Free Traffic Legal Advice

Would this be ok to send when appealing?

1. The PCN is Missing Mandatory Information
Under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Section 4((v), 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”
and
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”

This PCN fails to include the second requirement in full and instead uses wording that conflates payment and appeal timeframes, rendering the notice unclear. As the PCN omits mandatory statutory wording, it is invalid and must be cancelled.

2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my vehicle passing the relevant restriction signs. It merely shows the vehicle already inside the alleged restricted area.
Since the PCN is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed by prescribed signs, the absence of these signs in the evidence means the contravention has not been proven.

I put the authority to strict proof of:

The presence, condition, and visibility of the signs on 13 July 2025; and

That my vehicle passed them.

Library images or generic stock photographs would not suffice because they do not address the condition and visibility of the signs on the actual date and time in question.

3. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage
There was no clear advance warning before entering the restricted zone.
Furthermore, diversions in Romford around the date of the contravention may have contributed to driver confusion and reduced sign visibility. I request disclosure of any temporary traffic orders or diversion records for this area at that time.

4. Request for Disclosure
Please provide:

The full Traffic Management Order for this restriction.

All CCTV footage showing my approach to the restriction and any signs passed.

Proof of posting and date of service of the PCN.

Conclusion
Given the PCN’s legal defects, lack of conclusive evidence, and inadequate signage, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled. If the representation is rejected, I will pursue the matter with the independent adjudicator.

Sorry to be a pain here, just need a bit of advice how to proceed here. I don't wanna send anything yet until I know what I've written is ok . All help has been much appreciated. Thank you.

I prefer the shorter version. The more you start speculating about what a driver may or may not have seen, the more you stray from the upper level considerations in this matter:

Where is the authority's evidence that compliant and visible signs were passed;
Has the authority complied with mandatory procedure in pursuing any penalty?

I'll stick with the shorter one and attach the screenshot from legislation.gov.uk

There's no evidence of any signs being passed, in either the video or the stills. So I'm guessing in that instance I have a strong defence?

Don't understand this though "Has the authority complied with mandatory procedure in pursuing any penalty?"

Thanks for your response.

@Hippocrates  it does state on the third page about the penalty charge being increased by 50% to £240 so I can't really quote

1. This PCN is missing mandatory information. as provided at 4 (8 ) (v) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

How should I proceed with this. Do I just stick to the fact there's no signage?

I contest this PCN on the following grounds:

1. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my vehicle passing any restriction signs. It only shows the vehicle already within the alleged restricted area.

The contravention is based on non-compliance with prescribed signs, and the authority must prove that such signs were present, lawful, and visible at the time. In the absence of such evidence, the alleged contravention is not proven.

2. Procedural Impropriety – Defective Wording
The PCN misstates the statutory time periods. Under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, the 28-day period for payment runs from the date of the notice, while the 28-day period for making representations runs from the date of service of the notice. By conflating these distinct periods, the PCN is unclear and potentially misleading to the motorist. This amounts to a procedural impropriety.

Conclusion
For the reasons above, the PCN is invalid and I respectfully request that it be cancelled.

8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)state—

(i)the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(iv)that 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 the specified proportion;

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

(vi)the amount of the increased charge;

(vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and

(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

Hi there, I seem to have a PCN from exactly the same place - did your appeal work?

@Hippocrates Thanks for your response.... Shall I just stick to this ... also the grounds on which website, sorry i'm a bit confused here.

I contest this PCN on the following grounds:

1. The PCN is Missing Mandatory Information
Under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Section 4((v), 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”
and
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”

This PCN fails to include the second requirement in full and instead uses wording that conflates payment and appeal timeframes, rendering the notice unclear. As the PCN omits mandatory statutory wording, it is invalid and must be cancelled.

2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my vehicle passing the relevant restriction signs. It merely shows the vehicle already inside the alleged restricted area.
Since the PCN is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed by prescribed signs, the absence of these signs in the evidence means the contravention has not been proven.

Given the above, I request that this PCN be cancelled.