Lewisham, code 52m Failing to comply with prohibition on certain vehicles - Dermody Road jnct of Pascoe Rd & Wisteria Rd

Hi all
A PCN addressed to me was received on 20-07-2026 which I attach for driving through a road prohibited to motor vehicles.
I appealed the PCN and received a NOR (attached) dated 27/08/2026.
I would like to appeal this (and now that the 14 days of reduced payment of £80 has passed) it feels like I may as well. I wondered whether there were any views on anything else to add for London Tribunals website. Kingsmill has very helpfully advised in the past but is swamped at present. Deadline for tribunals will be Thursday 24th September (28 days)

All documents in the file below



Thank you in advance

It is very hard to read the documents you have posted, because they don't zoom large enough.

If you approached the signs head-on, you will struggle, because they are very prominent, and arguing they should have advance warning is unlikely to win you this one.

So now we have signs placed too high which might be obstructed by trees etc.

Have you seen the video?

@Incandescent, the signs are crystal clear. The LATOR test is subjective and I suggest that an adjudicator would dismiss this argument with a wave of their hand.

You might be on stronger ground with a collateral challenge - procedural impropriety not being a ground of appeal-  focusing on the authority's failure to advise you of the correct form and manner in which an appeal may be made.

A NOR must state, inter alia:

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

and may contain such other information as the enforcing authority consider appropriate.

These idiots have misstated the first and compounded their error with their 'other information as  the enforcing authority consider appropriate'.

The adjudicator has the power to accept and register appeals submitted late, therefore it is totally misleading for the authority to say that after the date on which they may serve a CC 'at that stage you would have missed the opportunity to appeal'.

B******s!

Thank you - in terms of response then would something like

Defective Notice of Rejection

The Notice of Rejection is non-compliant because it fails to accurately describe the appeal process and contains a material misstatement of the recipient's legal position.

The regulations require a Notice of Rejection to:

“describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made.”

Instead, the authority states:

“at that stage you would have missed the opportunity to appeal.”

This statement is misleading. It is expressed in absolute terms and would lead a reasonable recipient to believe that their right to appeal is extinguished entirely once the authority becomes entitled to issue a Charge Certificate. That is not an accurate description of the statutory scheme.

Whilst the authority may include such additional information as it considers appropriate, any such information must be accurate and must not misrepresent a recipient's statutory rights. By overstating the consequences of delay, the authority has failed to provide a correct explanation of the appeal process.

In R (Barnet LBC) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin), Jackson J confirmed that where Parliament has prescribed statutory requirements for civil enforcement, those requirements must be complied with. The issue is not whether prejudice can be demonstrated but whether the statutory requirements have been met.

Similarly, in Camden LBC v The Parking Adjudicator & BHS Ltd [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin), the High Court emphasised the importance of enforcement documents correctly conveying the legal position and a recipient's rights.

The Notice of Rejection does not do so here. By informing the recipient that they would have “missed the opportunity to appeal”, the authority has materially misdescribed the appeal process and failed to communicate the recipient's rights accurately.

Accordingly, the Notice of Rejection is defective and cannot be relied upon as a lawful step in the enforcement process. The appeal should therefore be allowed.