OP, actually (sorry mickR) Procedural Impropriety, or PI, are grounds of appeal under parking legislation but not under moving traffic, which applies in your case. PI is not directly applicable.
However, the issue can be raised on the basis of a 'collateral challenge'. OP do not bother yourself about these technicalities, please.
As the discount isn't on offer then your next step is to register your appeal.
Contravention did not occur;
You can construct the detail later, we'll give you these.
@HCA - Please see below draft to register appeal that I have crafted based on previous threads on this matter and facts. Could you please let me know, if this would work? Would appreciate help here.
------------------------
I would like to challenge liability for PCN LJ28599954 because the alleged contravention quite blatantly did not occur as the original PCN:
• mis-stated the time-period mandated by London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003,
• oncoming vehicle was neither impeded nor was there any risk of a collision.
I have following facts to challenge why contravention did not occur:
• In any event the PCN is invalid because it mis-stated the time-period mandated by paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, this should be 28 days from the date of service of the notice rather than 28 days from the date of the notice mentioned in the original PCN received on 27/05/2024.
• Lambeth Council informal representation rejection letter dated 05/07/2024 and Lambeth online PCN payment portal has raised a Collateral Issue; Lambeth Council informal representation Rejection letter has given offer to pay discount charge £65 within 14 days from the date of the letter being served. Based on the date of letter of 05/07/2024, date of service is 09/07/2024 and 14 days from the date of letter being served ends on 23/07/2024, Lambeth council PCN payment portal shows outstanding amount of £130 (full amount of penalty) as of 22/07/2024 instead of £65 as per the offer made in the Lambeth Council informal representation rejection letter. Similarly Lambeth Council informal representation rejection letter has offered to pay £130 if the discount period was missed and states amount to be paid within 28 days from the date of the letter being served. Based on the date of the letter being served 09/07/2024, 28 days ends on 06/08/2024, however, Lambeth PCN payment portal threatens to increase the penalty charge to £195 on 23/07/2024. It is against the law to renege on the offer already made in informal representation rejection letter.
• Location of the incident i.e. Salter’s Hill has an arch of a bridge and a narrowed carriageway for the length of the arch with priority signs on both sides at the end of the narrow carriageway as defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction 2016 and the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3. Priority sign states 'Give way to oncoming vehicles' without a specified distance over which the priority applies (diagram 615 within s4 of chapter 3). The legal interpretation of the combination of signs (615 and 811A) is given in the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 and explained under 4.8.3s i.e. unless limits of the priority section are obvious e.g. through the arch of a bridge, the traffic sign indicating the priorities should include the distance over which the priority applies. Given distance was not mentioned in this case at Salter’s Hill location, the driver is therefore entitled by virtue of this omission and the presence of obvious limits i.e. the arch of the bridge and narrowed carriageway (distance between two priority signs) to consider that as limits of the priority section do not extend beyond the arch and narrowed . It is indisputable that there was no oncoming vehicle in the priority section from the video posted by Lambeth council when my car entered this priority section. Lambeth council considers that any vehicle which their camera can see approaching from the opposite direction, even if nowhere near the priority section in their direction, represents potentially impeded traffic. I would like to refer to a similar past cases in the tribunal (Case reference: 2190557850 - Tim Allen vs. London Borough of Lambeth and Case reference: 2210453760 – Joseph Cartwright vs. London Borough of Lambeth) in which judgement was passed in favour of the appellant on the ground that priority section is defined between the two signs (615 and 811A) and the oncoming vehicle was not in the priority section and the oncoming vehicle should meet priority sign for establishment of the requirement of give way. Based on the judgement of these two cases along with the facts stated above, there is no doubt that contravention did not occur.
