Free Traffic Legal Advice

I received two PCNs from Hammersmith & Fulham Council for the same alleged contravention (52M – failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles) on Sunday 16 November 2025, at 10:23 and 10:24, on CANW Peterborough Rd S/B, and CANW Clancarty Rd N/B. These locations are about one minute apart.

This was the morning of the Fulham 10k, a large road-closure event. While driving, I became trapped inside the closure area and was trying to exit. Various roads were unexpectedly blocked. I did not intend to enter any restricted streets, I was simply trying to escape the event closures.

Both PCNs appear to arise from the same continuous situation, just a minute apart.

Any help would be very much appreciated.

PCN: HZ95348988 & HZ95339273

The link to the images:

https://imgpile.com/p/2AXB113

Hi Incandescent,

Thanks for the reply. The image of the front of the two PCN's can be viewed here: https://imgpile.com/p/2AXB113

And  they're very interesting too, because the date of the notice is 25th November, whereas they say the date of th e alleged contravention is 26th November. Clearly H & F have some formidable CCTV equipment that can foresee the future !!
I would have thought this error makes the PCN unenforceable, but wait a bit to see what others say.

Looks like the date of the allegation is 16 November not 26?

I checked again too.. unfortunately both the CCTV images and PCN's display the correct date 16 November

Do you still think I have a case though?

Hey Hippocrates

So to confirm: I should challenge both PCNs by simply including the arguments you shared below. I do not need to instruct the Council to “cancel one automatically”, as the point is already made by explaining that the two PCNs arise from the same continuous sequence of events only one minute apart. Likewise, I do not need to separately state that the Fulham 10k road closures made it impossible to use alternative routes?

To whom it may concern,

The PCN fails to include mandatory information required by para. 4( of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

The Act requires the PCN to state:

at 4((iii): that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; and

at 4((v): that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of that 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.

Your PCN instead states:

“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.”

This wording is defective because:

It substitutes the statutory definition (“date of notice”) with an entirely different one (“date of service”).

The mandatory statutory wording is omitted from the PCN. Your substituted wording only adds to the lack of clarity caused by this omission. Even taken on its own terms, the statement is defective because it conflates two separate statutory periods by using the word “or”, which many would interpret conjunctively. Even if interpreted disjunctively, the statement still fails to provide clarity because the required statutory information is missing. It follows that the notice cannot possibly be interpreted correctly and therefore does not comply with Section 4( of the 2003 Act.

OK.