DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 102068--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: poklepi
Date: December 11, 2025, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hey Hippocrates
So to confirm: I should challenge both PCNs by simply including
the arguments you shared below. I do not need to instruct the
Council to “cancel one automatically”, as the point is already
made by explaining that the two PCNs arise from the same
continuous sequence of events only one minute apart. Likewise, I
do not need to separately state that the Fulham 10k road
closures made it impossible to use alternative routes?
To whom it may concern,
The PCN fails to include mandatory information required by para.
4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London
Act 2003 -
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
The Act requires the PCN to state:
at 4(8)(iii): that the penalty charge must be paid before the
end of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; and
at 4(8)(v): that if the penalty charge is not paid before the
end of that 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.
Your PCN instead states:
“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.”
This wording is defective because:
It substitutes the statutory definition (“date of notice”) with
an entirely different one (“date of service”).
The mandatory statutory wording is omitted from the PCN. Your
substituted wording only adds to the lack of clarity caused by
this omission. Even taken on its own terms, the statement is
defective because it conflates two separate statutory periods by
using the word “or”, which many would interpret conjunctively.
Even if interpreted disjunctively, the statement still fails to
provide clarity because the required statutory information is
missing. It follows that the notice cannot possibly be
interpreted correctly and therefore does not comply with Section
4(8) of the 2003 Act.
#Post#: 102624--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: poklepi
Date: December 16, 2025, 4:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Just checking to see if you think I can proceed on this basis.
Thanks!
#Post#: 102636--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: December 16, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OK.
#Post#: 116598--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: poklepi
Date: April 21, 2026, 12:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Hippocrates,
Quick update on my case.
I challenged both PCNs using the arguments discussed here and
using the wording you suggested.
Outcome:
PCN HZ95339273 (10:24) → Cancelled (discretion)
PCN HZ95348988 (10:23) → Rejected
It seems inconsistent to cancel one PCN but enforce the other
when both arise from the same continuous sequence of events.
Any advice?
#Post#: 116661--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: RichardW
Date: April 22, 2026, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appear to have considered as continuous contravention so
cancelled the second. Did they re offer the discount? Double or
quits time at the tribunal if so, if not tribunal is no brainer!
#Post#: 120683--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: poklepi
Date: June 4, 2026, 5:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, I misunderstood the Notice of Rejection process.
I incorrectly assumed that a Notice to Owner would follow, so I
did not appeal to London Tribunals within the 28-day period.
I have now received a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty
to £240.
I contacted London Tribunals, who advised that because a Charge
Certificate has been issued they can no longer accept an appeal
unless the process is reset. They suggested contacting the
Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC).
I have since spoken to TEC and understand there may be a route
to have the process reset, which would potentially allow me to
appeal to London Tribunals.
Given the circumstances, and the fact that the council cancelled
the second PCN arising from the same journey, would you pursue
the TEC route and seek to restore appeal rights, or would you
simply pay the £240?
#Post#: 120748--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 4, 2026, 12:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Best if you read this and update your thread accordingly: -
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
I'm assuming you submitted reps against the PCN, and then got a
Notice of Rejection. This would have told you what you had to do
(apart from paying), to take matters forward to the
adjudicators.
So, as per above, you need to post the documents.
#Post#: 120831--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: poklepi
Date: June 5, 2026, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Incandescent,
Thanks.
I've now uploaded:
Original PCN that has been rejected
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/qiywYYn
Notice of Rejection:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/AvGexzE
Charge Certificate
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/YsFbxsY
Cancellation letter for the other PCN:
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/qLIiXKG
As I mentioned earlier, I misunderstood the Notice of Rejection
and incorrectly thought a Notice to Owner would follow, so I did
not appeal to London Tribunals within the 28-day period.
Since receiving the Charge Certificate, I have spoken to London
Tribunals and TEC.
I'd appreciate any advice on what my next step should be.
#Post#: 120897--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: June 5, 2026, 5:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Notice of Rejection states your options clearly enough, in
my opinion, so I'm not clear how you could have misunderstood.
A Notice to Owner is only sent out when no response is received,
(payment or representations), for a PCN served at the roadside
to the car or the driver.
The only thing I can suggest is to contact the council and ask
them to cancel the Charge Certificate on the basis that you were
expecting a Notice to Owner. Are you new to the UK or do not
have a full knowledge of English ? This could help them give way
and accept just the PCN penalty.
#Post#: 122350--------------------------------------------------
Re: H&F - Code 52M “Failing to comply with prohibition on
motor vehicles” - Peterborough Rd & Clancarty Rd
DIR By: poklepi
Date: June 19, 2026, 7:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi,
Thanks for your help. I managed to get the Charge Certificate
cancelled and the Penalty Charge reduced back to £80 after
explaining the misunderstanding as you advised.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page