Tower Hamlets: 52M - Failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles; Wapping High Street (Sampson to Wapping Ln)

I think you have every right to demand that this PCN be cancelled on the basis of grossly excessive time to register the debt at TEC. Eight months is quite ridiculous and for me, is an abuse of process. I also see that Hippocrates advised in a post in 2025 (!), that the PCN was "pants"

As for the contravention itself, I see the two signs are positioned at a much greater height than should be normal for this kind of sign that bars entry. In addition the text on the board below the "FLying Motorbike" symbol is far too complex to be easily read by a motorist even at the likely 20 mph speed limit.

I hope Hippocrates and Tincombe will come on here and advise on the PCN and also my comment about abuse of process. A council should not be able to benefit from such woeful mismanagement of the enforcement process.

The replacement is nearly identical to the original

How does it differ?

My replacement PCN has arrived today dated 28/08/2026 so once again I have not received it promptly during the first stage, however there is still time for me to respond during the reduced offer stage. The replacement is nearly identical to the original I posted in the first post of this thread, is anyone able to help me with this now that TH have finally reset the process on this one for me please?

Best if you post it, so we can look at it.

The differences are very minor in that Tower Hamlets appear to have changed the name of the department in charge of PCN footage from "Parking, Mobility and Market Services" to "Highways, Transportation and Parking Services" on Page 1 of the PCN. Other than that, unless I've missed anything it is word for word the same as the original.

I have scanned and uploaded the replacement PCN below as requested.

Ok, many thanks for the PCN posting. For me, the gross delay in registering the PCN at TEC is the best avenue of approach if you decide to take them to London Tribunal.

I suggest your reps make this your main point, and the actual signage secondary. London Tribunals look on anything over 3 months as potentially prejudicial to an appeal, as memories fade and evidence can be difficult or even impossible to obtain.

My apologies Incandescent, I did not see that you had since responded to my last message. I was just coming back to ask if anyone had anything further from the newly issued PCN as I am trying to draft some reps for this today.

I am assuming at this stage that I need to be selecting the grounds "The contravention did not occur" as I'll be arguing about the high placed and complex signage at the bus gate. I gather from other threads that I'm unlikely to get any sort of positive response at this stage so will try to draft the reps short and concise. I will have to gamble the full amount at London Tribunals likely in regards to the council's egregious time wasting registering with the TEC as I assume they will care not one jot under their self policing that it took them so long.

My apologies Incandescent, I did not see that you had since responded to my last message. I was just coming back to ask if anyone had anything further from the newly issued PCN as I am trying to draft some reps for this today.

I am assuming at this stage that I need to be selecting the grounds "The contravention did not occur" as I'll be arguing about the high placed and complex signage at the bus gate. I gather from other threads that I'm unlikely to get any sort of positive response at this stage so will try to draft the reps short and concise. I will have to gamble the full amount at London Tribunals likely in regards to the council's egregious time wasting registering with the TEC as I assume they will care not one jot under their self policing that it took them so long.

All they want is your money

Nearly identical?

So far as I can see having just read them both again, unless I'm missing something. The only change I can spot is the department name has been amended at the bottom of Page 1.

PCN dated Fri. 28 Aug, therefore deemed served on Tue. 1 Sept and latest date of 28-day period is 28 Sept.

So, no rush.

Would you pl go back, you've leapt past important steps:

The TEC revocation order is dated The authority is barred from serving a new PCN, they have 28 beginning on the date they were notified of the revocation. Was 1 Sept. within this period? When you post the order we'll know.
Your address on the order is the same as your registered keeper address or different?

 

Hi tincombe, wasn't aware I was skipping potentially important steps. Attached is the revocation order received from the TEC along with a copy of the recent timeline from the council's PCN portal for reference. The revocation order is dated 3rd August 2026 and the address is the same as the registered keeper address.

IMO, the PCN is void for being time-barred.

If 3 Aug, the date at the bottom, is day 1 then 1 Sept. is day 30.

Wait for others.

I would think that the 28 day limit applies when the council receive the same letter, not from the date of it.