You need to post the materials.
This location I think has successful appeals on grounds such as the below - where were you going?
--------------
Case reference 2250331703
Appellant Mebal Kisakye
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM YB18 EPC
PCN Details
PCN HG61724226
Contravention date 07 Feb 2025
Contravention time 13:12:00
Contravention location South Street / Eastern Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant has not attended the video link hearing. They were notified that the hearing would take place today at 8:45am by correspondence dated 8 July 2025.
I considered adjourning the appeal but decided that it was not in the interests of justice to delay the hearing of this appeal further.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles) when in South Street / Eastern Road on 7 February 2025 at 13:12.
The Appellant's case at the representation stage was that the signage was inadequate. In their Notice of Appeal they argue that the delay of a response to their representations was unconscionably long to allow for enforcement of this PCN.
I have allowed this appeal for the following reasons:
First, I find that the Authority has failed to prove the signage in this case to the requisite standard.
Second. the CCTV footage does not show the vehicle passing any regulatory signage (or even the back of any signage) and, whilst not fatal to proving a contravention, it does not allow the Adjudicator to see the positioning of the signage on the day in question if a motorist queries it.
Third, I am not prepared to rely on library photographs, which are dated 11 August 2024, I find their evidential value to be too weak.
Fourth, I find that the library photographic stills show little resemblance to the location as seen in the CCTV footage.
Fifth, there is no statutory time limit in relation to a Notice of Rejection in relation to moving traffic case (parking contraventions have a time limit of 56 day). However, an Authority is still required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner.
Sixth, the PCN in this case was in relation to a contravention on 7 February 2025. The PCN was issued on 21 February 2025 and representations were received by the Authority from the Appellant on the 4 March 2025. The Notice of Rejection is dated 2 July 2024.
I find that the time taken to deal with this case is not justified and is excessive. Previous cases have found that delays in excess of 3 months without a sufficient explanation to be unacceptable.
Accordingly, I find that the excessive delay, without a full explanation and comprehensive account of systems put in place to show the Authority acted with due diligence, renders this Penalty Charge Notice unenforceable.
I find, as a fact, that the Authority failed to act with due diligence and in a timely manner in this particular case.
The key case of Paul Richard Davis - v - The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (case number 1970182813) where this matter was dealt with comprehensively by the Adjudicator Mr G Hickinbottom (as he then was), is good case law for the requirement of an Authority to act with due diligence.
The appeal is allowed.
