Author Topic: PCN appeal – council replied more than 56 days after my appeal - Code 52M - Hammersmith and Fulham  (Read 1742 times)

0 Members and 863 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi everyone,

I’m hoping to get your thoughts on my situation. I'm trying to find out if the 56‑day “deemed acceptance” rule really protects me, and whether the council’s late reply is a fatal flaw. I’ll summarise the facts below (with personal identifiers removed). Happy to share more if needed.

  • I received a moving traffic PCN (code 52M) in London (ANPR camera) — full charge £160 (discounted rate £80 if paid early).
  • The incident date was 22 June 2025.
  • Date of notice: 9th July 2025
  • I submitted an online formal appeal / representation to the council on 10 July 2025.
  • According to the London Local Authorities & TfL Act 2003, the council must respond to representations within 56 days, or the representations are deemed accepted.
  • Their reply (a rejection) arrived 16th October 2025, this is more than 56‑days after my appeal.
  • They say I must still pay.
   

   
Are they right?

  • Does the council’s late reply automatically void the PCN / mean they must cancel it?
        In other words, can I rely entirely on the 56‑day rule and say “too late, case closed”?
  • Has anyone here had a similar case where a council replied after 56 days and a tribunal (or the council) accepted the defence?
  • Are there counterarguments the council might use (e.g. claim the appeal was informal, or that “moving traffic” rules differ)?
  • If the council resists, is the best route to escalate to the London Tribunals — or simply send a demand letter citing the missed deadline?
  • Any tips on wording or precedent to quote in my next response?
  • Or, at this point, should I simply pay?

Thanks in advance for any insight!

See images below...















(I have no idea why images don't seem to be working! I've used imgpile, as suggested.)
Here are the links to the images...
https://ibb.co/5XndzD4b -
https://ibb.co/hxj0Dnn6 -
https://ibb.co/gZCXbNgD -
https://ibb.co/cKS29BBH -
https://ibb.co/93m3nf3s -
https://ibb.co/Jw6Fwz4W -
https://ibb.co/scKj4PY -
https://ibb.co/1fjt1dQW -
https://ibb.co/Gf4XYqYs
https://ibb.co/8gxRMsvh
https://ibb.co/pvCwSLj5
https://ibb.co/C5yMTGTg
https://ibb.co/nNStcSvW

« Last Edit: October 17, 2025, 09:02:33 pm by user4269 »

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Hello
Your case looks pretty much open and shut to me which is unusual, and going by the book they should have cancelled the PCN, however... the legislation obviously doesn't tell you what to do when the council don't do what they should do.

"If they have accepted the representations or failed to respond within 56 days, they will cancel the Notice to Owner (where the Penalty Charge Notice was served at the scene) or the Penalty Charge Notice (where this was served by post) and refund any sums paid."

I would say that yes you can reply on the 56 day rule - there IS a limit (I'd guess because memory fades) and the council have missed the limit.
I'm not aware of similar circumstances, but they WILL exist.
The council may well try to use counter-arguments, but they won't hold water.
I'm unsure what to do if the council resists - how are you going to contact them? Can you email?
Re wording, simply quote the 2003 legislation above, and always talk about the PCN as already have being cancelled on account of the legislation. At this stage it's probably not worth saying you're won't be paying or telling them you will go the whole distance - others may disagree on this. If you hear back from them again re-iterate that on account of their actions the PCN is cancelled and tell them you will not pay and that you realise they may take you to adjudication in which case you will bill them for the time you've spent on your case in the entirely foreseeable event that the adjudicators side with the defendant.

For what it's worth, I had several PCNs cancelled by LBHF as the CEO ticketed the wrong end of a closed section of pay and display. Ironically he could've ticketed everyone on the opposite end. Not so ironically people who were correctly parked likely paid. Also, the one time I've decided to let things run to court because I believed I was right, the council (Bromley) folded prior to the court date without me saying anything different to what I said in my original defence.

You've been lucky though - your defence wasn't good, but it shows a value in always challenging a PCN.

This is the second thread I've seen this week mentioning a "56 day limit" for councils (and also TfL) to respond to representations.

Lets be quite clear on this; there is a 56 day limit for responding to formal representations against a Notice to Owner in the Transport Management Act 2004. However the London-Specific Acts, the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003  nor the Act used to enforce bus lanes, the London Local Authorities Act 1996. contain no such limit.

This is the second thread I've seen this week mentioning a "56 day limit" for councils (and also TfL) to respond to representations.

Lets be quite clear on this; there is a 56 day limit for responding to formal representations against a Notice to Owner in the Transport Management Act 2004. However the London-Specific Acts, the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003  nor the Act used to enforce bus lanes, the London Local Authorities Act 1996. contain no such limit.

Are you saying that the 56 day limit doesn't apply here, so I need to pay?

Hello
Your case looks pretty much open and shut to me which is unusual, and going by the book they should have cancelled the PCN, however... the legislation obviously doesn't tell you what to do when the council don't do what they should do.

"If they have accepted the representations or failed to respond within 56 days, they will cancel the Notice to Owner (where the Penalty Charge Notice was served at the scene) or the Penalty Charge Notice (where this was served by post) and refund any sums paid."

I would say that yes you can reply on the 56 day rule - there IS a limit (I'd guess because memory fades) and the council have missed the limit.
I'm not aware of similar circumstances, but they WILL exist.
The council may well try to use counter-arguments, but they won't hold water.
I'm unsure what to do if the council resists - how are you going to contact them? Can you email?
Re wording, simply quote the 2003 legislation above, and always talk about the PCN as already have being cancelled on account of the legislation. At this stage it's probably not worth saying you're won't be paying or telling them you will go the whole distance - others may disagree on this. If you hear back from them again re-iterate that on account of their actions the PCN is cancelled and tell them you will not pay and that you realise they may take you to adjudication in which case you will bill them for the time you've spent on your case in the entirely foreseeable event that the adjudicators side with the defendant.

For what it's worth, I had several PCNs cancelled by LBHF as the CEO ticketed the wrong end of a closed section of pay and display. Ironically he could've ticketed everyone on the opposite end. Not so ironically people who were correctly parked likely paid. Also, the one time I've decided to let things run to court because I believed I was right, the council (Bromley) folded prior to the court date without me saying anything different to what I said in my original defence.

You've been lucky though - your defence wasn't good, but it shows a value in always challenging a PCN.

Thanks TomPhilips,
It sounds like you're saying that I can use the 56 day rule.

However, Incandescent seems to say that I can't.

So, I'm still very unsure what to do.

The 56 day time limit is for replying to representations made against parking PCNs at NTO/postal PCN stage.

For moving traffic, London Tribunals may consider 3 months as an unofficial limit but it's not regulation.

The 56 day time limit is for replying to representations made against parking PCNs at NTO/postal PCN stage.

For moving traffic, London Tribunals may consider 3 months as an unofficial limit but it's not regulation.

OK. Thanks, stamfordman.
So, at this point, I need to just pay it?

The 56 day time limit is for replying to representations made against parking PCNs at NTO/postal PCN stage.

For moving traffic, London Tribunals may consider 3 months as an unofficial limit but it's not regulation.

OK. Thanks, stamfordman.
So, at this point, I need to just pay it?
No, not at all !

Yes you can pay and get the discount, but you have the absolute legal right to take them to adjudication at London Tribunals. Of course, this means you have to risk the full PCN penalty. At the moment you can pay half of it and get closure. If you go to London Tribunals and win, you pay nothing, no costs either. If you lose you have to pay the full PCN penalty.

It's not cost free for the council, who must prepare an evidence pack and also pay the adjudication fee of about £30

The 56 day time limit is for replying to representations made against parking PCNs at NTO/postal PCN stage.

For moving traffic, London Tribunals may consider 3 months as an unofficial limit but it's not regulation.

OK. Thanks, stamfordman.
So, at this point, I need to just pay it?
No, not at all !

Yes you can pay and get the discount, but you have the absolute legal right to take them to adjudication at London Tribunals. Of course, this means you have to risk the full PCN penalty. At the moment you can pay half of it and get closure. If you go to London Tribunals and win, you pay nothing, no costs either. If you lose you have to pay the full PCN penalty.

It's not cost free for the council, who must prepare an evidence pack and also pay the adjudication fee of about £30

OK, thanks.
But, if the 56 days thing isn't valid, I don't know on what grounds I'd be challenging their decision?

IMO,
See the acknowledgement of receipt of your reps:

You say these were submitted within the 14-day discount period(but your posted acknowledgement isn't dated!) None the less, if you did, then this applies:

'...if we do not cancel, we will allow 14 days (from the date of our reply) for payment to be made at the discounted rate.'

Whereas the NOR states:

'We will accept £80.....provided this is received within 14 days (beginning with the date of service of this notice)..

These are not the same.

Date of NOR - Thurs. 16 Oct.
Date of service: Mon. 20th

14 days 'from date of reply' ends on 30 Oct.
14 days beginning on date of service ends on 2 Nov.

I suggest you look at online payment options on 30 Oct, 31st, 1 Nov. Take screenshots and come back here on 31st. If they remove the discount prior to 2 Nov. then IMO you have strong grounds of appeal: an authority has a public law duty to act fairly, and resiling from an undertaking given in this fashion would be unfair.

Beforehand I suggest you draft an appeal based upon the NOR's variance from the mandated info regarding making appeals to the adjudicator. Their reference potentially and seriously prejudices your rights because it states:

Your options are detailed below:

......

2. Appeal the the .....Adjudicators
......
Any appeal...... should be made within 28 days of the date of service of this notice.

Late appeals may be considered ..but only at the discretion of the Adjudicators.

Is IMO wrong. The latest date for making an appeal which must be considered is 28 days beginning on the date of service of the notice.

If you go with the 'within 28th days of the date of service' as -according to the authority - you would be perfectly entitled to do, then you would forfeit your LEGAL right.

'Within' unless otherwise qualified is held by the courts to exclude the trigger date, therefore 'within 28 days from..' means 28 days commencing on the day AFTER service.

Thanks everyone.

I didn't have much confidence in appealing the decision. So, I've just paid the fine.