I filed an appeal with LT as a collateral challenge on grounds that the Lambeth website was at odds with the PCN and was materially misleading on dates as well as demanding penalties be paid at risk of escalation to Charge Certificate notwithstanding that an appeal was in progress. A secondary line of appeal was that Lambeth had rescinded previous LTOs when it introduced a new one in 2024 and had not reinstated them hence the LTO under which I was charged was not in force at the time. Accompanied by Hippocrates I went to the LT to have the appeal heard by Mr EJ Houghton in mid-September.
The adjudicator reserved judgment at the hearing as he wanted a complete timeline set out of all actions by Lambeth, what appeared on their website and when and what entreaties there were to persuade me to pay up. As a secondary matter he wanted to think about the LTO point and was not persuaded by the evidence we produced as it might not effectively present the whole picture. I was able to put this together relatively easily together with screen shots that Hippocrates had usefully preserved; all the key dates were in the papers we had filed but Mr Houghton wanted them in an easily readable summary sheet before coming to his decision.
Written judgment came through on 16 October. Appeal allowed. Key paras:
The main challenge lies on procedural grounds, In bare summary the Appellant submits that the
Council's website was giving incorrect and/or confusing information regarding payment dates, and
that it was still showing a demand for payment after an appeal had been lodged. It seems to me that
even if the Statutory notices are in themselves technically correct what is shown on the Council's
website should be in accordance with those notices; and that if it is not, it inevitably has the effect of
undermining what is st[at]ed in the Notices.The motorist is entitled to have
clear and correct information from a Council as to what is required to be paid and when; and in my
judgement these errors are serious enough for the Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral
challenge.He also said he concurred with the view of adjudicator Michael Greenslade that a LA should not be seeking any amount beyond the prescribed sum
"or any amount at all" while an appeal was in progress. He did not give me a "win" on the LTO point, seemingly requiring me to prove a negative rather than
asking Lambeth to prove positively that the LTO was in force at the time.
For anyone getting a PCN from Lambeth henceforth I would watch the website carefully and take screenshots of any obvious errors. These were
abundant in my case and my guess is that no-one at Lambeth is going to pick up my case and say "right, we had better overhaul the website or else
we will get more challenges of the same nature". In particular watch out for them threatening a CC when the PCN is already being taken to the LT.
Many thanks to Hippocrates and also to cp 8759 for help on this one.
Case ref at LT is 2240362722.
https://londontribunals.org.uk
