Author Topic: Newham, code 52m - prohibition on motor vehicles, Ham Park Road / Devenay Road / Margery Road E15  (Read 2355 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Thanks Incandescent - appreciate it. Will provide an update when we have one.

Hi Incandescent (and all)

Thought I'd post an update on this one, as I today received 'Charge Certificates' (with a 50% increase on the charge) for the four PCNs I have appealed.

On 18 February, I submitted the appeal for the four PCNs from January 2026. The confirmation email said they'd confirm whether it was accepted within 7 days, but I didn't get confirmation until early this morning (3 March) that the appeal has been listed for hearing on 25 August 2026.

Then I today received the four 'Charge Certificates' (dated 2 March), which noted they've been sent because they haven't been informed that an appeal has been made. While it sounds like there has been a delay by the Tribunal, am I right in finding it hard to believe the first the council would have heard about the appeal is the confirmation of the listing date?

I have also sent an email to our three councillors on 19 February, with one responding to say that they will lodge a Councillor enquiry into this matter.

Given I'm unfamiliar with this process here in the UK, do you have any thoughts / guidance on how to approach these 'Charge Certificates' to make sure the PCNs are actually "paused" pending the appeal hearing. I have already drafted a follow-up email to the Councillor.

Thanks in advance for any further guidance here!
« Last Edit: March 03, 2026, 06:29:12 pm by ndp26 »

As far as I know, the council only get informed of the adjudication when it is confirmed. The CCs cannot be enforced until the adjudication has taken place, and really, should now be cancelled.

Thanks Incandescent - good to know. Do you think I'd have any luck in calling the Council to have the Charge Certificates cancelled?

Thanks Incandescent - good to know. Do you think I'd have any luck in calling the Council to have the Charge Certificates cancelled?
I think if you phone the council, they will confirm cancellation of the CCs, because by going to London Tribunals, they cannot enforce them. If you lose at LT, you only have to pay the PCN penalty, and of course, if you win, you pay nothing.

Thanks Incandescent, appreciate it. I'll give the Council a call.

Hi Incandescent (and all)

Providing another update on this case because, at this stage, the appeal hearing will be going ahead on 25 August and I wanted to see if anyone was able to share any tips / guidance they have for the hearing itself.

  • I contacted the council and they confirmed that the Charge Certificates were likely sent in error and would not be enforced while an appeal was pending (confirming what you said Incandescent). The person I spoke to on the phone said I could send an email to have them formally cancelled, but he'd also put a note on their system to flag that I'd called. (Just in case anyone else finds themselves in a similar situation.
  • I attempted to contact the local councillors regarding the PCNs and the incorrect advice from Newham Council. I received some initial traction with one councillor - not long after they said they'd referred it back to the Council (after some delay) and instructed them to contact me directly, they then told me their term was expiring and that they'd be standing in another ward. I have followed up with the new councillors, but to no avail.
  • I have now received the evidence packs from the Council in advance of the hearing - which appear to be "cookie cutter" and don't appear to consider the specific facts / issues relating to the PCNs or my appeal of them. My call to Council does not appear to be mentioned in any of the evidence packs. This is notwithstanding their evidence stating that they have "taken in account all aspects of this matter including mitigation into consideration." In addition, the Council also sent an evidence pack for the first PCN received (which I had paid). The first PCN was listed in the appeal, but only because it is relevant to the appeal of the 4 subsequent PCNs received.
  • I am still yet to receive a notice of rejection for the 4th (of 5) PCN received. Is the onus on me to follow up with the Council, or is this a procedural issue to flag in the appeal (even though it may hold little weight)?

Even though I am not (technically) appealing on one of the grounds the adjudicator is permitted to rule on, I assume (and hope) the adjudicator can direct/recommend that the Council reconsider their enforcement of PCNs 2-5 in light of the circumstances. Any thoughts / tips / guidance on the approach I should take at the hearing would be very welcome.

(Hopefully) I might have some luck with a procedural impropriety argument given the Council has clearly not considered the particular circumstances of the PCNs, most clearly evidenced by sending an evidence pack for a PCN that has been paid.

Thanks in advance for any wisdom / guidance you are able to share - much appreciated!
 

When the appeals were registered might not be relevant IMO.

In the first instance, the key issue is the dates of the respective NoRs and CCs.

OP, I can't access this info in your drive link, could you just set them out here pl.

PCN    NOR dated        CC issued
***      ****              *****

etc.

When a NOR is served, the authority is prevented from serving a CC in 2 circumstances:

1. Until a period of 28 days beginning on the date of service has expired. Nothing to do with registering an appeal as such because this period applies whether an appeal is registered in time or not;

2. If the 28-day period has expired and the council is notified that an appeal has been registered. In such cases, the council has not committed a PI if they issued the CC before being notified. This comes under the heading, 'that's life'. But if they did not act upon the notification and issued after this was received by them, then it's curtains IMO.

Some councils are risk-takers and look to serve CCs at the earliest opportunity so they work out the day after the end of the period, count back two working days and plan to issue CCs on those dates. The risk they take is that they're exposed if the recipient submits their appeal in that interval.

Of course, if they miscalculate the end of the 28-day period......




Checked the dates. The CCs were issued on 2 March which was after the end of the 28-day period, so no fault there.

The OPs links do not include their appeal submissions, the tribunal's response or notice that their appeals had been registered.

Taking the OP's dates, the CC issue is down to the delay in the tribunal notifying the OP and the authority. However, the fact remains that the CCs were served prematurely because with issue dates of 2 March they were deemed served on 4th, one day after the tribunal's notice. It's for the authority to deal with this and if they admitted to an error(when in fact there wasn't one on their part) then perhaps they'll panic if the OP includes procedural impropriety in their grounds of appeal?

Hi tincombe

Thank you for taking a look at this - and apologies for the delay with the Drive link.

I haven't uploaded the Council's evidence packs into the Drive as there are a number of pages with name/address on them (and I don't have an electronic solution to mask this, or a printer to do it manually and scan it back in. I could try copying the main part of their "evidence" into a Google Doc (or similar) though if that would be helpful.

I haven't received any response from the tribunal, only the confirmation of submitting the appeal and details of the hearing date - is there anything in either of these documents that would be helpful for you to see?

On the timing for filing the CCs, what is the consequence of the Council's technical breach of the CC filing requirement? Do they get another "bite of the cherry" or does this simply add weight to the procedural impropriety argument? 

(Note also that no NoR was received for PCN 4, so that is another point I'd raise.)

Also worth noting is that when submitting the appeal, there are very limited options for selecting grounds of appeal.

Thanks again!

The Act in this case doesn't have grounds of PI as such, but there is the following:

e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

There's also the opportunity to raise this as what's know as a collateral challenge.

I suggest something along the following lines - but amend to ensure facts are correct.

IMO, just put the facts in your appeal which would then require a response from the council e.g. I submitted my appeal(s) on **** and received confirmation that these had been registered on ****. I then received *** Charge Certificates demanding surcharged penalties. These were issued after I submitted my appeal, the respective dates being as follows:
***********


I was under the impression that an appeal was against the full penalty, but at the date of compiling this submission I have not received any communication* from the council that the certificates have been cancelled and therefore as far as I know these are still live. I submit that these are demands for penalties which exceed the amount applicable and accordingly ask that the adjudicator allows my appeal on these grounds. 


*- I disregard uncorroborated telephone calls.

Thank you tincombe - appreciate it.  A couple of questions on this:
- is there any for the Council due to mistiming the CCs, or does it just allow the recipient to challenge the validity of them (but they can reissue) or does it "defeat" / have some other impact on the PCN?
- without this, is there a risk the adjudicator does not allow my appeal?
- should I submit this now, or on the day of the appeal?

Don't really follow.

You're committed to an appeal so you put forward your arguments. The CC issue is just one which has arisen since you made your reps, so it doesn't affect the substantive argument in those reps.

There's always a risk the adjudicator won't allow your appeal, but you didn't commit yourself to this because of the CC.

IMO, you should submit further reps as soon as you can. If you leave these until the appeal then this smacks of an ambush because the authority is entitled to consider and respond to your arguments, just as you are to theirs.

We really need to see their evidence pack, but you've seen it and most will rehearse what we've seen in their correspondence and NOR. If this applies, then those parts are less important. But their Case Summary, plans/maps and the TMO should be posted as a minimum .


Sorry tincombe - I was just trying to understand the consequence of, outcome sought through, raising the CC issue. My read of your comments is that it is another argument worth raising in support of my appeal (but won't alone 'defeat' the PCN) - is that right?

I've uploaded to the GDrive folder a Google Doc with screenshots of the "new" parts of their Evidence Pack: link

I didn't screenshot out the correspondence, NOR, etc. - but let me know if there is anything else you'd like to see.

I also found:
- the text from my appeal on my computer (I must have decided to type it into a Word doc before uploading it to their platform), which is uploaded as a PDF.
- another PDF with a query I submitted to the Tribunal, which I now realise the Tribunal hasn't responded to (will follow that up this week).

Noted re submitting the further reps as soon as possible.