Haringey – 10 PCNs with representations rejected

Hi, I would be grateful for advice on a multiple-PCN situation with Haringey Council.

I have received **10 PCNs over a period of approximately 7 days**, arising from the exactly same underlying circumstances.

The chronology is:
* **16 July:** first alleged contravention occurred.
* **20 July:** first PCN was issued/dated.
* **24 July:** I actually received the first PCN.
* By the time I received the first PCN, several further PCNs had already been issued/incurred with the last PCN being issued on 24 July dated 28 July and received by me on 30 July.

The offence:
52(M) Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle
Location: La Rose lane N15(Junction with cranleigh road - eastbound) (X2)

My house is only a few meteres away from this junction and I moved into this area only 3 months ago. Throughout the time since ive moved to this lane, this road has been open under temporary easing of the restrictions with signs saying so. By this I mean for atleast 2 months continously this road has been open to all types of vehicle to pass and I have been using it with no issues.

From 13 July onwards, I have been with my wife in the hospital as she was preparing to give birth. We checked out of the hospital on the 17 July. As some of you might understand this was a very stressful period for me and I've failed to noticed this change and some of you might understand why given the road was open as long as I have lived here and overnight the restriction was lifted. It might sound as lack of observation from me as a driver however given the circumstances I believe many others in my position would miss it as well. Nonetheless, I would've immediately corrected the behaviour had I received the first violation notice but unfortunately 10 other PCNs were issued before I got a chance.

I have already filed representations to the council explaining the circumstances and requested to exercise discretion. I was happy to pay the first offence but requested cancellations of others. As expected, the council has rejected all 10 appeals and have given template replies to a detailed explanation from my end.

The total amount is beyond what my financial circumstances allow me to pay even with the discounted rates deadline of which has passed by anyway. Im left with not much choice but to take this to the tribunal in hopes of getting these either cancelled or the council being advised to reconsider discretion.

I understand that each PCN is technically a separate enforcement matter, and I am not necessarily arguing that the individual contraventions did not occur.

Instead, I intend to argue that, even if the adjudicator finds that the contraventions occurred, the circumstances justify Haringey exercising **discretion in relation to the subsequent PCNs**, because I had no opportunity to correct the behaviour before receiving the first PCN and explain why it was easy to miss the change in restrictions given overall circumstances.

My questions are:

1. Has anyone dealt with a similar case where multiple PCNs were issued before the first PCN was received?
2. Are there any **recent London Tribunals adjudicator decisions** dealing with this specific issue?
3. Is there anything particular I should ask the adjudicator to consider in the decision to ensure that Haringey properly considers the circumstances of all the PCNs?

I have atttached a link below that shows the first PCN and the councils response to my representation for that PCN. There are 10 others with same response.


I appreciate any advice on this matter.
Thank you.

I'll see if I can dig something out multiple moving traffic PCNs.

Sadly adjudicators can't make recommendations to cancel moving traffic contraventions.

You should be hopeful though that Haringey won't contest some.

Let's see:

A PCN
Your reps
A rejection

There may be defects in the rejection. And also in the location signage.

Are any discounts still available as paying one could be useful.

Thanks for your reply! I appreciate your help.

I've added a google drive link with the first PCN and their rejected representation letter for that one in my original post. There are 10 other rejection letters with the exact same response. I'm copying it here again:


In terms of signage, the signage itself is clear but when the overriding ease of restrictions signage underneath it for the 2 months i've lived there were lifted while I was away i think its reasonable to expect someone to miss this.

It's unfortunate that adjudicators cant cancel moving traffic contraventions. My main hope is that they would recommend reconsidering exercising discretion to the council as I strongly believe that the council has barely batted an eye lid to my explanation and request of discretion. Their website says that proportionality and discretion should be considered but given their response I'm sure they've not considered anything and simply gave a template response to my representation.

After litte bit of searching and chatgpt-ing, the closest case at the tribunal that I could fine was "A Sanaul Haque and others v. The London Borough of Ealing" where it was recognised the argument that where multiple PCNs accumulate, proportionality and discretion can become relevant. To expect someone to pay £800 (discounted rate) is beyond proportional as far as I can understand.

In terms of the discounted rate for at least one, unfortunately i've passed the 14 day deadline they've given me and I am quite close to the 28 day deadline to pay the full fine or raise it at the tribunal.
Thanks!

Also to add to the above, I hope that the adjudicator can see how I did not have a chance to correct the behivour as there were 8 days between the first violation to being served. Is this something reasonable to expect?

What I meant is the tribunal can't make (non-binding) recommendations to cancel for moving traffic based on mitigation but can do so for parking contraventions.

But adjudicators can sometimes find ways to be helpful. I'll look at this later.

The rest of the NOR pl up to and including the signature.

Have you registered appeals?

Sorry for the delayed response.

by rest of the NOR do you mean all 10 of them? I've attached again one of the NORs at the below link:


I have not filed for appeals yet as I was waiting for advice from this forum before moving ahead.

Many thanks for you time!

You need to make access Public, pl.

Apologies just updated the access to public

The notice of rejection is obliged ("it must") to state that the council may issue a charge certificate after a period of 28 days beginning with the date the notice of rejection was served.  Your NoR is rather vague with the 28 day period and just says "after 28 days". That could be interpreted multiple ways and in my opinion isn't specific enough to be compliant with the legislation.

Haringey will use a standard template so I'll see if I can find other examples of adjudicators deciding in favour of the motorist on this basis.

On the downside, this wording comes straight after a section where the 28 day period is more defined so could be construed to be ok taking the wider context into account. However even that other 28 day period isn't defined exactly in line with the legislation. Does 28 days "from" service include the day of service itself or not?

Can't seem to access the statutory register from overseas. Will try again when can in the UK from Friday.

IMO, the NOR is grossly improper. It states:

You have these choices:

...
You can pay £160 ..you have 28 days from the date of this letter being served to do this.

Rubbish, compounded by this

You can appeal to the ..adjudicator, you have 28 days from this letter being served to do this.

Their recourse being..

If after 28 days[clearly being the 28 days 'from this letter being served] you
have taken no action we may SEND you a charge certificate increasing the charge..from £160 to £240.


instead the following applies:

Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice
3Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—

(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—

(i)the penalty charge is paid; or

(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge; and

(b)describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made,

It is not rocket science.

Their letter misinforms you of:

You statutory rights to appeal; and
Their power(and therefore your liability) to increase the penalty.


You DO NOT have 'The period of 28 days following this letter being served to pay £160', this right expires at the end of the period of 28 days BEGINNING ON the day of service;

You DO NOT have the right to register an appeal with the adjudicator at any time during the period of 28 days from this letter being served, this right expires at the end of the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service.

IMO, register appeals. Lead with your argument regarding multiple PCNs for essentially the same error and describe how this error occurred. IMO, do NOT
lead with the background because this smacks of asking for discretion which the adjudicator cannot exercise, use this as backing for the argument of multiple PCNs.
Ask the adjudicator to take into account a collateral challenge based upon the grossly defective NORs which placed you in financial and regulatory jeopardy by misinforming you of the period during which you could pay the standard penalty and your rights of appeal, the concomitant of which is a misstatement of the adjudicator's power to accept appeals submitted late.


Wait for others.

I've tried to enlarge the photograph in the PCN and it looks like there is an exemption for permit holders.  I think the NoR mentions that you explained you are a permit holder.  Could this case be similar to your own?

Case Details
Case reference   2260386858
Appellant   Safwa Mansour
Authority   London Borough of Haringey
VRM   LD25UMZ
PCN Details
PCN   ZN21374812
Contravention date   -
Contravention time   -
Contravention location   -
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   -
Referral date   -
Decision Date   21 Jul 2026
Adjudicator   Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons   
Mr Mansour was scheduled for a personal hearing today by video link but he has not attended and so the appeal is being decided on the evidence presented.



This is one of six PCNs issued over a 16 day period for the same alleged contravention of failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone. It is not in dispute that Mr Mansour's car was driven through the no entry to motor vehicles signs. Mr Mansour appeals because he is a resident in Tottenham Hale North and says that he has a valid THN resident’s parking permit which started on 26 April 2026. It is not disputed by the Council that there is a valid parking permit.



There is a signed exemption for permit holders. The permit reference SS23 appears on the sign with a black surround after the words "Except permit holders." Mr Mansour says that he believed that his permit was valid for access.



As the Council correctly observes, a resident's permit is for parking and the exemption is for school street permit holders. If, however, a resident permit holder sees a restricted route with a signed exemption for permit holders in an area where they are entitled to park with their permit, there must, in my judgement, be a very real danger that they will assume that the possession of the parking permit allows access. A motorist in transit is unlikely to make the permit distinction denoted by the permit code reference. I am satisfied that Mr Mansour held a reasonable belief that access was permitted with his parking permit until he was disabused of that notion. I allow the appeal for that reason. The Council has produced no evidence of any warning to Mr Mansour that there was a need to apply for a separate permit for access to an LTN restricted route within the THN zone.

Yes MrChips, the case you have mentioned is identical to mine. In addition, either side of the the restricted route is on street parking for GLB permit holders which I have. Extremely useful, thanks for sharing. How would you advice me to proceed from here with my argument. I am ready to register appeals. Also considering what tincombe has suggested in terms of structuring the argument.