3x PCNs - Harrow 38L - must pass to the left of sign, Tudor Road HA3

Alleged contravention: Code 38L - Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of the sign (must pass to the left).

Location: Tudor Road HA3.
Date/time:
PCN 1 - IY02503658 - 03/08/2026 - Appeal rejected with Notice of Rejection
PCN 2 - IY02527146 - 05/08/2026 - Balance paid
PCN 3- IY02536180 - 06/08/2026 - Appeal rejected with Notice of Rejection

Status:
First PCN received in the post was PCN 2 on 10/08, it was paid.
The other 2x PCN were received a few days later. Tried to appeal both to Harrow council and received Notice Of Rejections on 21/09 for both.

What happened:
My mum drove through the wrong side of a width restriction/keep left multiple times, over a few days. She was unaware that she shouldn't do this.

Received PCN 2 (IY02527146) in the post first on 10th August, she paid it. Then received 2x more PCNs for the same contravention a few days later.

I tried to appeal the 2x repeat PCNs for her thinking the council would be reasonable, but both were rejected.

I submitted virtually identical appeals for both outstanding tickets. Text from one of them below

Appeal submitted (and rejected) :

Appeal 1 - IY02503658 :
I am challenging PCN IY02530658 (dated 03/08/2026) on the legal principle of proportionality.

I accept I navigated the Tudor Road width restriction incorrectly. However, I also received a separate PCN for the exact same mistake at this location on 05/08/2026 (PCN IY02527146), which I have already paid in full.

As I did not receive either notice in the post until 10/08/2026, I had no opportunity to realise my ongoing error and correct my driving. I was accumulating penalties for a continuous, honest mistake before any warning was ever served.

The primary purpose of a PCN is to deter incorrect driving and encourage compliance, not to unfairly penalise a driver multiple times for a continuous, honest mistake before they are notified. Paying PCN IY02527146 has successfully acted as a deterrent, and my route has been amended.

I kindly request the council exercises its discretion and cancels this duplicate penalty on the grounds of proportionality.

Harrow completely ignored the mitigation and issued identical boilerplate rejections stating: "We note you refer to other PCNs, however each PCN is dealt with individually."

What I'd like help with:
She can't really afford to pay these and it's really stressing her out, I tried to help and evidently I have failed. I have until Monday to decide if any worthwhile tribunal appeal to make for her or what to do. Are there any winning technical arguments that can be made, after reading the forums I think possibly the ones below apply?

1. Failure to Consider: Does their rejection which ignores the continuous contravention type argument constitute a 'Failure to Consider' my mitigation?

2. Flawed Wording (LLA 2003): I have seen FTLA experts like Hippocrates mention a wording flaw on Harrow PCNs regarding the 28-day deadlines (conflating 'Date of Notice' and 'Date of Service'). I think these PCNs contain this wording flaw, is that alone enough to win at tribunal? I didn't quite understand the technical wording of the argument to be honest.

Here is one of the PCNs, they all have the same wording (name/address removed):


NOR 1 - IY02503658  (name/address removed)


NOR 2 - IY02536180 (name/address removed)


Google Street View:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NPZCWzG1Yu4KHS3G9

Thanks in advance for any help !

Bump incase anyone can help re 28 days wording or any other argument, thank you

I really don't want to sound rude, but if she doesn't understand the significance of a "keep left" blue/white diagonal arrow, you have to question if she should be driving at all - it's a basic fundamental part of the Highway Code.

As for technical errors on the PCNs, I believe the "period of 14/28 days beginning with the date of this notice" is incorrect and should be "the date of service of this notice" which is deemed to be 2 days after the "notice date" to allow for the postage system delay. I would argue that the PCNs are improper, unenforceable and should be cancelled.

I really don't want to sound rude, but if she doesn't understand the significance of a "keep left" blue/white diagonal arrow, you have to question if she should be driving at all - it's a basic fundamental part of the Highway Code.

As for technical errors on the PCNs, I believe the "period of 14/28 days beginning with the date of this notice" is incorrect and should be "the date of service of this notice" which is deemed to be 2 days after the "notice date" to allow for the postage system delay. I would argue that the PCNs are improper, unenforceable and should be cancelled.

Mate it's fine I agree with you, I had a go at her at her about it. She didn't think she could fit her car in the gap without scratching it, but it's hardly a jumbo jet...

Do you think it could be cancelled on just the wording ground? I'm thinking to try with Hippocrates wording about it, just hesitant because unsure if such appeals have been successful or not.

Anything else I could throw in there as well?

Not much to add but I have also been stung by this exact same camera. Hopefully @Hippocrates can chime in with some advice for us.

http://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-code-38l-must-pass-to-the-left-of-sign-width-restriction-tudor-road-ha3/msg131387/#msg131387

The PCN wording issue is gaining very little success these days.

I won a case recently on the served/delivered conflation in the NOR.

Also, I have given much thought recently to the statement in the NOR that you must accept the decision of the adjudicator as, strictly speaking, this is not true as there is an opportunity for review for  either party! So, I say the latter argument discourages you to go to the Tribunal. I am dealing with several Merton cases on the same issue at present.

I am happy to represent but it is a lottery.


**************

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference   2260060952
Appellant   Kevin Chua
Authority   London Borough of Harrow
VRM   HX56FFZ
PCN Details
PCN   IY0095124A
Contravention date   24 Nov 2025
Contravention time   22:13:00
Contravention location   Camrose Avenue
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date   -
Decision Date   22 Jul 2026
Adjudicator   Sabina Powar
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
This is a personal appeal against a penalty charge notice.


The Appellant attended the hearing remotely on Microsoft Teams and was represented by Phillip Morgan.


The Enforcement Authority did not appear , but have provided written representations and evidence for consideration at the appeal hearing.



The Appellant states that at the time of the alleged contravention that the road signage at the location was poorly illuminated.

The Appellant says that they returned to the location on 2/12/2025 at 11.40pm and on 29/12/2025 in the early morning and took photographs of the signage at the location.


The Appellant has provided those photographic images as evidence in this appeal.


The Appellant also argues that the notice of rejection in error conflates the words “service (delivery)”.


The Appellant further submits that the PCN also has in their words,


"a procedural issue as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 ( (v) of
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(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 ( (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 "




The Enforcement Authority have provided , inter alia, photographic images, CCTV , witness statements, copy of the penalty charge notice , the notice of rejection and original representations made.


They state that the Appellants motor vehicle drove through a route restricted to buses, taxis, pedal cycles and emergency vehicles.

The Enforcement Authority maintain that there is clear illuminated signage on both sides of the road at the location and that they are satisfied that the signage informs motorists as to the upcoming restriction. The Enforcement Authority submit that the lights from motor vehicles driving in the location assist to illuminate the signage. They further maintain that there are white directional arrows on the road to motorists as to which lane they should be driving in and that the sign “ Bus Gate ” is visible to motorists on the carriageway.


The Enforcement Authority say that the penalty charge wording is set and approved by the Secretary of State and cite case reference number 2250662631 where the wording was challenged and approved.




I find that the Appellant has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the signage at the location was not adequately illuminated at the time of the alleged contravention. At the time the Appellant was at the location it was 10.13pm in late November, it had been raining and the roads are shown as wet and reflective on the CCTV footage. Other motor vehicles are captured on the CCTV to be following the Appellants motor vehicle into the restricted lane. There are no other motor vehicles that can be said to be assisting to illuminate the road signs. I accept the photographic images provided by the Appellant and his evidence as to when they were taken by the Appellant. These depict the sign to the Appellants left as not illuminated. Whilst the sign to the right is illuminated by the time the Appellant was aware of it I find he had already committed to the manoeuvre to drive into the left lane because of where it is positioned. The CCTV footage shows the “ Bus Gate” sign and any directional arrows for the Appellant to be hardly visible in the weather conditions which prevailed at the time.

The photographs provided by the Enforcement Authority which show all the signs being illuminated appear to have been taken on a fine evening and are not dated. They are not taken on the same evening as the alleged contravention as the rainy , dark weather conditions are not captured in them as they have been by the CCTV footage.

I therefore grant this appeal,

In relation to the points made about the wording of the penalty charge notice I find that the penalty charge notice was correctly worded and I find that I am persuaded by the decision in the case reference number 2250662631 in this finding.

The notice of rejection does appear to have incorrectly conflated the words “ service ( delivery ) “ , an Appellant has 28 days from service of the notice of rejection to pay or appeal to the Adjudicators office.


I find that there has been no contravention and the appeal is allowed.

Both NORs are flawed for similar reasons.

IMO, OP one needs to start with what the Act requires a NOR to state. You will find that it's very, very little. There isn't even a requirement to set out detailed reasons(this is a public law matter).

So, to categorise, it must state:
1. The authority's decision to reject reps;
2. The requirement to pay the full penalty;*
3. Their powers if this is not met;
4. The keeper's right to appeal;
5. The adjudicator's discretionary power to accept an appeal made late;
6. Matters associated with costs.

As a general point, IMO NONE of the above may be 'stated' by reference to external sources of information or internet links, everything must be stated within the NOR.

If you compare the NORs with paras. 3 and 4 of Schedule 1 you'll see the differences.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/schedule/1/enacted

The PCN wording issue is gaining very little success these days.

I won a case recently on the served/delivered conflation in the NOR.

Also, I have given much thought recently to the statement in the NOR that you must accept the decision of the adjudicator as, strictly speaking, this is not true as there is an opportunity for review for  either party! So, I say the latter argument discourages you to go to the Tribunal. I am dealing with several Merton cases on the same issue at present.

I am happy to represent but it is a lottery.


**************

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2260060952
Appellant Kevin Chua
Authority London Borough of Harrow
VRM HX56FFZ
PCN Details
PCN IY0095124A
Contravention date 24 Nov 2025
Contravention time 22:13:00
Contravention location Camrose Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Using a route restricted to certain vehicles
Referral date -
Decision Date 22 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Sabina Powar
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
This is a personal appeal against a penalty charge notice.


The Appellant attended the hearing remotely on Microsoft Teams and was represented by Phillip Morgan.


The Enforcement Authority did not appear , but have provided written representations and evidence for consideration at the appeal hearing.



The Appellant states that at the time of the alleged contravention that the road signage at the location was poorly illuminated.

The Appellant says that they returned to the location on 2/12/2025 at 11.40pm and on 29/12/2025 in the early morning and took photographs of the signage at the location.


The Appellant has provided those photographic images as evidence in this appeal.


The Appellant also argues that the notice of rejection in error conflates the words “service (delivery)”.


The Appellant further submits that the PCN also has in their words,


"a procedural issue as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 ( (v) of
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(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 ( (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 "




The Enforcement Authority have provided , inter alia, photographic images, CCTV , witness statements, copy of the penalty charge notice , the notice of rejection and original representations made.


They state that the Appellants motor vehicle drove through a route restricted to buses, taxis, pedal cycles and emergency vehicles.

The Enforcement Authority maintain that there is clear illuminated signage on both sides of the road at the location and that they are satisfied that the signage informs motorists as to the upcoming restriction. The Enforcement Authority submit that the lights from motor vehicles driving in the location assist to illuminate the signage. They further maintain that there are white directional arrows on the road to motorists as to which lane they should be driving in and that the sign “ Bus Gate ” is visible to motorists on the carriageway.


The Enforcement Authority say that the penalty charge wording is set and approved by the Secretary of State and cite case reference number 2250662631 where the wording was challenged and approved.




I find that the Appellant has satisfied me on the balance of probabilities that the signage at the location was not adequately illuminated at the time of the alleged contravention. At the time the Appellant was at the location it was 10.13pm in late November, it had been raining and the roads are shown as wet and reflective on the CCTV footage. Other motor vehicles are captured on the CCTV to be following the Appellants motor vehicle into the restricted lane. There are no other motor vehicles that can be said to be assisting to illuminate the road signs. I accept the photographic images provided by the Appellant and his evidence as to when they were taken by the Appellant. These depict the sign to the Appellants left as not illuminated. Whilst the sign to the right is illuminated by the time the Appellant was aware of it I find he had already committed to the manoeuvre to drive into the left lane because of where it is positioned. The CCTV footage shows the “ Bus Gate” sign and any directional arrows for the Appellant to be hardly visible in the weather conditions which prevailed at the time.

The photographs provided by the Enforcement Authority which show all the signs being illuminated appear to have been taken on a fine evening and are not dated. They are not taken on the same evening as the alleged contravention as the rainy , dark weather conditions are not captured in them as they have been by the CCTV footage.

I therefore grant this appeal,

In relation to the points made about the wording of the penalty charge notice I find that the penalty charge notice was correctly worded and I find that I am persuaded by the decision in the case reference number 2250662631 in this finding.

The notice of rejection does appear to have incorrectly conflated the words “ service ( delivery ) “ , an Appellant has 28 days from service of the notice of rejection to pay or appeal to the Adjudicators office.


I find that there has been no contravention and the appeal is allowed.

My mum has since capitulated and paid these now, she was too scared of possibly having to pay double if tribunal didn't work out. Thank you for the advice and offer to represent, much appreciated.

I understand completely.