Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi everyone,

I’d appreciate a sense check on my timing argument before I submit my representation.

Timeline:
   •   Contravention: 20 Aug 2025 (moving traffic – “no right turn”)
   •   First PCN (to hire company): 26 Aug 2025
   •   Hire company dealt with it online on 2 Sep 2025 and emailed me around 10am that day confirming liability transfer
   •   New PCN (to me): dated 29 Sep 2025, received by post a few days later

Because the hire company handled the transfer electronically, Merton Council would have had my details on 2 Sep 2025, meaning the 28-day clock to serve the new PCN expired 30 Sep 2025.
Assuming standard postal service, a notice dated 29 Sep 2025 is deemed served two working days later – 1 Oct 2025 – which is one day outside the statutory 28-day period.

My argument:
Under Schedule 1, paragraph 1(3) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, a PCN must be served within 28 days of the date on which the authority receives the hirer’s details. Since service was after that period, the PCN is out of time and should be cancelled.


Questions:
   1.   Do you agree that “service” (not “date of notice”) is the key trigger here?
   2.   Does electronic transmission from the hire company make the 2 Sept date effectively instantaneous for timing purposes?
   3.   Any other statutory angles I should cite or evidence to request from Merton?

Thanks in advance — I have uploaded the 2 PCN documents here:
1. https://photos.app.goo.gl/xJwNX5xX5SMtvw3x9
2. https://photos.app.goo.gl/sTZuhmceAw1jTvdL7



⸻ Potential Representation

I challenge this PCN on the ground that it was served out of time.

The alleged contravention occurred on 20 August 2025. The hire company (the registered keeper) informed me on 2 September 2025 that they had transferred liability to me electronically on that date. This means the enforcement authority received the hirer details on 2 September 2025.

Under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, the PCN must be served within 28 days of that date — i.e., by 30 September 2025.

The PCN is dated 29 September 2025 and therefore deemed served on or after 1 October 2025, outside the statutory period. Unless the council can demonstrate that service took place within 28 days, the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled.

I would also request that the council provide evidence of the exact date on which it received the hirer details from the hire company.

Your argument is wrong.

The provision within LLA regarding 'Limitation of Service' is s6:

6 Limitation on service of penalty charge notice
(1)Subject to the provisions of this section, no penalty charge notice may be served under this Act after the expiry of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention or failure to comply occurred.

(2)Subject to the provisions of this section, where—

(a)a penalty charge notice has been cancelled under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Act

...

the borough council or Transport for London, as the case may be, may not serve a fresh penalty charge notice after the expiry of the period of 28 days from the date of the cancellation of the penalty charge notice

In short, the clock starts from the date of cancellation of the original PCN, NOT the date on which reps were made.

But of course if, as happens, the authority did not issue a Notice of Acceptance
of the hire company's reps then the clock never started ticking!

And what makes you say the company is a 'vehicle hire firm'. These terms are not to be batted about loosely, they are defined in law.

So, what is the nature of this 'hire'?