PCN 31J Entering and stopping in a box Junction when prohibited Southbury Rd/Eaton Rd ENFIELD

#45 Reply
Posted by Hippocrates on 13 Aug, 2026 21:59
Quote from: tincombe on 13 Aug, 2026 21:00
Both the PCN and the NOR truncate the period in which to make representations

For accuracy, the former is reps, the latter an appeal.

Irrespective of a tribunal's own practices, an owner's statutory rights are what must be stated in a NOR. Previous notices etc. merely refer to this right, but it is the NOR alone which specifies these statutory rights.

It MUST be correct. No ifs or buts, no it doesn't make any difference in practice, no the owner wasn't prejudiced: IMO, it must be correct.

NOA. Therefore, double whammy.

#46 Reply
Posted by MrChips on 20 Aug, 2026 12:01
Looks like a win at the tribunal yesterday! Paragraph 13 of the decision is factually incorrect however.

I did try to join as an observer using the link @Hippocrates sent me, but after clicking at 10am, I was waiting to be admitted for 30 mins before Teams gave up...

Case reference 2260126427
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Enfield
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date 14 Nov 2025
Contravention time 17:00:00
Contravention location Southbury Road / Eaton Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 19 Aug 2026
Adjudicator Joanne Coombe
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
1. This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN) imposed by the London Borough of Enfield, the Authority.

2. The Authority did not attend the hearing.

The Appellant’s case

3. The Appellant, through their representative (Mr Morgan), says that the PCN and notice of rejection are invalid.

4. Regarding the PCN, the Appellant submits that it contains contradictions and does not comply with the regulations.

5. The Appellant submits that both the PCN and notice of rejection truncate the time for compliance.

The Authority’s Case

6. The Authority relies upon CCTV footage in support of the alleged contravention.

7. The Authority says that the PCN clearly states the statutory period for payment and the making of representations in accordance with the legislative requirements.

8. The Authority states that the notice of rejection clearly explains the options including the time within which an appeal can be made.

Finding of Facts

9. The PCN is dated the 21/11/2025 and says, at paragraph 1, that the charge must be paid within 28 days of the date ‘on this notice’. In paragraph 3, the PCN says: ‘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.’

10. I am satisfied that the PCN must state that the penalty charge must be paid or representations made within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served. The PCN does provide this information.

11. Whilst there is reference in the PCN to the date of this notice and date of service, the PCN complies with the statutory requirements.

12. The Appellant made representations to the Authority dated the 30/11/2025.

13. The duty of the Authority was to respond within 56 days which it did.

14. A notice of rejection must state that a charge certificate may be served unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service, the PCN is paid or an appeal is lodged.

15. The notice of rejection, dated 26/01/206, says that the Appellant has 28 days from the date of the letter to lodge and appeal to the Tribunal.

16. I find that the notice of rejection was defective. The requirement outlined in paragraph 14 above is mandatory.

Outcome of the Appeal

17. The appeal is allowed.