Author Topic: London Borough of Hounslow  (Read 171 times)

0 Members and 67 Guests are viewing this topic.

London Borough of Hounslow
« on: »
A registered keeper has received the following from LBoHounslow.

Date of notice : 07/04/2026

The PCN was delivered on Thursday : 16/04/2026

RK was abroad and opened : 17/04/2026




Long time since I have been involved with a Civil PCN, since moving out of London area. So not up to speed on them.

Are they fairly bulletproof now, or can they still be fought?























Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #1 on: »


Welcome back. I have missed the logo.  ;D
@Incandescent!

I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #2 on: »
Thanks Hippocrates.
I'll take a look at that later and see what I can come up with.

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #3 on: »
What silly signage!!

The prohibition signs are placed just before a junction. They are 150m AFTER the preceding junction, and 200m into a side road off a main road.

Surely anyone in their right mind would have put the signs just after the preceding junction so people who should not be preceding any further actually have an alternative direction to take.

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #4 on: »
What silly signage!!

The prohibition signs are placed just before a junction. They are 150m AFTER the preceding junction, and 200m into a side road off a main road.

Surely anyone in their right mind would have put the signs just after the preceding junction so people who should not be preceding any further actually have an alternative direction to take.

But they wouldn't make any penalty money for the council if they did. Councils have been given a Magic Money Tree and exploit it as much as possible.

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #5 on: »
Yeah I know. I don't miss living in the London boroughs. Whenever I have to go that way, apart from my normal commute into New Malden from the south of Greater London, it feels worse every time.



Anyway, I have been going through the London Tribunal decision linked by Hippocrates.


Do we know if there was any more to the original appeal, because that looks like a decision that could have been a throw away decision, made simply because Hounslow representation did not show up.




Or is the decision really that strong?


I cannot for example find where in LLA&Tfl Act 2003 it says that a PCN must "...explain that, if no representations are made and, if payment of the penalty charge has not been made, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, then an increased charge may be payable."


The text in bold only appears in the Act in Schedule 1, 5(2)(a) which covers charge certificates. PART 2 4( 8 ), does not appear to require any statements in the PCN regarding what happens if representations are not made. It only requires in (v) that it state that if not paid, then an increased charge may be payable, which I think it does.


If I can find any holes I would point out that (viii) requires that the PCN state that person on whom a notice is served may be entitled to make representations under Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act. The PCN does not mention any part of the Act, other than to include the title of the Act under the heading of the PCN. I do not think this is strong.


I am happy to suggest making representations on the basis of the decision as published, if nothing else it delays things a bit. Wondering if something more concrete can be included though.

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #6 on: »


I suggested representations based on the "Eleanor Macwhinnie vs London Borough of Hounslow" decision.



RK has received a postal reply already "Rejection of Representation".



The representations submitted simply stated that as a Hounslow PCN had been adjudicated to be non compliant with LLA&TfL Act 2003 it should be cancelled, with an excerpt from the Macwhinnie decision on why the PCN was not compliant, and that RK's PCN had the same text.



Their rejection : because the Macwhinnie decision referred to involved a larger box junction they believe on the evidence that the signage satisfy the description in the regulations and therefore that the contravention occurred. After carefully considering your Representation... blah blah blah!!!



I.e. they have messed up quite comprehensively I think, seeing as this alleged contravention does not involve a box junction at all!!



What are the next steps with this?

Anyway : Here for your entertainment...





















Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #7 on: »
Did you know that if you make representations into the Hounslow.gov.uk website, you cannot go back later and look at want was submitted.


Luckily there was an acknowledgement email buried in the spam folder, that contains the submitted text:


I can confirm that we have received your challenge, which will be attached onto the case.
Please find below the information you submitted online.
Submission Date/Time: 23/04/2026 22:46:19


Reference:
Submission Reference:

Title:
Forename:
Surname:
Organisation:
House Number:

Address 1:
Address 2:
Address 3:
Address 4:
Postcode:
Tel. No:
Email:

Notes:

Your Notes: I challenge PCN xxxxxxxxxx due to procedural impropriety on the part of London Borough of Hounslow (LBoH) enforcement authorities. LBoH PCNs have been adjudicated to be non-compliant with "London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003". One such adjudication decision has been attached for your reference "Eleanor Macwhinnie v London Borough of Hounslow (2250221909, 21 July 2025).pdf". The decision explains that a PCN; "...must explain that, if no representations are made and, ifpayment of the penalty charge has not been made, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, then an increased charge may be payable. The PCN in this case states that the increased charge may be payable and a Charge Certificate served if the PCN has not been paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice. It is, therefore, not clear to the motorist that there will be no liability to an increased charge and a Charge Certificate if representations against the PCN are made within the 28 day period. This is a material defect as it may influence or even determine the motorist's decision as to whether to challenge the PCN. I find that the PCN in this case is not valid."
Uploaded Evidence:
Eleanor Macwhinnie v London Borough of Hounslow (2250221909, 21 July 2025).docx





Now I will try and concoct an appeal to enter into the londontribunals.gov.uk website.

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #8 on: »
I don't follow.

As the PCN states:
In order to count as in time, representations must be received by the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice. Any received after this period may be disregarded. Representations must include your name, postal address and signature (if making them online or via email your name must appear in the message header or main body text and will be taken to be your signature). If we receive your representations we will place the PCN on hold until a response is sent. If we accept them the PCN will be cancelled. If we reject them, you will have 28 days to either pay or appeal against our decision

then 'It is, therefore, not clear to the motorist that there will be no liability to an increased charge and a Charge Certificate if representations against the PCN are made within the 28 day period' cannot be correct: there is therefore no end date for payment as this is contingent on when they respond, an unknown.

Whether the PCN states and expresses the meaning of the mandatory requirements is something that Hippocrates is good at evaluating, but IMO it cannot help an appeal to state something which on the face of it is incorrect.

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #9 on: »
I’m not following either, and unsure whether I should advise pursuing this further or tell the RK to take the discount.

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #10 on: »
They have misunderstood the collateral challenge and therefore failed to consider it.
@Incandescent!

I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #11 on: »
Why does the London Tribunals website not include in the list of grounds for appeal an option for Procedural Impropriety?

Assume in this case an appeal would be under "The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case". So that is what I will do.

So rusty with council PCNs, no had to deal with one for sooooooo long. Which is a good thing I guess.

Re: London Borough of Hounslow
« Reply #12 on: »
Procedural Impropriety is only a statutory ground in the Transport Management Act 1974.