Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello All,

I got the same PCN issued on 11/02/2026, date of contravention 31/01/2026.


If somebody could guide me where does it mention the following on the payment portal, it would be really helpful.

"However, when accessing the Lambeth payment portal, the following statements were displayed:

“The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 on Wed, 4 Feb 2026. Please pay £80.00 now.”
“The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £240.00 on Sun, 22 Feb 2026. Please pay £160.00 now.”"


I do have the following mentioned on my PCN:

The PCN states:

The penalty charge of £160.00 must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice (31 January 2026).
If paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the charge is reduced by 50% to £80.00.
If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, a Charge Certificate may be served increasing the charge by 50% to £240.00.

But the website states :

"As such, the changes to the penalty charges issued within the London Borough of Lambeth as of the above date, are as follows:

Parking penalties at the higher level will increase by £30 to:

£160 (Band A) reduced to £80 if paid within 14 days from the date of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice or 21 days if the Notice was issued by a CCTV operation.
£140 (Band B) reduced to £70 if paid within 14 days from the date of issue of the Penalty Charge Notice or 21 days if the Notice was issued by a CCTV operation."

I assume this was issued by CCTV operation hence the reduced fee should be 21 days and not 14 days as mentioned in the letter.

Link :

https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking/parking-fines-and-penalty-charge-notices-pcns/penalty-charge-notices-pcns/notice-changes-penalty-charges-additional-fees

Can this be reasonable grounds for a formal representation.

Thank you.

There are no statuory grounds of "procedural impropriety' in the LLA & TfL Act 2003 under which your PCN was served. You need to reword the text. The alternative is "the penalty exceeded the amount.....in the circumstances of the case"

Much appreciated for remind me the Act which I've no idea and quote the wrong one
I just done all night researching post in ftla and play with ChatGPT, and I've got 2 more ground inspired by these 2 post and re-draft. Thanks in advance if you or anyone don't mind to help for a scan, love everyone. And fortunately I still got 2 hrs for sleep.
Ohh, and one more question please tell if I'm wrong, the deadline for representations will be 15th Feb as date of notice was 15th Jan, date of served was 19th Jan then add 28 days period?
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/southampton-cc-33e-using-route-restricted-to-cereain-vehicles-castle-way-bus-gat/
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/50l-prohibited-turn-no-left-turn-wandsworth-council/

Formal Representation – The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case  – PCN [Insert Number]
Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration Number]
Date of Contravention: 11 December 2025
Date of Notice: 15 January 2026

I make this formal representation against the above PCN on the ground of The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances pursuant to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

1. The PCN was served out of time

Section 4 of the 2003 Act requires that a PCN be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the alleged contravention.

The alleged contravention occurred on 11 December 2025.

The 28-day period therefore expired on 8 January 2026.

The PCN is dated 15 January 2026. Even allowing for deemed service (two working days after posting), service would have occurred on 19 January 2026.

Accordingly, the PCN was served well outside the statutory 28-day limit.

In the absence of any stated statutory exception (such as delay in obtaining keeper details), the enforcement authority has acted outside the prescribed time limit. A penalty charge demanded pursuant to a notice served out of time is not lawfully due.

2. Incorrect and conflicting statutory payment periods

The PCN states:
•   The amount of penalty charge which is payable is £160.00. The penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.
•   If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the charge is reduced by 50% to £80.00.
•   Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before end of the relevant period, London Borough of Lambeth may serve on that person a charge certificate to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50% to £240.00.

However, when accessing the Lambeth payment portal, the following statements were displayed:
•   “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 on Wed, 4 Feb 2026. Please pay £80.00 now.”
•   “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £240.00 on Sun, 22 Feb 2026. Please pay £160.00 now.”
These dates do not correspond with the statutory periods.

The 14-day period beginning with 15 January 2026 expired on 28 January 2026.

The  relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served (19 January 2026) expires on 15 February 2026.

The dates presented on your website (4 February 2026 and 22 February 2026) therefore conflict with the statutory deadlines prescribed by legislation and stated on the PCN itself.
It is well established that enforcement authorities must strictly comply with the statutory scheme. The provision of conflicting and misleading information regarding payment deadlines amounts to a procedural impropriety, as it misstates the recipient’s legal position and potentially prejudices their ability to make informed decisions regarding payment or representations.

In particular:
1.   The online system purported to extend the discounted period beyond the statutory 14-day period.
2.   The stated Charge Certificate escalation date did not correspond with the expiry of the relevant period.
3.   The inconsistency between the PCN and the online portal creates uncertainty as to which dates the authority intends to rely upon for enforcement.
Such discrepancies undermine the certainty required by the statutory regime and render the enforcement process defective.

3. Restriction to a single ground of representation – ambiguity and fettering

The 2003 Act provides that representations may be made on “one or other of the statutory grounds”.

Your online portal requires the recipient to select only a single ground when making representations.

The statutory wording is ambiguous as to whether multiple grounds may be advanced. That ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the motorist. There is nothing within the Act that expressly prohibits reliance on more than one ground, nor does it require an owner to limit themselves to a single basis of challenge.

By restricting the online system to one selectable ground only, the authority risks unlawfully fettering the right to make representations and misdirecting recipients as to the scope of their statutory rights.

Such procedural restriction further undermines the validity of the enforcement process.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above:
•   The PCN was served outside the statutory 28-day period;
•   The enforcement authority has provided incorrect and conflicting statutory deadlines; and
•   The representations process unlawfully restricts the statutory right to make representations.
Accordingly, the penalty demanded exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case and must be cancelled.

If you do not agree to cancel the PCN, please provide:
•   A full explanation of why the PCN was served outside the 28-day statutory period and the statutory basis relied upon;
•   A full explanation of how the website dates were calculated;
•   Confirmation of the exact statutory provisions relied upon for those dates;
•   Clarification of the legal basis upon which the online system restricts representations to a single ground;
•   Evidence that the enforcement process complies fully with the 2003 Act.
I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Details]