Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello knowledgeable people,

I have received TWO PCNs from Greenwich council, they got my details from my EV leasing company for both. I am the Hirer of this leased vehicle.

Both are FIRST time contraventions respectively. Both essentially happened cause driver didn't have Google maps working and missed reading the exact signs.

In case of Rochester Way, driver had never gone before but thought it was a bus stop rather than bus lane.

In car of Westcombe Hill, driver took the same route multiple times but this one was before 7pm by 15 minutes so the camera got the vehicle.

I attaching both PCNs here along with challenge options, please advise if any hope in either or both?






My options to challenge:

OP, back to basics pl.

I have received TWO PCNs from Greenwich council, they got my details from my EV leasing company for both. I am the Hirer of this leased vehicle.

No.

Firstly, there's no need to dance around who was driving - this is not a private parking charge - so if you were driving pl say so.

Secondly, you cannot be the 'hirer' of a leased vehicle, you can only be the lessee and as regards the contraventions these are chalk and cheese. So, is the vehicle hired - for period of no more than 6 months - or leased for a longer term?

To whom are the PCNs actually addressed i.e. you by name or the hire/lease company and simply passed to you? Your post implies the former, but let's be clear.

Apologies, I am the driver and the letter I attached was sent/addressed to me.
I used "Hirer" lingo from ftla's private parking thread, I am indeed the lessee as this is a longer than 6 months lease.

You've passed the "No through road" signs when turning in to Rochester Way approx 100m previously and then the prohibited vehicles signage on the busway. TBH you're lucky the signage has been changed - it used to be a "No Entry except buses" and you would've got 3 penalty points for "contravening a No Entry sign" (or something to that effect). I know, I did it once and got pulled by the police on the other side.

Your defence on both your PCNs seems to be relying on "I wasn't looking where I was going and I can't read traffic signs". I'd suggest you look for a technicality on the actual PCN notices instead and open your eyes a bit more when driving!

Quote from: SITR on August 31, 2025, 11:59:47 am

TBH you're lucky the signage has been changed - it used to be a "No Entry except buses" and you would've got 3 penalty points for "contravening a No Entry sign" (or something to that effect).

I would consider myself unlucky an explicit no entry except buses would have definitely made me stop, but that's theoretical at this point.

Quote from: SITR on August 31, 2025, 11:59:47 am

Your defence on both your PCNs seems to be relying on "I wasn't looking where I was going and I can't read traffic signs". I'd suggest you look for a technicality on the actual PCN notices instead and open your eyes a bit more when driving!

Thanks, reality is that Google maps saved me from this near Westcombe Hill previously, it knows the times when entry is permitted there. In this instance I was following the route previously shown by gmaps manually and got caught in the window by 15 minutes, is there any grace/defence there for this?

For Rochester Way, it was my first time there and I was exploring the area without gmaps which I deeply regret now.

Any suggestions what "technicality" I could find on the PCNs, I attached them in the first post of this thread. Appreciate help.

Whether it's a red/white No Entry with an "Except Buses" plate or a cars/motorcycles prohibited circle, it's a no entry for cars - it's just been decriminalised and become a civil offence.

With regard to Google Maps - who says the data is correct? There are signs & lines on the streets for a reason - because they're the rules. Look where you're driving & be aware of your surroundings.

I'm sorry to moan, but I live locally & driving just according to your phone (or not at all!) is downright dangerous.

IMO, no. Your defence is procedural.

I was not the owner.....

This arises because you believe that *******(the lease company) used the grounds of 'We are a vehicle-hire company etc.' in their representations and that the authority accepted the same. However, this is not permissible under the Act which restricts these grounds to, inter alia, agreements of less than 6 months: my lease is for *** years.

The authority may not consider me to be the owner and the PCN must be cancelled.

I do not dispute the facts of the contravention and therefore, should the authority reject these representations, I should be grateful if they would not belabour this point but instead focus on the grounds of my representations i.e. confirm the grounds on which the registered keeper's representations were accepted and provide the supporting mandatory documents e.g. hiring agreement etc. A signed statement of the lessee's liability under a lease would not be acceptable.


OP, I've no idea whether ****(the lease company) used the correct grounds in this case, which could ONLY be that they were not the 'keeper' (because the presumption that the registered keeper is the person by whom the vehicle is kept is rebuttable), but it's worth a punt because otherwise I cannot see a defence on the facts as we know them.


For information:

(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm ..

(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement.

.....
(9)In this paragraph, “vehicle hiring agreement” and “vehicle-hire firm” have the same meanings as in section 66 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Hired vehicles).

(paras. 1(4)(d) and 1(9) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities etc. Act 2003 refer).


(7)This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months (s66(7) Road Traffic Offenders Act refers)

IMO, no. Your defence is procedural.

I was not the owner.....

This arises because you believe that *******(the lease company) used the grounds of 'We are a vehicle-hire company etc.' in their representations and that the authority accepted the same. However, this is not permissible under the Act which restricts these grounds to, inter alia, agreements of less than 6 months: my lease is for *** years.

The authority may not consider me to be the owner and the PCN must be cancelled.

I do not dispute the facts of the contravention and therefore, should the authority reject these representations, I should be grateful if they would not belabour this point but instead focus on the grounds of my representations i.e. confirm the grounds on which the registered keeper's representations were accepted and provide the supporting mandatory documents e.g. hiring agreement etc. A signed statement of the lessee's liability under a lease would not be acceptable.


OP, I've no idea whether ****(the lease company) used the correct grounds in this case, which could ONLY be that they were not the 'keeper' (because the presumption that the registered keeper is the person by whom the vehicle is kept is rebuttable), but it's worth a punt because otherwise I cannot see a defence on the facts as we know them.


For information:

(d)that the recipient is a vehicle-hire firm ..

(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement.

.....
(9)In this paragraph, “vehicle hiring agreement” and “vehicle-hire firm” have the same meanings as in section 66 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (Hired vehicles).

(paras. 1(4)(d) and 1(9) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities etc. Act 2003 refer).


(7)This section applies to a hiring agreement under the terms of which the vehicle concerned is let to the hirer for a fixed period of less than six months (s66(7) Road Traffic Offenders Act refers)

Many thanks again for this. I essentially copy pasted this and challenged both PCNs arguing I wasn't the owner.

I have received the rejection letters attached below (both letters are virtually identical, so posting only one).
The council says they have reviewed the terms of the lease but the lease company explicitly said that they did NOT share the actual lease document with the council. All they have sent is just one page giving my details, I am putting that at the end as well.

What is the best course of action for me? Pay £160 and move on OR there is any hope in appealing this to the adjudicator (what would that entail?)

Rejection Letter:



Letter from Lease company to Council: