DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98454--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: Coldhands
Date: November 17, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I went back to check this actually, there is an advance warning
sign, placed equally high. You would not see it unless you were
looking up for it. Got to also be 3-4m height.
#Post#: 98461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: Coldhands
Date: November 17, 2025, 6:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> I seriously advise using the information in my first link in
my profile as the PCN is invalid since it is missing mandatory
information.
>
--- End Quote ---
Forgive me if I am being daft but I am struggling to see the
issue with the PCN. Is it just the usage of 'or' in the sentence
referencing the potential for an increased charge?
#Post#: 98608--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 18, 2025, 3:56 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.
******************
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WSBVHktf6Yu3twJANacn8mmlTQKt1-t_/view
A third point is set out in the skeleton argument:
“The PCN - This fails to contain mandatory information at Part 2
Para. 4(8 )(v) provided at:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted<br
/>(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the
end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable
This in turn refers to (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; The
following statement does not clarify this: If after the last day
of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on
which this PCN is served no such representations have been made,
and the penalty charge has not been paid,
we may increase the penalty charge by 50% to £195.00 and may
take steps to enforce payment of the
increased charge.”
The difference between date of the notice and the date of
service is not necessarily the same. That could lead
to miscalculation of the relevant period that the recipient has
in which to make payment or submit
representations, which could be crucial. The collateral
challenge on this point succeeds and so I allow the
appeal.
#Post#: 98611--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: Coldhands
Date: November 18, 2025, 4:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ah, I see, it's about date of notice vs date of service of the
notice! Thank you.
#Post#: 101605--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: Coldhands
Date: December 8, 2025, 4:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Redbridge fobbed me off and said that their signage complies
will all relevant statutory requirements :(
London Tribunals appeal hearing scheduled for June next year!
#Post#: 101615--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: December 8, 2025, 5:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All councils say that !
Signs can meet the standards for signs, but the signage can
still be inadequate under Regulation 18 of the The Local
Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales)
Regulations 1996
Good for you for holding their hand to the fire.
#Post#: 101820--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 10, 2025, 5:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's see the NOR and the date please. Some days are better than
others!
#Post#: 125583--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: Coldhands
Date: July 24, 2026, 6:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Embarrassingly I forgot about the hearing and did not attend. I
also forgot to submit a video I had taken later showing how the
signs are not very visible as a driver. My appeal on the basis
of sign height was rejected because the adjudicator said from
the local authority's evidence the signage is visible. But
luckily succeeded on the collateral appeal to do with the
timeframes stated in the letter.
#Post#: 125614--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 24, 2026, 10:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
6. The PCN states as follows (my emphasis):
The Penalty Charge of £160.00 is now payable and must be paid
before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date
of this notice. If it is paid before the end of the period of 14
days beginning with the date of this notice, the amount payable
is reduced by 50% to £80.00. Payment may be made using any of
the options detailed at the bottom of this page, if you believe
you have a good reason not to pay the penalty charge, you should
write to us explaining why (see the 'Representations' section
overleaf). Although there are specific legal grounds for making
representations, we will consider exercising our discretion and
may cancel the penalty charge notice if there are suitable
mitigating circumstances (i.e. if we believe that there is a
good enough reason). Please make sure the Penalty Charge Notice
number is written on all correspondence. 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. We may send
you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased
amount.
7. I find that the first part of this passage cuts short a
statutory period. I find that an enforcement authority cannot do
that. It is not material that there is no suggestion of
prejudice. I find that, whilst there was a contravention, the
collateral challenge, and appeal, succeed on the basis that the
penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of
the case: no liability should have arisen at all.
8. I allow the appeal.
#Post#: 125706--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge PCN - entered a pedestrian zone - Sydney Road
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 25, 2026, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The decision in Usmaan Hafiz v London Borough of Redbridge
(2250638127, 1 June 2026)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dZX3I-SSb058iI-oCk4HYrBOGKFkWCh-/view<br
/>is wrong in law because it is directly contradicted by section
4(8)(a)(iii) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for
London Act 2003, which states that:
[indent]
(8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—
[indent]
(a)state—
[indent]
[...]
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
[/indent]
[/indent]
[/indent]
Any party appearing before a court and tribunal is under a duty
to assist and not mislead, so this case cannot be relied upon
and if ever raised, there is a duty to highlight that it is
wrong.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page