Free Traffic Legal Advice

OK, I've looked up all six PCN numbers you provided - two of these (JK17555685 and JK18627114 issued on 29 October 2025 and 25 November 2025 respectively) are beyond the point when you can appeal them further as you have run out of time.  This assumes you received the Notice to Owner in the post and either didn't submit formal representations, or did and received the Notice of Rejection.  If that isn't the case please make it clear to us.

JK18627114 has already reached the £250 stage which means Southwark have applied to register the debt and you could be looking at Bailffs in the near future.

In respect of JK17555685, which is the oldest of the PCN numbers you provided here, the council photos show there was already another PCN affixed to the vehicle when this was issued, which suggests there's another PCN not in your list (unless the council already cancelled this one)?

For three of the other four PCNs (JK18987437, JK19029399, JK19061416 issued on 16 January 2026, 26 January 2026 and 28 January 2026 respectively), they are still at the £80 discount stage with the council portal suggesting you've submitted an informal challenge which has been rejected.  These are still in play and should be beatable based on the lack of signage (but you need to stick to the formal process and deadlines).

The final PCN is JK19743857 which was issued on 26 May 2026 and has been paid.  That suggests this is the PCN in respect of which your vehicle was towed and which you paid to release.  I guess they towed you due to the vehicle having so many outstanding PCNs which marked you as a serial offender in Southwark's eyes.

Others will be better placed to advise you on the two oldest PCNs and whether there's anything that can be done on these.

For the other four, these should be beatable.  Out of interest, when you picked up your PCN at the car pound for JK19743857, did it show signs of being folded? They are obliged to serve it on the vehicle before it gets towed but they sometimes don't bother and just take a photo of an empty PCN envelope on the windscreen which would invalidate this PCN if so.

Can you also clarify the status of the extra PCN which was served before 29 October 2025 (i.e. the additional PCN on the car in the council photos).

EDIT - I guess the "additional PCN" is the warning notice you referred to in your original post?

Mr Chips is right that the previous PCNs could have some bearing on the removal although I can't see that you meet the definition of a persistent evader and therefore subject to removal priority.

So make a list of each PCN with dates of each event/action subsequent to the issue so we can see the status of each.

-----------

From statutory guidance:

A vehicle owner can be classed as a ‘persistent evader’ if there are 3 or more recorded contraventions for the vehicle and the penalties for these have not been paid, represented against or appealed against within the statutory time limits, or their representations and appeals have been rejected but they have still not paid.

Usually, this is because the vehicle keeper is not registered, or is not correctly registered, on the DVLA database, and the owner is confident that they can avoid paying any penalty charges.

You should have been given the PCN by the pound when you collected the car and paid the PCN and towing fee.

Did/does the PCN show signs of having been previously folded? It may have been served properly, and then taken out of the envelope by the staff at the pound in order to hand to you.  I've not been in your position before so I don't know the proper process, but I do know they cannot tow the vehicle if a PCN has not been properly served to the vehicle at the scene.  If all that was ever put on the car is an empty yellow envelope, that's not sufficient.

If the PCN has not been folded, keep it safe and unfolded!

OP, do you understand what's been communicated so far?

Your PCNs split into two groups.  The oldest two, which at face value, seem to be too late to challenge, and the newest four which you can still challenge, likely successfully.

Can we get a timeline for the oldest two in the first instance (date of PCN, date of challenge, date of receipt of rejection, date of NTO, date of formal representations etc).

Because there is a clear dividing line between the bays, the signs had different restrictions on when there was one, and the council confirmed they were different bays.

Last year you posted:

For context, there are two adjacent bays on the street (clearly divided by a line) where one has a sign, and the bay in which I have parked for a considerable amount of time does not; it previously did but was vandalised and removed months ago.

When there was a sign the restrictions for the bay were very different from the adjacent bay and therefore couldn’t be considered one continuous parking zone.

But GSV for April 2025 shows 2 traffic signs with identical wording, namely:

Parking; Mon-Fri, 8.30-6.30

Permit holders E

or pay by phone 02070050055 quoting location 84602; Max stay 4 hours.

This suggests that the restriction is the same whichever side of the line one's parked. In addition, TSM and GSV show an internal dividing line, not two adjacent bays, let alone with different restrictions.

What is the basis of your claim regarding the different restrictions?

Last year you posted:

For context, there are two adjacent bays on the street (clearly divided by a line) where one has a sign, and the bay in which I have parked for a considerable amount of time does not; it previously did but was vandalised and removed months ago.

When there was a sign the restrictions for the bay were very different from the adjacent bay and therefore couldn’t be considered one continuous parking zone.

But GSV for April 2025 shows 2 traffic signs with identical wording, namely:

Parking; Mon-Fri, 8.30-6.30

Permit holders E

or pay by phone 02070050055 quoting location 84602; Max stay 4 hours.

This suggests that the restriction is the same whichever side of the line one's parked. In addition, TSM and GSV show an internal dividing line, not two adjacent bays, let alone with different restrictions.

What is the basis of your claim regarding the different restrictions?

Please see the councils own website outlining parking restrictions which shows the bays to be different if you would like to check for yourself;

OP, stamfordman's post of 2 June, which I gather supports the removal, shows your car in Pentland Place.

You posted GSV of Manor Place at a point where a bay is internally divided, as per my post.

These photos dated 26 May do not show a bay behind you, instead they show DYL. However, the bay you are in comprises 4 bays(you are in no.1) and is separated(with the mandatory markings) from another parking place 3 bays from you.

So, is there a traffic sign within the 4-bay parking space?

We don't know. There's a post next to your car, but it's not the one in GSV, this is in bay 2 which cannot be seen but a year ago carried a traffic sign.

Photos are not obligatory.

A motorist is required to comply with signs in situ, whether they align with any web-based research of the driver or not. If the authority's responses do not address your reps then IMO this goes to procedural impropriety and does not relate to the underlying contravention.

So:
As regards the tow(which was only 9 days ago) can you take a photo(s) showing the extent of the parking place in Pentland Place, its separation from the bay ahead and the presence or otherwise of traffic signs. If these show that a traffic sign is not in situ, then IMO this would be accepted as contemporaneous evidence by an adjudicator and proof that a contravention did not occur.