Come back with a draft pl.
Contravention did not occur
1. It isn't a 'pedestrian zone' as defined, it's simply a road into which restrictions apply as regards vehicles. There is no evidence of the following:
That the area has been 'laid out to improve the amenity for pedestrians and cyclists'.
2. In any event, the signage refers to P&C zone which cannot give rise to the contravention description given in the PCN which refers to a 'pedestrian zone' which would require the display of a different entry sign, namely that prescribed at item 1 of the Part 2 sign table ofSchedule 8 to the the Traffic Signs etc. regulations and not as here item 2. The mandated contravention description is 'Pedestrian and Cycle zone'.
Thank you for all the help I have drafted this for London Tribunals which includes yours and Hippocrates arguments.
Formal Appeal Against Penalty Charge Notice BTxxxxxx
Dear Adjudicator,
I am appealing against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur and that there have been procedural improprieties in the enforcement process. My detailed submissions are set out below.
1. The Alleged Contravention Did Not Occur – Inadequate and Non-Compliant Signage
The signage on Manor Park Road approaching Crownhill Road is inadequate to convey the restriction clearly and lawfully.
Although the Enforcement Authority asserts that the signs are “clearly placed,” the following issues demonstrate that this is not the case:
There is only one advance sign on Manor Park Road before the left turn into Crownhill Road. This sign is frequently obscured by buses, large vehicles, or parked cars, rendering it ineffective.
The sign is angled towards adjoining houses rather than facing oncoming traffic. Photographs provided with my initial representations demonstrate this.
The Council’s rejection relies on photographs dated May 2025, whereas the alleged contravention occurred in June 2025. This raises concern as to whether the signage at the relevant time was as the Council describes.
The two entry signs positioned on either side of Crownhill Road face away from the direction of approach from Manor Park Road. They are not visible to drivers turning left and therefore do not comply with the requirement that signs must be placed so as to be “clearly visible to traffic for which they are intended” (Regulation 18, The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996).
On this basis, the signage fails to provide adequate information about the restriction, and the contravention cannot be said to have occurred.
2. Incorrect Contravention Description and Non-Correspondence with Signage
The contravention cited on the PCN is for entry into a “Pedestrian Zone.” However:
a) The area in question is not a “pedestrian zone” within the meaning of the relevant regulations. It is a standard road to which vehicle restrictions apply. There is no evidence that the area has been “laid out to improve the amenity for pedestrians and cyclists.”
b) The signage on site refers to a “Pedestrian and Cycle Zone (P&C Zone)”. The prescribed signs for this restriction are those set out in Item 2 of Part 2, Schedule 8 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). A “Pedestrian Zone,” by contrast, requires the sign prescribed at Item 1 of the same schedule.
The PCN therefore describes a contravention that does not correspond with the restriction indicated by the signage. The misdescription renders the PCN unenforceable.
3. Procedural Impropriety – Defective Wording of the PCN
The wording of the PCN fails to comply with Section 4(
(v) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, which requires that a PCN must state:
“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.”
The 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 conflates the two distinct statutory periods — the 28-day period for payment and the 28-day period for making representations — using the conjunction “or.” This introduces ambiguity and fails to convey the mandatory information required by law. As such, the PCN is non-compliant and invalid.
4. Inconsistency in the Notice of Rejection
The Notice of Rejection issued by the Council states that the vehicle entered the zone at 08:09, while the restriction applies between 08:15 and 09:15. Based on the Council’s own statement, no contravention occurred.
This inconsistency indicates a lack of due care and calls into question the reliability of the evidence relied upon by the Enforcement Authority.
5. Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully submit that:
The signage was inadequate and non-compliant;
The contravention description does not correspond with the restriction in place;
The PCN itself is procedurally defective; and
The Council’s own evidence contradicts the alleged time of contravention.
Accordingly, I invite the Adjudicator to allow this appeal and direct that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours faithfully,
