Free Traffic Legal Advice

I gave you the arithmetic, but forgot to mention that the council's second 28 days is from the date of cancellation of the first PCN. So I think you do have a second string to your representations bow of "PCN served out of time". The council will then have to explain their tardiness in serving the second PCN. It's not a slam-dunk argument, though, just another hoop for them to jump through !

I always say make the bug***s do at least some work !!

Thanks all for your help and guidance. I've now submitted my Reps, slightly amended from my draft above so I could make reference to the 88 day delay between alleged contravention and PCN issue (albeit it via the leasing company in the first instance).

I'll be back with an update but given that a) I didn't fail to comply with a one-way restriction and b) the excessive notice delay, I can only expect an early positive outcome - barring any devilment on behalf of the issuing council... in which case it will be appealed

Don't expect them to roll over and cancel because they won't. London councils ruthlessly game the system to maximise their income by refusing all reps however valid they are. Basically, people are ignorant of parking and traffic law detail, so if reps are refused, >95% of people then just cough-up to get the discount. People are also terrified of going to adjudication, thinking it will cost them a packet of money, whereas the maximum amount possible is the full PCN penalty, there being no other costs whatsoever.

Another case, and Camden was there so i'd say there is potential for costs.

-------------

Case reference   225060980A
Appellant   xxxxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Camden
VRM   WV20KNG
   
PCN Details
PCN   CU72514435
Contravention date   10 Oct 2025
Contravention time   22:11:00
Contravention location   MAPLE STREET
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   21 Apr 2026
Adjudicator   Andrew Harman
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   The appellant, and Mrs Houghton, for the council, attended the hearing of this appeal today on the Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform.
The contravention alleged in these proceedings was that this vehicle failed to comply with a one-way restriction.
On the council's online footage of the incident, the vehicle turned left at this junction in contravention, on the council's case as put at the hearing, of the direction to proceed ahead in accordance with signage posted prior to it.
Had the PCN been issued for a failure to proceed in the direction shown by an arrow on a blue sign then the contravention may well have been made out, but it was not.
A contravention may well have occurred in this case, but it was not that stated on the PCN, and I was accordingly satisfied that it had not occurred.
The appeal was allowed.

FYI update:

I've heard back from the council and they have confirmed that all 9,562 PCNs referenced in an earlier post all relate to the same alleged contravention at the same junction. At £80 each (could be less or more in many cases) that is over £750,000!!

They also provided an update on more cases that were taken to appeal and won by the motorist - with another 17 not being contested by the council (after putting the driver/ owner through months of anguish):

PCN         Outcome
CU7170588A No longer the owner
CU72179487 contravention that the EA submit occurred is not that stated on the face of the PCN.
CU72350804 Car cloned
CU72514435 A contravention may well have occurred in this case, but it was not that stated on the PCN
CU71786021 I do not find the contravention alleged on the face of the Penalty Charge Notice did occur
CU72212775 The PCN was issued for the wrong alleged contravention
CU72732334 The two signs at the junction have different meanings - creates an ambiguous impression.
CU72846774 The signage is ambiguous and misleading. I therefore find that no contravention occurred

On balance, it seems the adjudicators agree that the signs are misleading and, in any event the alleged One-way contravention on the PCN is wrong.

Thank you so much for recognising the similarity between these cases!

I will submit representations (after sharing the draft here for approval) and would be willing to stand my ground at tribunal.

In addition to the representations, which may be processed by a team that are instructed, or encouraged, to reject in the hope of a submission, is there any value in also writing to the leader of the council to make them aware of the previous decisions and likelihood that they would lose at a hearing? Are there any consequences for the council if they pursue a claim that has previously been overturned?

I note the income this generates, especially if a lot of the process is simply automated and of little cost to the councils, but it's so frustrating - because the car is leased, I also get an invoice from the leasing company, though they will refund if/ when the penalty is overturned.

I actually observed the first case hearing. And this one whilst shaking my head in disbelief to what I was witnessing:

The PCN was issued under the LLA&TFL Act 2003 which provides:

4)The grounds referred to in sub-paragraph (1) above [regarding representations] are—

...........
(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm and—

(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement; and

(ii)the person hiring it had signed a statement of liability acknowledging his liability in respect of any penalty charge notice issued in respect of the vehicle during the currency of the hiring agreement;

....


9)In this paragraph, “vehicle hiring agreement” and “vehicle-hire firm” have the same meanings as in section 66 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Hired vehicles).


The law:

7)This section [of the Road Traffic Offenders Act] 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

So, is your leasing agreement for 'a fixed period of less than six months'?

If not, then you may argue that, irrespective of the minutiae of the events, you MAY NOT be considered to be the person liable for the penalty.

It is the council's burden to show that you may be held to be the liable person.

IMO, not a snowball's chance in hell.

If they accepted reps from the leasing company to the effect that they are a vehicle hire company etc, then this is b******s and irrespective of who did what, when, with what signs etc. etc. ....you may not as a matter of law be held liable for any penalty arising therefrom.

Please get back to this fundamental issue.

Thank you both for your guidance.

As you might imagine, I refer to the car as a lease vehicle rather than a hire car, with the lease being in the name of a limited company for a period of 3 years. I appreciate this is a major flaw in this, and likely many more cases that have been brought by councils, but it feels like the pure conflict between the contravention they describe in their notice of rejection and website and the contravention detailed on the PCN is easier to prove?
 

Adjudicator Harman seems to have forgotten allowing an earlier case or the facts have changed.

-----------

Case reference   2260127882
Appellant   xxxxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Camden
VRM   LA23HDV
   
PCN Details
PCN   CU7319662A
Contravention date   14 Dec 2025
Contravention time   22:03:00
Contravention location   Maple Street
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   14 Jul 2026
Adjudicator   Andrew Harman
Appeal decision   Appeal refused
Direction   Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons   The contravention alleged on the PCN is that this vehicle failed to comply with a one-way restriction. It is not, as the appellant contends on appeal, that the vehicle performed a prohibited left turn. Signage as shown in the images provided by the appellant, taken from the council's online footage of the incident, directs motorists to proceed ahead down this one-way street. This is a mandatory direction, and the motorist is required to comply with it. On the footage the vehicle turns left, it thus not complying with that direction. This contravention has occurred. The appeal is refused.