Free Traffic Legal Advice

The blue background sign with the text is not a traffic sign, but clearly it is very misleading, and should not be there if there is a 24x7 restriction ahead. Whether this would win at London Tribunals is another matter, but councils do have an obligation under Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 to place adequate signage of a restriction:-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18

I would submit representations on the above basis. Please post up their response when you get it. City of London have form on stupid stuff like this, and get away with it because most people getting a PCN just pay up straightaway.

Thanks both. @Hippocrates Could you help me understand why the pcn is flawed? They haven't served the charge certificate yet.

Thanks again. Should I include in my appeal, the fact they mentioned they'll serve charge certificate within 28 days of notice? Or is it something to use during the tribunal?


Thanks in Advance.

Here's a draft of the appeal:

I make formal representations against Penalty Charge Notice XXXXX on the ground of procedural impropriety.

The Penalty Charge Notice is legally flawed because it misstates the circumstances in which a Charge Certificate may be served.

The PCN states:

“Failure to pay the penalty charge in full before the end of the 28 Day Period may lead to the charge increasing by 50% to £240.00 and a Charge Certificate being served…”

This wording is incorrect and misleading.

Under Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, a Charge Certificate may only be served if:
   •   no representations are made within the 28-day period, or
   •   representations are made and subsequently rejected, and the penalty charge is not paid within 28 days of service of a Notice of Rejection.

The PCN unlawfully suggests that a Charge Certificate may be issued automatically at the end of the 28-day period beginning with the date of the notice, regardless of whether representations are made. This fetters the recipient’s statutory right to make representations and misstates the legal position.

This constitutes a procedural impropriety and renders the Penalty Charge Notice unenforceable.

I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Feedback would be most welcomed!