Free Traffic Legal Advice

Draft something and post here first.

Draft something and post here first.

I wrote this challenge, should I challenge formally or informally...I see two options on the site
Draft Representation to Challenge PCNs

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]

London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Parking Services

Subject: Formal Representation for PCN Numbers [BZ81205600] and [BZ81167727]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for an alleged contravention of “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham. I request the cancellation of these PCNs based on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate Signage Visibility and Placement:
The signage indicating the restriction is placed on the inner side of the pedestrian pavement, making it insufficiently visible to motorists. It is not positioned on the main carriageway where drivers would naturally expect to see such warnings. This placement does not conform to the standards of visibility and clear communication required for traffic signs under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. As a driver unfamiliar with this restriction, I had no reasonable opportunity to see or interpret the signs, which is evident from the attached photograph of the sign’s location.
2. Unreasonable Issuance of Multiple PCNs for the Same Contravention:
The two PCNs were issued for alleged contraventions that occurred within a short timeframe (on 05/11/2024 and 15/11/2024). However, I was not made aware of the first PCN until after I had committed the second alleged contravention. It is both procedurally and substantively unfair to issue multiple PCNs for the same restriction when I was not given the opportunity to be aware of, or correct, my behavior following the first notice. The principle of fairness dictates that motorists should be afforded reasonable time to receive, understand, and adjust to an initial penalty notice before subsequent penalties are issued for the same alleged contravention.
3. Mitigating Circumstances:
At the time of the alleged contraventions, I had no prior knowledge of the pedestrian zone restriction on Stevens Road. As the first PCN had not been delivered to me before the second contravention occurred, I was denied the opportunity to rectify my actions in light of the restriction. Furthermore, the lack of clearly visible signage compounded this lack of awareness.

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. I believe the issuance of these penalties does not reflect the principles of fairness and proportionality that underpin the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations.

Should you decide not to cancel the PCNs, I kindly request that you provide:
• Evidence of compliance with TSRGD 2016 regarding the placement and visibility of the signage.
• A justification for issuing multiple PCNs within such a short timeframe without allowing the driver to receive and respond to the first notice.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Contact Information]

There is no informal challenge stage,(informal reps), with postal PCNs, one can only submit a single formal representation, with the next stage being the adjudicators, (London Tribunals).

For me, your reps look well written and considered. However, may I suggest some small alterations: -

I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for an alleged contravention of “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham. I request the cancellation of these PCNs based on the following grounds:

1. Inadequate Signage Visibility and Placement:
The signage indicating the restriction is placed on the inner side of the pedestrian pavement, making it insufficiently visible to motorists. It is not positioned on the main carriageway where drivers would naturally expect to see such warnings. This placement does not conform to the standards of visibility and clear communication required for traffic signs under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. As a driver unfamiliar with this restriction, I had no reasonable opportunity to see or interpret the signs, which is evident from the attached photograph of the sign’s location.

In addition to this, there is no advance warning of this restriction, which occurs very shortly after the motorist would have made a turn left at a T-junction. A sign that indicate that there is a restriction after the left turn would have made it very unlikely I would have missed it. Also with no advance warning, the motorist must stop and make a U-turn which is surely a hazard in itself that the council has created by its failure adequately to sign the  restriction

2. Unreasonable Issuance of Multiple PCNs for the Same Contravention:
The two PCNs were issued for alleged contraventions that occurred within a short timeframe (on 05/11/2024 and 15/11/2024). However, I was not made aware of the first PCN until after I had committed the second alleged contravention when the PCN for the first alleged contravention arrived. It is both procedurally and substantively unfair to issue multiple PCNs for the same restriction when I was not given the opportunity to be aware of, or correct, my behavior following the first notice. The principle of fairness dictates that motorists should be afforded reasonable time to receive, understand, and adjust to an initial penalty notice before subsequent penalties are issued for the same alleged contravention.

3. Mitigating Circumstances:
At the time of the alleged contraventions, I had no prior knowledge of the pedestrian zone restriction on Stevens Road. As the first PCN had not been delivered to me before the second contravention occurred, I was denied the opportunity to rectify my actions in light of the restriction. Furthermore, the lack of clearly visible signage compounded this lack of awareness.

For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. I believe the issuance of these penalties does not reflect the principles of fairness and proportionality that underpin the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations.

Should you decide not to cancel the PCNs, I kindly request that you provide:
• Evidence of compliance with TSRGD 2016 regarding the placement and visibility of the signage.
• A justification for issuing multiple PCNs within such a short timeframe without allowing the driver to receive and respond to the first notice.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,faithfully

thanks a lot Sir, I appreciate your help, one last question, shall I challenge both online separately with this same challenge?

I suggest you keep to a single representation but make clear at the top that your reps are against two PCNs, (list them).

I can write max 1000 characters, so I shortened it like this
Formal Representation for PCN Numbers [BZ81205600] and [BZ81167727]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I challenge the above PCNs for “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham, on the following grounds:
   1.   Inadequate Signage Visibility: The signage is placed on the inner pedestrian pavement, not clearly visible to motorists. It is also positioned immediately after a T-junction with no prior warning, leaving drivers no chance to avoid the restriction safely. The lack of advance warning requires sudden stops or U-turns, creating a hazard.
   2.   Unfair Issuance of Multiple PCNs: I was unaware of the first PCN until after committing the second alleged contravention. It is procedurally unfair to issue multiple PCNs before the driver is aware of the restriction, denying a fair chance to correct behavior.

I request cancellation of both PCNs. If not, please provide evidence of TSRGD 2016 compliance and justification for issuing multiple PCNs before awareness of the first.

Yours faithfully,

So I'm challenging the first one I received stating on the top both PCN Numbers, and making it Clear I received 2
but what with the second one I received? do I leave it like this without challenge cause I put the reference number in this challenge I'm doing for the first pcn I got? will the 14 days period to pay freeze?

Probably best to submit reps against the 2nd one, stating that you have submitted reps against the two PCNs and repeat the text. We don't want the council to issue a Charge Certificate, so this will stop them.

yeah I did for both the same

Draft something and post here first.

Sir what should I do now? I attached in my previous message the reply of the council.

can someone please advice on what to do next, should I pay or bring them to independent tribunal??thanks