Free Traffic Legal Advice

London Tribunals will accept late registrations if a good reason can be given, have you asked them ?

For others looking here, GSV is not sufficiently up-to-date to show the restriction.

I am assuming that on the date you received the first PCN, the other two are dated after the contravention date of the first PCN, but were only received after receipt of the first one. If so you can argue that you only became aware of the contravention when the first PCN arrived, and it is therefore the total penalty (3 PCNs) is disproportionate. 

You need to get all three PCNs considered together at London Tribunals. Pity you acted alone, as I'm sure we could have helped you with a more robust representation to Barnet. As I see it, your main appeal point is obscuration of the signs, both advance and entry. Obviously, if they haven't offered the discount it is a total no-brainer to take them to LT.

I have just seen this. I see early in the morning. Just say the foliage obscured one of the signs. And the NOR fails to mention the power of the adjudicator to extend the period in which to appeal. I will PM you.

The NOR fails to mention that the Adjudicator can extend the period of time in which to lodge an appeal.  In this regard I rely upon the following two cases and respective extracts: David Miller v London Borough of Barnet Case No: 217024143 in which Mr Chan said:

Mr Dishman makes a further submission in relation to the contents of the Notice of Rejection. In essence, he complains that it has not advised motorists contemplating an appeal to the Adjudicator that the Adjudicator  may extend the time limit for an appeal. There is no requirement that the Notice must spell out the appeal process. It must however "describe in general terms the form and manner in which such an appeal must be made". I find that this must include a reference to the time limit and that it can be extended." I am not satisfied that the PCN can be upheld. I allow the appeal. And Shelley Sinclair v London Borough of Lewisham Case No: 218033612A in which Mr Walsh said with reference to the aforementioned case: The second alleged deficiency is that the Notice of Rejection does not expressly state that an adjudicator may extend the period of 28 days provided for lodging an appeal, as provided by Regulation 7(1)(b). It is right to say, of course, that Regulation 6 does not stipulate that it should. It is also right to say that the Notice of Rejection alludes to the power to extend the period, in that it states that a person who does not appeal within the period ‘may’ have missed the opportunity to appeal. I conclude, however, that a reasonable reader of the Notice of Rejection would be unlikely to conclude that an adjudicator had the power to extend the 28 day period. That discretionary power is, in my view, an important component of the appellate process and a power of which a potential appellant should be made aware. In the case of Miller v. London Borough of Barnet (2170241413, 21 June 2017), cited by Mrs Sinclair, my fellow adjudicator Mr. Chan held that it was essential that a Notice of Rejection describes the power of potential extension to the 28 day limit. He held that a Notice of Rejection that does not contains this detail does not describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made, in accordance with Regulation 6(1)(c). For the reasons I have given I agree with that decision which I  consider highly persuasive.

***

Also say the issue of 3 consecutive PCNs is disproportionate. He will understand.