Thanks very much for all the help everyone a very impressive and knowledgeable community.
Ive drafted what I believe is the final version below and plan to submit it later today unless anyone spots an issue or suggests otherwise:
I make representations against this Penalty Charge Notice on the following grounds.
The Penalty Charge Notice was served out of time and is unenforceable. The alleged contravention occurred on 13 December 2025. Under paragraph 6 of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, a postal PCN must be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the alleged contravention, unless a statutory exception applies. No such exception is stated on the PCN. The last lawful date for service was therefore 9 January 2026. The PCN is dated 8 January 2026 and, applying the presumption of service two working days after posting, the presumed date of service is 12 January 2026. As the PCN was served after the last lawful date for service, it was served out of time and is unenforceable and must be cancelled.
Without prejudice to the above, I also make a collateral challenge to the validity of the Penalty Charge Notice. Paragraph 4(
(v) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires a PCN to state that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable. This provision refers back to paragraph 4(
(iii), which requires the PCN to state that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. The PCN fails to convey this mandatory information correctly. Instead, it states words to the effect that if payment or representations are not made before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, an increased charge may be payable. This wording is defective because it fails to state that the increased charge arises if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day payment period, it conflates payment and representations by using the word or, and it incorrectly refers to a period beginning with the date of service rather than the date of the notice. Whether this wording is interpreted conjunctively or disjunctively, the mandatory statutory information is missing and the PCN does not convey the required information with clarity. The High Court has confirmed, including in Hackney Drivers, that PCNs must clearly and unambiguously convey statutory requirements. This PCN does not do so and is therefore invalid.
Without prejudice to the above, I deny that the alleged contravention occurred. The CCTV footage shows that there was sufficient space available ahead for me to move further forward and substantially clear the box junction, and accordingly I was not prevented from exiting the box junction by any stationary vehicle, which is the statutory test for the contravention. In any event, the footage demonstrates that my vehicle had substantially cleared the box junction, with only the rear wheels remaining within the marked area. If a contravention is nevertheless alleged, the extent of any encroachment was so trivial as to be de minimis.
For all of the above reasons, the Penalty Charge Notice must be cancelled.
