Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

I'd appreciate some advice on whether this is worth taking to London Tribunals rather than paying the re-offered £80 discount.

This is a Waltham Forest moving traffic PCN, code 53c, for entering the Brookfield Avenue E17 / Shernhall Street E17 School Street pedestrian/cycle zone.

The contravention itself isn't really what I challenged. My concern is whether the replacement PCN issued after the lease company transferred liability was served within the statutory time limit.

Timeline

- 05/05/2026 – alleged contravention at 08:42.
- 12/05/2026 – Leasing Company received the original PCN.
- 27/05/2026 – Leasing Company submitted a transfer-of-liability request.
- 24/06/2026 – Waltham Forest wrote back saying the information supplied was insufficient and requested the hirer's name/address and the lease start and end dates.
- 24/06/2026 – Leasing Company supplied the requested information, including the lease dates and signed statement.
- 22/07/2026 – replacement PCN issued to my wife.
- 23/07/2026 – replacement PCN received.
- 23/07/2026 – formal representations submitted challenging the timing and specifically asking Waltham Forest to provide the date the original PCN was cancelled, Notice of Acceptance/cancellation, case chronology and date the replacement PCN was posted.
- 17/08/2026 – Notice of Rejection issued.

My understanding is that under section 6(2A) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (as amended), where an earlier PCN is cancelled, a fresh PCN cannot normally be served more than 28 days from the date of cancellation of the previous PCN.

The problem is that Waltham Forest has still not disclosed the cancellation date.

In the Notice of Rejection they simply state:

"The legislation permits the authority to reissue a postal PCN/Notice to Owner (NtO) when valid evidence, such as a hire agreement or vehicle sale documentation, is received identifying the liable party. The statutory time limit starts again from the date the notice is reissued. The PCN was therefore reissued within the applicable statutory time limits and remains valid."

They have not told us:

- when Leasing Companies original PCN was cancelled;
- when the transfer was actually accepted;
- provided the Notice of Acceptance/cancellation;
- provided the requested case audit trail; or
- explained how they calculated the statutory deadline.

Much of the remainder of the rejection deals with the School Street signs and exemptions, despite my representation being primarily about whether the fresh PCN was served in time.

Leasing Company has confirmed that it cannot see any Notice of Acceptance on its records.

The council has now re-offered the £80 discount for 14 days from service of the Notice of Rejection. Otherwise I can appeal to London Tribunals and risk the full £160 if unsuccessful.

I'd be grateful for advice on:

1. Is my understanding of the 28-day period from cancellation under s6(2A) correct?
2. Is the council's statement that "the statutory time limit starts again from the date the notice is reissued" legally correct?
3. Does their failure to disclose the cancellation date / properly address that part of my representations give me an additional appeal point?
4. Would you take this to London Tribunals or pay the £80?
5. If appealing, which ground should I use — "the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case" due to service out of time?
6. Should I register an appeal now with detailed grounds to follow, or wait until nearer the discount deadline?

I will upload the original PCN, representations, Leasing Companies correspondence and the full Notice of Rejection.

Many thanks for any advice.

Thank you

What term is the 'leasing' agreement.

7)This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months (whether or not that period is capable of extension by agreement between the parties or otherwise);

If your agreement is for six months or more then irrespective of what documents are provided and when etc. etc. YOU may not be considered to be the owner and YOU don't have any liability under road traffic legislation.

Your contract with the lessor is a different matter.

From the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report 2021-22

While liability for a penalty normally falls on the registered keeper of the
contravening vehicle, liability can be transferred in the case of vehicles hired for less than six months to the hirers. In the case of long leases, the lessees may become liable depending on the terms and conditions of the lease.
Adjudicators have found that the legal difference between short-term hire and long leases are not well understood by motorists and authorities. Furthermore, for a transfer of liability to occur in short-term hires, the hire firm must provide documentation of the hire as required by law. These requirements are also not well understood with some authorities insisting on strict compliance while other would accept a transfer without ever seeing the documentation.

The lease is for four years: 07/10/2022 to 06/10/2026.
So it is definitely more than six months. I can post the relevant lease agreement/terms with personal details redacted.

The leasing company is the DVLA registered keeper, but my wife has had exclusive use of the vehicle under the long-term lease.
Waltham Forest's correspondence specifically requested the hirer's details and the lease start/end dates and said that once supplied they would “transfer liability”.

I don't currently know whether the leasing company's original representations were accepted under the statutory hire-firm ground or on the basis that they were not the person keeping/owning the vehicle.

Would the correct next step therefore be to establish exactly which statutory ground Waltham Forest accepted when it cancelled the leasing company's PCN?