DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 107068--------------------------------------------------
London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code 85) -
Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: francofranc
Date: January 23, 2026, 4:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Council: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Contravention:
Code 85 - Parked without a valid virtual permit Location:
Sulivan Court - Off Street VRM: GL67UOH PCN Numbers: HZ79713051
(and 13 others, see below)
Story: Hi everyone,
I am seeking advice regarding 14 PCNs issued to my vehicle
between 01/12/2025 and 24/12/2025.
I have held a resident permit since 2021. My permit expired, and
due to missing the reminder (or not receiving one), I did not
renew it immediately. During this 3-week period, my vehicle was
parked in the same bay in the estate car park (Sulivan Court)
and was not moved at any point. I was away for my Christmas
holidays.
I submitted an informal challenge covering all PCNs arguing
Continuous Contravention, citing that this was a single
administrative error and the vehicle remained stationary.
I have now received a rejection letter (dated 22/01/2026) which
lists all 14 PCNs and demands £1,680.00. The rejection appears
to be a standard template; it states that the permit was invalid
but completely fails to address the "Continuous Contravention"
argument I raised.
I am planning to wait for the Notice to Owner to make a formal
representation on the grounds of Procedural Impropriety (Failure
to Consider) and Continuous Contravention, but I wanted to run
this past the experts here first.
Documents:
Dropbox Link
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/i6ujm493mx79cc3ys3nyj/ABY5jDGiEyxOy9SxznW7DEU?rlkey=vfzxkzla44bc4hs01xoct31bi&st=b4fs78mi&dl=0<br
/>to rejection to my informal challenge and all PCN charges
Link
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/f4S4pdN
to one PCN image
Google Street View Location:
HTML https://freeimage.host/i/f4U9ISe<br
/>Unfortunately there isn't a proper street view in that
specific
street.
Any advice on my next steps or specific wording for the formal
representation would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
HTML https://iili.io/f4S4pdN.jpg
#Post#: 107071--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code
85) - Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 23, 2026, 5:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is predatory by H&F.
The sign shows it is 24/7 so must be a continuous contravention,
which they have not addressed.
Is there a car park terms board?
HTML https://i.ibb.co/67cZYKtF/h3.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/wZGwT9Sz/h2.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/Ngm9WDj0/h1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/svLS7cst/response-to-my-informal-appeal.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/b58YDb14/response-to-my-informal-appeal-2.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/dJP6K6SQ/3.jpg
#Post#: 107080--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code
85) - Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 23, 2026, 6:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Venal, rapacious, and ruthless. Your typical London council !
It's up there with the people who caused the Post Office scandal
isn't it ?
Try getting it into the national press, but after an appeal at
London Tribunals.
#Post#: 107115--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code
85) - Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: January 23, 2026, 9:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to add - they have fettered their discretion badly by
saying unable to consider cancellation as the permit was not
reactivated til later and that as the CEO had a 'legal
obligation' to issue multiple PCNs they have no valid reason to
cancel any.
An authority always has a duty to consider representations and
always has the power to cancel.
One point - when you did reactivate the permit did you have the
choice to renew it from the expiry date?
#Post#: 107280--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code
85) - Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: francofranc
Date: January 25, 2026, 12:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
That point about Fettered Discretion is excellent, I completely
missed that. Their wording "unable to consider" and claiming a
"legal obligation" to issue the PCNs does seem to completely
shut down their own power to use common sense. I will definitely
include this as a third ground in my Formal Representation
(alongside Continuous Contravention and Failure to Consider).
To answer your questions:
1. terms board:
I need to double-check this. I will go down to the estate
entrance/car park later today to see if there is a main "Terms
and Conditions" board separate from the bay suspension/permit
signs. If I find one, I will upload a photo.
2. Permit renewal:
When I renewed on 29/12/2025, it started from that date. I was
not offered the choice to backdate the permit to the original
expiry date to "fill the gap." It just started a new 12-month
period from the day of payment. Does this difference impact the
"Continuous Contravention" argument?
More in general, do you think the 3 grounds identified above
should be the main ones to be used in the Formal Representation?
I am currently waiting for the NTOs to arrive (none have landed
yet).
#Post#: 107282--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code
85) - Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: January 25, 2026, 3:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unusual of this council to be so difficult, they cancel lots of
first time moving traffic PCNs.
The OP should note that tribunal decisions are not precedents
but are legally persuasive. I have lost a collateral challenge
argument with a new adjudicator but the argument usually
prevails.
There is an interesting difference as against on street resident
permits. Guidance from London Councils is that a lower rate PCN
should be given for recently expired permits. No such code
exists for off street contraventions.
We need to be sure the restriction is 24 hours a day so I have
emailed the council for the traffic order. If the order is 24
hours a day then I agree this is a continuous contravention. If
it isn't the council have failed to accurately sign the
restriction which would be a procedural impropriety. I note that
the restriction is signed as applying on bank holidays (as not
excluded). (added: The London Gazette suggests this isn't a 24/7
restriction but Monday - Saturday 9am to 5pm)
I agree with the publicity point. Councils hate being in the
papers as bad news so I wouldn't wait. I would also ask your
councillor to intervene, they can't order cancellations but any
normal person would see this situation as excessive. The council
should have towed you on day 3 which would have stopped the
penalties (but run up storage fees).
Mr Teper took a robust approach to a council pursuing excessive
penalties, he asked them some hard questions and then struck
them out (he used to be a judge and doesn't mess about). I
blogged about the case:
HTML https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2025/11/hounslow-council-no-comment-no-penalties.html
I had a 30+ PCN battle last year. Mr Aslangul made the first
decision in 2250042965 before all of the cases got amalgamated.
You can look it up on the tribunal register but a key extract
is:
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has exercised its
positive duty in relation to penalties in a fair and consistent
way by pursuing a charge when it is inappropriate to do so in
the light of a total potential liability of £4,550.00 in penalty
charges.
I then appeared in person in front of Mr Houghton and he allowed
c. 75% of the remaining Appeals in decision 2250027972 and
others (the PCNs had not all progressed in unison so multiple
Appeals were started at different times, unravelling the mess
took me c. 100 hours). The relevant extract is:
Mr Aslangul's decision is not binding on me but it is very
persuasive, and I entirely agree with the approach taken, which
was to allow the Appeal on the grounds of a breach of the public
law duty of fairness. If this were a parking case an Adjudicator
would have no power to allow an appeal on such a basis, the
limit of Adjudicators powers being to consider whether the
Council’s actions fall within the definition of a procedural
impropriety. However in moving traffic cases (where no such
ground of appeal is available) I consider, as Mr Aslangul
clearly did, that it remains open to an Adjudicator to allow an
appeal on the basis of a collateral challenge on the grounds of
a breach of the public law duty of fairness . As my learned
colleague, the Chief Adjudicator Mr Chan, stated in Guarunteed
Cleaning Ltd -v- Transport for London (2240546521):-
"None of these changes" (referring to the legislation providing
for procedural impropriety as a ground of appeal) "apply to PCNs
issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for
London Act 2003. It must therefore follow, or at least there is
a strong argument, that the Adjudicator retains the power to
hear a collateral challenge against a PCN issued under the 2003
Act. In other words, for cases to be decided under the 1993
Regulations, the adjudicator has the power to determine a
collateral challenge See R v the Parking Adjudicator ex parte
Bexley, CO- 1616-96."
It is the case that, looked at as individual cases, the Council
has acted lawfully and within its powers. However it seems to me
that it is entirely artificial in this situation to consider the
trees but not the whole wood. There is some force in Mr
Dishman's submission that "The purpose of this restriction is
not to revenue raise from residents who live within the school
street, but to prevent the road past the school being used as a
'rat run' during the school arrival and departure times. The EA
have not properly turned their mind to the question of
proportionality for what is in essence an administrative
question, they have looked with a narrow viewpoint purely as to
whether or not a contravention occurred"
The Appellant cannot be said to have been entirely without
fault. He should have understood the meaning of the signs and
got himself a permit. He was under a legal duty to ensure that
the vehicle was registered at the correct address. He could not
complain about having to pay a penalty, or even a few, for his
error.
That said, however, the amount due is well in excess of any fine
that would be reasonably expected in a Magistrates court for far
more serious motoring offences such as driving without
insurance, and far in excess of a fines that would have been
imposed for this sort of offence in the days when they were
criminal offences ( where a series of offences would normally be
dealt with their being taken into consideration when sentencing
for a single matter) . I also regard it as extremely relevant
that the Appellant was actually entitled to a permit as a
resident and indeed now has one. These cases are therefore
effectively no more than a continuing failure to possess the
necessary paperwork ( or its virtual equivalent). As Mr Dishman
puts it, he is guilty only of an administrative oversight I do
not believe it can possibly have been Parliament’s intention to
fine a motorist £4500 in these circumstances, a sum which is
wholly disproportionate to the error made.
The Regulations state that an Adjudicator may make such an order
as he sees fit. The order I see fit to make and which in my view
meets the justice of the case is is to allow the Appeals in the
case of those PCNs which never reached him in time for him to
obtain the permit, but refuse the Appeals in the case of those
PCNs which were sent to his actual address at Crescent Road.
Although Mr Aslangul's decision allowing the Appeal was in fact
in respect of such a case it seems to me in the case of the
latter group the Appellant is in the same position as any other
motorist finding out for the first time that he has been
contravening in error, and there seems to me no good reason why
the Council cannot enforce these PCNs at the full rate. To that
extent therefore I do not consider my decision inconsistent with
that of my learned colleague, who of course was not seized of
the entirety of the matter.
Please can the OP show us last year's permit reminder and the
documents he received after renewing it so we can see what they
say in case they damn the council.
Thanks to another expert whose permit expired and for which he
got one PCN which I have challenged I have thought to look at
the council website which says they will send a reminder, not
that they may send one and there is no warning, apart from
saying it is the resident's responsibility to renew I read that
as meaning once told you need to.
HTML https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/residents-parking-permit/renew-your-parking-permit
In the case I am challenging I wrote this:
The point of the residents parking bays is to protect residents
not to penalise them.
The council will doubtless claim that the reminder system they
have introduced is a courtesy and there is no legal requirement
to provide it. However, in reminders sent to me about my own
vehicle there is no warning that the council accept no liability
for any future failing that they may have nor that the public
should not rely on a system the council have set up which was
presumably for the very purpose helping residents. If the public
should not rely on the council they should be honest about it
and tell them not to rely on the council system which really
should be a foolproof one so the best and simplest solution. The
public should be told to set their own calendar reminder. It
would of course be ludicrous to replace one council system with
tens of thousands of individual reminders.
If your car is leased or provided as part of a salary sacrifice
scheme we need to make sure the provider does not pay any
Notices to Owner. Please confirm OP that the vehicle is
registered with DVLA to you at Sullivan Court.
(Don't fret about exactly what to write at the next stage, most
experts are too busy to work ahead of time and we need all the
facts before we do decide on the best strategy).
#Post#: 107290--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code
85) - Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: January 25, 2026, 5:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> If this were a parking case an Adjudicator would have no power
to allow an appeal on such a basis, the limit of Adjudicators
powers being to consider whether the Council’s actions fall
within the definition of a procedural impropriety
--- End Quote ---
It seems to me, that the adjudicator has misinformed himself,
because the statutory grounds of "the penalty exceeded the
relevant amount in the circumstances of the case" still applies
in the TMA 2004, and this was the ground used to bring a
collateral appeal argument under the 1991 legislation.
#Post#: 107299--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code
85) - Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: ILoveCats123
Date: January 25, 2026, 8:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This is just an observation on my part,
The letter which lists out all 14 PCNs, has a total of £1600,
yet the total stated by the council is £1680.
Where did the extra £80 come from or am I missing something?
#Post#: 107362--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code
85) - Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: January 26, 2026, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The council have been very efficient in providing me with the
traffic order.
It is here
HTML https://www.scribd.com/document/987513590/Sulivan-Court-London-SW6-Traffic-order
Look at apge 5. The bay hours are Monday to saturday, 9am to 5pm
(excluding Public & Bank Holidays).
The signs therefore are not correct (the sign board might be)
and that is probably now the ebst line of defence as the council
has a legal duty to erect and maintain accurate signage.
If I drove into that estate to park of an evening, I would drive
out again as I have been misinformed that parking is restricted
at say, 7pm.
#Post#: 107461--------------------------------------------------
Re: London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham - 14 PCNs (Code
85) - Sulivan Court - Continuous Contravention Ignored
DIR By: francofranc
Date: January 26, 2026, 5:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi team,
I have uploaded the photos from my site visit to the Dropbox
folder.
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/i6ujm493mx79cc3ys3nyj/ABY5jDGiEyxOy9SxznW7DEU?rlkey=vfzxkzla44bc4hs01xoct31bi&st=4h7ya4ml&dl=0
I captured the signs throughout the surrounding area, but most
importantly, I found the large main sign at the entrance that
clearly states the parking rules as you enter the estate.
Let me know if you need any further details.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page