Author Topic: Lambeth council changing PCN reasoning (Read 310 times)

matt001 · « **on:** March 08, 2025, 06:01:42 pm »

Hi! I received a PCN from Lambeth council. The PCN stated that I'd violated contravention code 14a (Parked in an electric vehicles' charging place during restricted hours without charging).

I informally challenged this, because my car was obviously actively charging, and their own photos showed it. They rejected my challenge (while acknowledging that my car was in fact actively charging) on the grounds that "the requirements of the bay are that the vehicle be an active permit holder. As the vehicle did not meet both the requirements of the bay, the PCN was correctly issued and remains payable).

I now see that yes, the sign does in fact state that the bay is for permit holders only. I hadn't noticed this at the time, and am used to electric car charging bays in London typically not having permit holder restrictions.

My question is: can they change their reasoning for the PCN? The initial reason is obviously invalid, but does that matter? The secondary stated reason would be an entirely different contravention code.

(As an aside, the parking suspension sign you can see a glimpse of in the photos was not active at the time).

Photos of the PCN, response, and evidence here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1XF3kAPfBkeCa7C2-XvaWNcpeI25pWyvs

stamfordman · « **Reply #1 on:** March 08, 2025, 06:24:36 pm »

The sign looks ambiguous and confusing - how can you be charging for 24 hours? It seems more like a shared use bay and they've added an instruction plate about 'actively charging'* to remove ambiguity but the sign itself should be what counts.

*And what is the difference between 'actively charging' and 'charging'.

matt001 · « **Reply #2 on:** March 08, 2025, 06:44:30 pm »

I think the "actively charging" wording is an attempt to specify that leaving a vehicle plugged in at 100% for instance wouldn't count. But I agree, in a literal sense, that wouldn't be charging at all really.

Hippocrates · « **Reply #3 on:** March 08, 2025, 08:22:55 pm »

Their website is an issue. Please screenshot the payment status page and report back.

matt001 · « **Reply #4 on:** March 08, 2025, 09:36:52 pm »

Attached. Oddly the online portal says "The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Mon, 24 Mar 2025", but the letter says it would be £130 (£65 within 14 days of the letter date which is 6/3/24).

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

mrmustard · « **Reply #5 on:** March 09, 2025, 08:42:37 am »

Please let us see the original letter of rejection. Cover up only your name and address. I can be your free tribunal representative. I agree with stamfordman, the signs are confusing - the lower one might not be authorised. For help, email mrmustard@zoho.com

matt001 · « **Reply #6 on:** March 09, 2025, 11:44:24 am »

I've updated the google drive folder with the full letter, although I think the only thing that was missing was their reference number.

I guess my main question is whether they are able to change their reasoning for issuing the PCN? In my mind this would be a different PCN / the original one would become invalid once I show that I didn't break the contravention code, but perhaps it doesn't work like that? (I'm curious what the point of the contravention codes is, if the PCN can remain valid for any other reason they later determine).

Thanks for your thoughts.