DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 108512--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
DIR By: Dholi93
Date: February 3, 2026, 5:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> For convenience (you have been using the HTML link rather than
the BBCode):
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks for your help with this, I didn't realise I was using the
wrong URL link, will ensure I use BBCode in the future so it
embeds properly.
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> You mentioned procedural impropriety? Failure to consider.
>
--- End Quote ---
I did, I mentioned everything from your previous message (below)
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Before you do anything please screenshot their website.
>
> 1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles.
>
> 2. Similarly, neither do the images nor the video provided.
>
> 3. The PCN is invalid 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;
>
> 4. The PCN contains one invalid ground re the Traffic Order
being invalid.
>
> 5. Your website contains 3 invalid grounds.
>
> In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> I am supposed to be retiring. I will PM you.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thanks, appreciate any help with this.
#Post#: 108862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
DIR By: Dholi93
Date: February 5, 2026, 4:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Considering submitting the following London Tribunals Appeal.
Appreciate any advice, as I know sometimes ChatGPT can get
things horrendously wrong...
---------------------------------------------------------
London Tribunals Appeal – Full Draft
Ground of Appeal: The alleged contravention did not occur and
there has been a procedural impropriety
---------------------------------------------------------
1. The Penalty Charge Notice fails to particularise the alleged
contravention
The Penalty Charge Notice alleges contravention code 52M –
“Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of
vehicle.”
This description is generic and does not specify which class of
vehicle was prohibited. A recipient of a PCN is entitled to
know, from the face of the notice itself, the nature of the
allegation they are required to answer.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority now states for the
first time that the location is:
“a road restricted to motor vehicles (except buses)”.
This information does not appear on the PCN. The enforcement
authority cannot retrospectively clarify or redefine the
allegation during correspondence. The PCN must contain
sufficient particulars at the time it is served.
The failure to specify the prohibited vehicle class renders the
PCN vague and prejudicial. I was not properly informed of the
case I had to meet.
---------------------------------------------------------
2. The authority relies on CCTV evidence which does not show the
restriction relied upon
The PCN is issued on the basis of CCTV enforcement.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority expressly states:
“Due to the positioning of the CCTV camera the signs are not
seen in the CCTV footage.”
The authority therefore accepts that:
•
footage; and
•
While signage does not need to appear in every frame, where CCTV
is the sole evidence relied upon, the authority must still
demonstrate—by clear evidence—that the restriction was
adequately signed and applicable at the material time.
In this case, the authority has provided no still images,
diagrams, or other evidence showing:
•
•
•
The Tribunal is being asked to accept compliance with signage
requirements purely on assertion. That is insufficient.
---------------------------------------------------------
3. Failure to properly consider representations
In my formal representations, I raised specific points
regarding:
•
•
•
authority.
The Notice of Rejection does not meaningfully address these
points. Instead, it contains a blanket assertion that:
“There has been no procedural impropriety by the Enforcement
Authority.”
A mere assertion is not evidence of proper consideration. The
authority is under a duty to genuinely consider representations
made. That duty has not been discharged.
---------------------------------------------------------
4. Prejudice caused by the authority’s approach
The cumulative effect of the above is prejudicial:
•
•
•
the event.
•
This is not a case where the allegation was clear and the
evidence compelling. The enforcement process has failed to meet
the standard required by law.
---------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully submit that:
•
•
I therefore ask the Adjudicator to allow the appeal and direct
cancellation of the Penalty Charge Notice.
⸻
#Post#: 111744--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
DIR By: Dholi93
Date: March 2, 2026, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeal submitted and received on 20th Feb 2026.
London Tribunals responded on 24th Feb 2026.
"The hearing of your appeal will take place using the Microsoft
Teams video conferencing platform on:
14th August 2026 at 12:00."
Anything else I need to do/ prep at this point?
#Post#: 127563--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, South St RM
DIR By: Dholi93
Date: August 11, 2026, 6:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This has unfortunately completely fallen off my plate, luckily I
set a reminder for the hearing this Friday.
I've uploaded all of the evidence they've gathered ahead of the
hearing to this
link
HTML https://limewire.com/d/94DcW#qFRXpRFq0z
Am I heading in to this Hearing SOL? Or do I have some grounds
to contest this with London Tribunals on Friday?
#Post#: 127564--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 11, 2026, 6:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Have you opted for a phone/video appeal or a papers-only appeal
? The tribunal presumably have your appeal text you posted on
here when you registered the appeal and got a date, yes/no ?
I can't see you being granted an adjournment, to be honest, so
the matter will be decided by what the adjudicator has in front
of him.
#Post#: 127619--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
DIR By: Dholi93
Date: August 12, 2026, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is the hearing I have on Friday.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/20QRR05g/1786539822520-80b07c7c-3a31-4164-ad6b-72a7ecad12a8-1.jpg
HTML http://[url=
HTML https://ibb.co/hxjrrxCD
[url=
HTML https://ibb.co/JFkb3dKm]https://i.ibb.co/6JspXZmr/1786539822520-80b07c7c-3a31-4164-ad6b-72a7ecad12a8-2.jpg
And the plan is to essentially re-iterate what I've noted in the
appeal:
Further information about the appeal: Ground of Appeal: The
alleged contravention did
not occur and there has been a procedural impropriety
1. The Penalty Charge Notice fails to particularise the alleged
contravention
The Penalty Charge Notice alleges contravention code 52M –
“Failing to comply with a
prohibition on certain types of vehicle.”
This description is generic and does not specify which class of
vehicle was prohibited. A
recipient of a PCN is entitled to know, from the face of the
notice itself, the nature of the
allegation they are required to answer.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority now states for the
first time that the location is:
“a road restricted to motor vehicles (except buses)”.
This information does not appear on the PCN. The enforcement
authority cannot
retrospectively clarify or redefine the allegation during
correspondence. The PCN must
contain sufficient particulars at the time it is served.
The failure to specify the prohibited vehicle class renders the
PCN vague and
prejudicial. I was not properly informed of the case I had to
meet.
2. The authority relies on CCTV evidence which does not show the
restriction relied
upon
The PCN is issued on the basis of CCTV enforcement.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority expressly states:
“Due to the positioning of the CCTV camera the signs are not
seen in the CCTV
footage.”
The authority therefore accepts that:
• the signage relied upon is not visible in the enforcement
footage; and
• the restriction itself is not evidenced in the CCTV record.
While signage does not need to appear in every frame, where CCTV
is the sole
evidence relied upon, the authority must still demonstrate—by
clear evidence—that the
restriction was adequately signed and applicable at the material
time.
In this case, the authority has provided no still images,
diagrams, or other evidence
showing:
• the position of the signs relative to the vehicle’s approach,
• their visibility at 01:07 hours, or
• how the restriction applied to my vehicle.
The Tribunal is being asked to accept compliance with signage
requirements purely on
assertion. That is insufficient.
3. Failure to properly consider representations
In my formal representations, I raised specific points
regarding:
• the lack of particularisation of the alleged contravention,
• defects in the statutory grounds stated on the PCN, and
• the inclusion of non-statutory grounds elsewhere by the
authority.
The Notice of Rejection does not meaningfully address these
points. Instead, it contains
a blanket assertion that:
“There has been no procedural impropriety by the Enforcement
Authority.”
A mere assertion is not evidence of proper consideration. The
authority is under a duty
to genuinely consider representations made. That duty has not
been discharged.
4. Prejudice caused by the authority’s approach
The cumulative effect of the above is prejudicial:
• The PCN did not tell me what vehicle class was prohibited.
• The CCTV evidence does not show the restriction.
• The authority clarified the alleged restriction only after the
event.
• My representations were not substantively addressed.
This is not a case where the allegation was clear and the
evidence compelling. The
enforcement process has failed to meet the standard required by
law.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully submit that:
• the alleged contravention has not been proved, and
• the Penalty Charge Notice is unenforceable.
I therefore ask the Adjudicator to allow the appeal and direct
cancellation of the Penalty
Charge Notice.
AND
The traffic order contravened is invalid
1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles.
2. Similarly, neither do the images nor the video provided.
3. The PCN is invalid 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;
4. The PCN contains one invalid ground re the Traffic Order
being invalid.
5. Your website contains 3 invalid grounds.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
#Post#: 127640--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 12, 2026, 10:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I will PM you now.
Sorted and moved.
#Post#: 129735--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
DIR By: shucks
Date: September 6, 2026, 4:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi, I would be grateful if you could share the outcome, please.
I am considering going to a tribunal for exactly the same thing.
Thanks!
#Post#: 129742--------------------------------------------------
Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on
certain types of vehicle, South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: September 6, 2026, 5:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: shucks link ---
>
> Hi, I would be grateful if you could share the outcome,
please. I am considering going to a tribunal for exactly the
same thing. Thanks!
>
--- End Quote ---
The outcome will be posted on here if the matter gets to London
Tribunals, and that could be months away.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page