DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 101103--------------------------------------------------
Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?
By: Hippocrates Date: December 5, 2025, 5:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Since procedural impropriety is not a ground afforded in moving
traffic or bus lane legislation, we have had much success in
regard of the collateral challenge. But now, things have
changed.
First this: Anisha Moosafeer v London Borough of Havering
(2240500622, 21 February 2025)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LD63VXTSITbwBjkRvb30J9SMAx0agBjO/view
Then this: Mohammed Miah v London Borough of Bromley
(2250050555, 16 September 2025)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mD7fzOlTpVxcmmYRVONGUwQ-6KvSMid-/view<br
/>(BTW: the complaint is still live with my MP and beyond)
Leading to this: Maeve McGarrity v Transport for London
(2250183490, 30 October 2025)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtkanqMXN7366HrAcRInQx7b_Jv69e7N/view
And finally this: Oishik Banerji v London Borough of Haringey
(2250336977, 2 December 2025)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ixrwv3geZw1aNMuDq986gn8e82r7xCV/view
Houston, we have a problem!
It seems that councils can now put whatever they like on their
PCNs, NORs and websites as per the two legislations above. And
as far as prejudice is irrelevant is concerned, I don't believe
this has been tested at the Court of Appeal - yet.
#Post#: 101271--------------------------------------------------
Re: Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?
By: Pastmybest Date: December 6, 2025, 10:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It would seem to me that an argument that the PCN is defective
in not giving unambiguously all the information required is not
a lawful PCN thus cannot be enforceable would have merit
Arguments re the website giving different information would have
to evidence prejudice
At the end of the day the council cannot send a letter saying
you owe us so pay up they must comply with the requirements of
the regs
On a personal note I have stopped looking at these as they are
invariably taken off the forum to be delt with by individuals.
The collective mind seems to be no longer wanted
*****************************************************