Author Topic: Southwark PCN – Order for Recovery received – police report later revealed TRACE relocation  (Read 13 times)

0 Members and 49 Guests are viewing this topic.

Vehicle: GJ69XKY

PCNs:

JK17263522 – alleged contravention on 02/10/2025 (Crampton Street)
JK17298185 – alleged contravention on 07/10/2025 (Crampton Street)

Timeline:

Vehicle was parked on Amelia Street.
02/10/2025 – PCN JK17263522 issued.
07/10/2025 – PCN JK17298185 issued.
11/10/2025 – Vehicle reported stolen to the Metropolitan Police.
21/11/2025 – Representations submitted against JK17263522.
18/12/2025 – Notice of Rejection issued for JK17263522.
No appeal lodged with London Tribunals.
Charge Certificate later issued for JK17298185.
June 2026 – Order for Recovery received for JK17263522 (£175, deadline 21/06/2026).

The key issue is that in April 2026 I obtained a Metropolitan Police report relating to the theft report.

The report contains the following entry:

"TRACE check shows as removed from Amelia Street as a street to street move on 25/09/25."

The report also records that the vehicle was later seen in Crampton Street.

Our position has always been that the vehicle was originally parked on Amelia Street and was not left by us in Crampton Street.

At the time representations were made and at the time the tribunal appeal period expired, we did not have the police report or the TRACE information. We only obtained that report in April 2026, several months after the appeal period had expired.

For context, during this period my husband was working as an NHS doctor and we had a newborn baby at home. While I appreciate that this does not excuse missing deadlines, it does explain why the matter was not pursued as actively as it should have been at the time.

I have now requested from Southwark:

Vehicle relocation records
TRACE records
CEO notes
Relocation logs
Photographs

I am not looking to make any inaccurate witness statement. The Notice of Rejection for JK17263522 was received by email, so I do not believe I can honestly rely on a TE9 ground based on non-receipt.

My questions are:

Is there any procedural route available in respect of JK17263522 now that an Order for Recovery has been issued?
Does the later discovery of the police report and TRACE relocation information change anything procedurally?
Is there any argument that the second PCN (JK17298185) was not properly considered, given that subsequent correspondence referred to both PCNs but Southwark stated that only JK17263522 had been challenged?
Am I now entirely reliant on Southwark exercising discretion, or is there any other route available?

I can upload the Order for Recovery, Notice of Rejection, correspondence and relevant page of the police report if helpful.

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook



You have not posted either of the PCNs, so we don't know what Act it was served under. So please help us to help you by posting the documents. 

It seems the PCNs were for parking, and if so, this is under the Traffic Management Act 2004. For PCNs under this Act you can submit a Witness Statement against the Order for Recovery, but there are only a limited number of situations you can report. The form is Form PE3, but looking at your narrative, none of them fit your circumstances, and you are dependent on the goodwill of Southwark, because you did not do anything after receiving their rejection of your reps. See here for the form: -

Form PE3: Challenge an unpaid penalty charge notice.
gov.uk


You do not seem to have done anything at all about PCN PCN JK17298185, so the enforcement process will have run its inevitable course, but it would seem is now at the Charge Certificate stage. With no reps submitted, it's difficult to see this one ending favourably.

Unfortunately your story is an example of what happens when a PCN recipient doesn't respond fully to documents and lets things slide. Once matters get beyond the OfR stage, you'll be getting bailiff letters. The first is the Compliance stage, and adds £75 to what you owe the council.If the bailiffs visit you, another £235 is added on. These amounts are statutory, by the way. I'm afraid civil enforcement is as harsh as the old criminal law enforcement, and maybe more harsh when one looks at the sums that can accrue.