Hi Hippocrates and al,
I would greatly appreciate some advice on the bellow representation response and whether you think its adequate. Its an amalgamation of past letters and information i could gather from past posts.
@Hippocrates, I have tried to capture your point on the dates but please correct me if i misunderstood. thank you
--------------
To Whom It May Concern,
I make representations against
PCN number: LJ35493793
Contravention: 53j
VRN: BC23KSE
Location: Rosendale Road (H)
The first ground by way of collateral challenge: There was no contravention of a prescribed order.
The signage in situ and accompanying plate a place directly after the turn on Rosendale Road, there is no advance signage to warn that this restriction is upcoming and by the time one is in a position to see the signs it is too late. Indeed, reading the exemption plate placed as it is impossible from a moving vehicle and to stop at the location in question would be inherently dangerous as would attempting to reverse back.
For these reasons the signage fails in its requirement under LATOR 1996 s18 to adequately inform the motorist. No contravention can occur in these circumstances and the PCN should be cancelled
The second ground by way of collateral challenge: Dates between PCN and Council’s website are misleading.
I am making a collateral challenge on the grounds that the penalty charge discount amount date as published on Lambeth’s website does not coincide with the 14 day period on the PCN itself.
The PCN states:
“If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50% to £80.”
The end of the 14 day period would thus be 30 December 2025.
Yet on your website [extract taken today 7 January 2025] it states:
“The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 very soon. Please pay £80.00 now.”
Moreover, the website gives the date of issue as 5 Dec (which is when the CCTV was recorded) while the PCN itself bears the date 17 Dec. Taken together this is all clearly misleading. I refer you to a recent case decided at the London Tribunal [224036272 decided 15 October 2024] on similar grounds i.e. where Lambeth’s website was inconsistent with the information given on the PCN. The adjudicator Mr Houghton said:
“In bare summary the Appellant submits that the Council’s website was giving incorrect and/or confusing information regarding payment dates……The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from a Council as to what is required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious enough for the Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge.”
In light of the aforementioned collateral challenges, the PCN should be cancelled. It is incumbent upon an authority to have clear road signs and give clear and precise states re payments etc and these must be according to the statutory process.
---------------
