following the route
previously shown by gmaps manually and got caught in the window
by 15 minutes, is there any grace/defence there for this?
For Rochester Way, it was my first time there and I was
exploring the area without gmaps which I deeply regret now.
Any suggestions what "technicality" I could find on the PCNs, I
attached them in the first post of this thread. Appreciate help.
[/quote]
Whether it's a red/white No Entry with an "Except Buses" plate
or a cars/motorcycles prohibited circle, it's a no entry for
cars - it's just been decriminalised and become a civil offence.
With regard to Google Maps - who says the data is correct? There
are signs & lines on the streets for a reason - because they're
the rules. Look where you're driving & be aware of your
surroundings.
I'm sorry to moan, but I live locally & driving just according
to your phone (or not at all!) is downright dangerous.
#Post#: 88093--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: September 2, 2025, 8:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is the advise here to PAY and move on? for BOTH of these PCNs?
Any chance of "grace" where the "restricted route" was not
restricted from 7pm, and the PCN is captures a 6:45pm crossing?
If appealing "I was unaware of the rules" or "I didn't see any
signs or lines" don't seem very strong starting points, is "none
of the above" ever worth a shot?
Many thanks in advance.
#Post#: 88109--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: September 2, 2025, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, no. Your defence is procedural.
I was not the owner.....
This arises because you believe that *******(the lease company)
used the grounds of 'We are a vehicle-hire company etc.' in
their representations and that the authority accepted the same.
However, this is not permissible under the Act which restricts
these grounds to, inter alia, agreements of less than 6 months:
my lease is for *** years.
The authority may not consider me to be the owner and the PCN
must be cancelled.
I do not dispute the facts of the contravention and therefore,
should the authority reject these representations, I should be
grateful if they would not belabour this point but instead focus
on the grounds of my representations i.e. confirm the grounds on
which the registered keeper's representations were accepted and
provide the supporting mandatory documents e.g. hiring agreement
etc. A signed statement of the lessee's liability under a lease
would not be acceptable.
OP, I've no idea whether ****(the lease company) used the
correct grounds in this case, which could ONLY be that they were
not the 'keeper' (because the presumption that the registered
keeper is the person by whom the vehicle is kept is rebuttable),
but it's worth a punt because otherwise I cannot see a defence
on the facts as we know them.
For information:
(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm ..
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from
that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement.
.....
(9)In this paragraph, “vehicle hiring agreement” and
“vehicle-hire firm” have the same meanings as in section 66 of
the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Hired vehicles).
(paras. 1(4)(d) and 1(9) of Schedule 1 to the London Local
Authorities etc. Act 2003 refer).
(7)This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of
which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed
period of less than six months (s66(7) Road Traffic Offenders
Act refers)
#Post#: 88171--------------------------------------------------
Re: RB of Greenwich PCNs: Westcombe Hill(33e) & Rochester
Way (52M)
DIR By: 8vaibhav
Date: September 2, 2025, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> IMO, no. Your defence is procedural.
>
> I was not the owner.....
>
> This arises because you believe that *******(the lease
company) used the grounds of 'We are a vehicle-hire company
etc.' in their representations and that the authority accepted
the same. However, this is not permissible under the Act which
restricts these grounds to, inter alia, agreements of less than
6 months: my lease is for *** years.
>
> The authority may not consider me to be the owner and the PCN
must be cancelled.
>
> I do not dispute the facts of the contravention and therefore,
should the authority reject these representations, I should be
grateful if they would not belabour this point but instead focus
on the grounds of my representations i.e. confirm the grounds on
which the registered keeper's representations were accepted and
provide the supporting mandatory documents e.g. hiring agreement
etc. A signed statement of the lessee's liability under a lease
would not be acceptable.
>
>
> OP, I've no idea whether ****(the lease company) used the
correct grounds in this case, which could ONLY be that they were
not the 'keeper' (because the presumption that the registered
keeper is the person by whom the vehicle is kept is rebuttable),
but it's worth a punt because otherwise I cannot see a defence
on the facts as we know them.
>
>
> For information:
>
> (d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm ..
>
> (i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from
that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement.
>
> .....
> (9)In this paragraph, “vehicle hiring agreement” and
“vehicle-hire firm” have the same meanings as in section 66 of
the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Hired vehicles).
>
> (paras. 1(4)(d) and 1(9) of Schedule 1 to the London Local
Authorities etc. Act 2003 refer).
>
>
> (7)This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms
of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed
period of less than six months (s66(7) Road Traffic Offenders
Act refers)
>
--- End Quote ---
This is giving me some hope, many thanks.
I will ask the leasing company to give me the exact
communication they sent to the council or if they used the same
online form at pcn.royalgreenwich.gov.uk which I see. I will
share what I hear back. There is still some time before the 14
day discounted for window ends thankfully.
I will also share a draft challenge here after that.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page