Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello all.

Another one like this one:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/merton-52j-prohibition-on-certain-types-of-vehicle-ltn-abbey-road-jw-high-path/msg104502/#msg104502

Incidentally, the council initiated the 'except authorised vehicles' to stop it being a 'rat run'. We got this letter posted through our letterbox about it last year:
https://www.merton.gov.uk/system/files/newsletter-experimental_order_abbey-pincott_closures.pdf

We live in the vicinity. As we're not passing through the area but are trying to return home to the area (within 400 m of the location say), we aren't using it as a 'rat run' ie passing through the neighbourhood to go further a field. Doubt this helps in any way but I thought I'd mention it just in case.

Here is the PCN:




I was wondering if the reply suggested for HandOverMyCardToCouncil in the first link above would be valid for my situation:

1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles therefore does not establish any grounds for the alleged contravention to have taken place.

2. Similarly, neither does the video support your allegation.

3. The PCN is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of


London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
legislation.gov.uk


(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;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: "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” adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

Best wishes,

Tobes

Which grounds should I tick please?

Also, previous page they require a name. Shall I put the real name of the registered keeper?
Best wishes,

Toby

-----------------------------

Representation Grounds*

What are the reasons (grounds) for your challenge? Select all that apply. You can provide more information on the next screen.

• Any other ground
  
• I was not the owner of the vehicle
  
• Procedural impropriety
  
• The contravention did not occur
  
• The order was invalid
  
• The PCN has been paid
  
• The penalty charge exceeded the amount
  
• The vehicle was taken without my consent
  
• We are a hire firm