If anyone is still following, I am going to submit this draft I wrote as the appeal today because it is the 28th day since receiving the PCN. I will be using the 'Other' option on the website.
I will update the outcome in case anyone wants to refer to it in the future. I will submit this same appeal for the 2nd PCN on Wednesday unless anyone would like to offer any input - please do as I have submitted 4 drafts that I see being requested in other threads, but unfortunately, I have not received feedback on my drafts.
Formal Representation for PCNs PN76128305, PN76141267, PN76178620
Dear Newham council,
I am writing to appeal the above PCNs issued for “Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Gainsborough Road E15 / Manor Road E15.
The alleged contraventions occurred on the following dates:
PN76128305: 15/11/2024 at 09:02 (letter received on evening of 25/11/2024)
PN76141267: 18/11/2024 at 08:52 (letter received on evening of 28/11/2024)
PN76178620: 25/11/2024 at 08:56 (letter received on evening of 03/12/2024)
Grounds for Appeal:
Until the first PCN was received (PN76128305), we were unaware of the pedestrian zone restriction at this location. The subsequent PCNs (PN76141267 and PN76178620) occurred during this period of unawareness, as there was no opportunity to adjust our route before being informed of the restriction.
We now understand the restriction and have taken steps to avoid this route. However, I respectfully submit that issuing multiple PCNs for the same unintentional mistake, before the driver is aware of the restriction, seems disproportionate.
I was willing to pay the first PCN issued.
However, when attempting to appeal these PCNs on your website, I am presented with options for grounds of appeal that do not align with the legislation governing these PCNs, specifically the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
The following options are listed:
F. There has been a procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority
G. The traffic order contravened is invalid H. The Notice should not have been served because the Penalty Charge had already been paid.
These grounds are not valid under the legislation applicable to the PCNs I have received and instead pertain to appeals under the Traffic Management Act 2004. Offering these options is misleading and potentially prejudicial to those trying to submit a valid appeal.
Given these issues, I challenge the validity of all three PCNs on the basis that your website is not fit for purpose and has not provided a fair or lawful means to submit my appeal. I was prepared to pay the first PCN at the discounted rate; however, the subsequent PCNs appear disproportionate. Therefore, I respectfully request the cancellation of all three PCNs..
Yours faithfully,
David
