Slightly updated. Usually, we suggest people initially appeal simply by stating that they rely on their formal representations (which can then be beefed up once the council's evidence pack is received). In this case there are no formal representations so I think it's ok to go in on the basis of what you've drafted (subject to tweaks below) which capture what you want to get across. You can always supplement later once we've seen the evidence from the council.
NB, I think you should specify the date that the council was emailed, you said "immediately" so I guess it's 20 June 2025? - for now I've put DATE so please update that before issuing.
It should be your wife that is submitting the appeal so I've changed it from third person to first person. You can attend the hearing instead of, or in addition to her but it should be her that the written appeal is from.
I've updated your second ground to mainly focus on the 9 month delay which, in normal circumstances, should be enough to win this if you remind the adjudicators they have themselves stated three months is the maximum it should reasonably take (but note under the relevant legislation for box junctions, there is no stated maximum to it's not an automatic win).
The council hasn't followed the normal process once the CC is issued. They should normally tell you to wait until the next document is issued (the Order for Recovery) which sets out how to get the process reset back to the PCN, but they seem to have cancelled the CC out of process. This also means you didn't get a reissued PCN which prejudices you so I've included that too.
As mentioned earlier, I think it would help to include the stills I included in my previous posts which your first appeal point. If you need me to send them to you directly let me know.
Do register for the appeal (online) before the deadline at the end of today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I should like to appeal Penalty Charge Notice GR23368931 issued by Royal Borough of Greenwich on the following grounds:
1) The contravention did not occur
2) The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case
1) A box junction contravention cannot occur if there is sufficient space beyond the box junction to enable the vehicle fully to clear the box junction markings, irrespective of whether the vehicle stops within the box junction. Having studied the video footage provided by RB Greenwich I can see there was a significant space on the far side which I believe was large enough for my vehicle to have moved into in order fully to clear the box junction. This can be indicated by examining the video evidence as supplied by the issuing authority. On the left of the picture, by the kerb, you can see a white 'blob'. By considering the previous two cars to go through the junction then you can see that when the rear of each car is level with the far end of the box junction (i.e. it has just cleared the box junction), then the front of each car has not yet reached the 'blob'. At the point my vehicle becomes stationary, the rear of the stationary vehicle in front my vehicle is beyond the 'blob' indicating that there was sufficient space for my vehicle to manoeuvre further forward to clear the box junction completely.
2) No original PCN was received. The first that I knew about this was when I received a Charge Certificate on 20th June 2025, the Charge Certificate was dated 26th May 2025. I immediately emailed RB Greenwich (on DATE) and said,
"On 20th June 2025 I received a Charge Certificate dated 26th May 2025. This related to a PCN Number GR23368931.
I have never received this Penalty Charge Notice. I request that you cancel this Charge Certificate and the PCN. Otherwise please explain what the process is as I never received the Penalty Charge Notice and so have not had the opportunity to challenge or appeal it."
I heard nothing back and so sent another email on 1st August 2025 saying -
"Dear Sir or Madam,
I have not received any correspondence from you since this email.
Please can you confirm that you have cancelled this PCN or tell me what process there is for appeal or challenge.
Many thanks,"
I received a response from RB Greenwich on 4th August 2025 saying -
"PCN GR23368931 is on hold, and you will receive correspondence in writing in due course.
Kind regards
Parking Services
Communities, Environment and Central
C The Woolwich Centre, Floor 3, 35 Wellington Street, London SE18 6HQ"
The only other correspondence regarding this has been the Notice of Rejection dated 27th March 2026 which says "We refer to the representations made by you in connection with the issue of the above Penalty Charge Notice."
Notwithstanding that my emails were not intended as formal representations, if the issuing authority are taking the initial email as my formal representations then to respond over 9 months later is procedurally improper and an unreasonable delay. There can be no good reason that it should take an issuing authority this long to reject any representation and I note it significantly exceeds the 3 month period by which London Tribunals adjudicators have declared that a Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations for moving traffic offences.
Where a Enforcement Authority believes that a moving traffic contravention has occurred, it may serve a Penalty Charge Notice on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle. This is...
My email correspondence with RB Greenwich in June and August 2025 was not intended to constitute my formal representations (nor, I believe, could it reasonably have been interpreted as such). By not following the proper process of cancelling the Charge Certificate and reissuing the Penalty Charge Notice, I have been denied the possibility of properly submitting representations for consideration by RB Greenwich.
In such circumstances, the amount which can be legally demanded by the authority is zero.
