DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 112218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: ndp26
Date: March 5, 2026, 7:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks Incandescent, appreciate it. I'll give the Council a
call.
#Post#: 126437--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: ndp26
Date: July 31, 2026, 6:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi Incandescent (and all)
Providing another update on this case because, at this stage,
the appeal hearing will be going ahead on 25 August and I wanted
to see if anyone was able to share any tips / guidance they have
for the hearing itself.
- I contacted the council and they confirmed that the Charge
Certificates were likely sent in error and would not be enforced
while an appeal was pending (confirming what you said
Incandescent). The person I spoke to on the phone said I could
send an email to have them formally cancelled, but he'd also put
a note on their system to flag that I'd called. (Just in case
anyone else finds themselves in a similar situation.
- I attempted to contact the local councillors regarding the
PCNs and the incorrect advice from Newham Council. I received
some initial traction with one councillor - not long after they
said they'd referred it back to the Council (after some delay)
and instructed them to contact me directly, they then told me
their term was expiring and that they'd be standing in another
ward. I have followed up with the new councillors, but to no
avail.
- I have now received the evidence packs from the Council in
advance of the hearing - which appear to be "cookie cutter" and
don't appear to consider the specific facts / issues relating to
the PCNs or my appeal of them. My call to Council does not
appear to be mentioned in any of the evidence packs. This is
notwithstanding their evidence stating that they have "taken in
account all aspects of this matter including mitigation into
consideration." In addition, the Council also sent an evidence
pack for the first PCN received (which I had paid). The first
PCN was listed in the appeal, but only because it is relevant to
the appeal of the 4 subsequent PCNs received.
- I am still yet to receive a notice of rejection for the 4th
(of 5) PCN received. Is the onus on me to follow up with the
Council, or is this a procedural issue to flag in the appeal
(even though it may hold little weight)?
Even though I am not (technically) appealing on one of the
grounds the adjudicator is permitted to rule on, I assume (and
hope) the adjudicator can direct/recommend that the Council
reconsider their enforcement of PCNs 2-5 in light of the
circumstances. Any thoughts / tips / guidance on the approach I
should take at the hearing would be very welcome.
(Hopefully) I might have some luck with a procedural impropriety
argument given the Council has clearly not considered the
particular circumstances of the PCNs, most clearly evidenced by
sending an evidence pack for a PCN that has been paid.
Thanks in advance for any wisdom / guidance you are able to
share - much appreciated!
#Post#: 126465--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 1, 2026, 7:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When the appeals were registered might not be relevant IMO.
In the first instance, the key issue is the dates of the
respective NoRs and CCs.
OP, I can't access this info in your drive link, could you just
set them out here pl.
PCN NOR dated CC issued
*** **** *****
etc.
When a NOR is served, the authority is prevented from serving a
CC in 2 circumstances:
1. Until a period of 28 days beginning on the date of service
has expired. Nothing to do with registering an appeal as such
because this period applies whether an appeal is registered in
time or not;
2. If the 28-day period has expired and the council is notified
that an appeal has been registered. In such cases, the council
has not committed a PI if they issued the CC before being
notified. This comes under the heading, 'that's life'. But if
they did not act upon the notification and issued after this was
received by them, then it's curtains IMO.
Some councils are risk-takers and look to serve CCs at the
earliest opportunity so they work out the day after the end of
the period, count back two working days and plan to issue CCs on
those dates. The risk they take is that they're exposed if the
recipient submits their appeal in that interval.
Of course, if they miscalculate the end of the 28-day
period......
#Post#: 126485--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 1, 2026, 9:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Checked the dates. The CCs were issued on 2 March which was
after the end of the 28-day period, so no fault there.
The OPs links do not include their appeal submissions, the
tribunal's response or notice that their appeals had been
registered.
Taking the OP's dates, the CC issue is down to the delay in the
tribunal notifying the OP and the authority. However, the fact
remains that the CCs were served prematurely because with issue
dates of 2 March they were deemed served on 4th, one day after
the tribunal's notice. It's for the authority to deal with this
and if they admitted to an error(when in fact there wasn't one
on their part) then perhaps they'll panic if the OP includes
procedural impropriety in their grounds of appeal?
#Post#: 126637--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: ndp26
Date: August 2, 2026, 7:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi tincombe
Thank you for taking a look at this - and apologies for the
delay with the Drive link.
I haven't uploaded the Council's evidence packs into the Drive
as there are a number of pages with name/address on them (and I
don't have an electronic solution to mask this, or a printer to
do it manually and scan it back in. I could try copying the main
part of their "evidence" into a Google Doc (or similar) though
if that would be helpful.
I haven't received any response from the tribunal, only the
confirmation of submitting the appeal and details of the hearing
date - is there anything in either of these documents that would
be helpful for you to see?
On the timing for filing the CCs, what is the consequence of the
Council's technical breach of the CC filing requirement? Do they
get another "bite of the cherry" or does this simply add weight
to the procedural impropriety argument?
(Note also that no NoR was received for PCN 4, so that is
another point I'd raise.)
Also worth noting is that when submitting the appeal, there are
very limited options for selecting grounds of appeal.
Thanks again!
#Post#: 126645--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 3, 2026, 1:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Act in this case doesn't have grounds of PI as such, but
there is the following:
e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the
circumstances of the case.
There's also the opportunity to raise this as what's know as a
collateral challenge.
I suggest something along the following lines - but amend to
ensure facts are correct.
IMO, just put the facts in your appeal which would then require
a response from the council e.g. I submitted my appeal(s) on
**** and received confirmation that these had been registered on
****. I then received *** Charge Certificates demanding
surcharged penalties. These were issued after I submitted my
appeal, the respective dates being as follows:
***********
I was under the impression that an appeal was against the full
penalty, but at the date of compiling this submission I have not
received any communication* from the council that the
certificates have been cancelled and therefore as far as I know
these are still live. I submit that these are demands for
penalties which exceed the amount applicable and accordingly ask
that the adjudicator allows my appeal on these grounds.
*- I disregard uncorroborated telephone calls.
#Post#: 126731--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: ndp26
Date: August 3, 2026, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you tincombe - appreciate it. A couple of questions on
this:
- is there any for the Council due to mistiming the CCs, or does
it just allow the recipient to challenge the validity of them
(but they can reissue) or does it "defeat" / have some other
impact on the PCN?
- without this, is there a risk the adjudicator does not allow
my appeal?
- should I submit this now, or on the day of the appeal?
#Post#: 126736--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 3, 2026, 3:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't really follow.
You're committed to an appeal so you put forward your arguments.
The CC issue is just one which has arisen since you made your
reps, so it doesn't affect the substantive argument in those
reps.
There's always a risk the adjudicator won't allow your appeal,
but you didn't commit yourself to this because of the CC.
IMO, you should submit further reps as soon as you can. If you
leave these until the appeal then this smacks of an ambush
because the authority is entitled to consider and respond to
your arguments, just as you are to theirs.
We really need to see their evidence pack, but you've seen it
and most will rehearse what we've seen in their correspondence
and NOR. If this applies, then those parts are less important.
But their Case Summary, plans/maps and the TMO should be posted
as a minimum .
#Post#: 127235--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: ndp26
Date: August 8, 2026, 7:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sorry tincombe - I was just trying to understand the consequence
of, outcome sought through, raising the CC issue. My read of
your comments is that it is another argument worth raising in
support of my appeal (but won't alone 'defeat' the PCN) - is
that right?
I've uploaded to the GDrive folder a Google Doc with screenshots
of the "new" parts of their Evidence Pack: link
HTML http://
HTML https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fhd-YAC3fBdyZX7AzjlBQAR49C8qIjaF7yNo6Ri2GeU/edit?usp=drive_link
I didn't screenshot out the correspondence, NOR, etc. - but let
me know if there is anything else you'd like to see.
I also found:
- the text from my appeal on my computer (I must have decided to
type it into a Word doc before uploading it to their platform),
which is uploaded as a PDF.
- another PDF with a query I submitted to the Tribunal, which I
now realise the Tribunal hasn't responded to (will follow that
up this week).
Noted re submitting the further reps as soon as possible.
#Post#: 128041--------------------------------------------------
Re: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park
Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15
DIR By: ndp26
Date: August 17, 2026, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi tincombe
Just thought I'd follow up on the below chain, as I've now
pulled together a draft of the further representations in a PDF
document (link
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zYuS9INcAghVIOq17qaE0_QqEC0qLipr/view?usp=drive_link).
I'm not sure whether it is within the scope of the assistance
provided by this forum to cast your eye over these
representations, but I would be very grateful if you are in a
position to do so.
Any guidance you are willing / able to provide would be very
much appreciated.
Note also that the appeal has been pushed back to 10 September,
so hopefully this will mean I can avoid any 'ambush' argument
from the Council.
Thanks in advance!
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page