Skip to content

Southwark code 52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle - LARCOM STREET JUNCTION ETHEL ST

86 Views 8 Replies

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

#1
Hi everyone,

I would appreciate some advice on a moving traffic Penalty Charge Notice I recently received from Southwark Council.

Location: Ethel Street & Larcom Street
Google Street View Link
Contravention: 52 m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (Motor vehicles)
Date & Time of Contravention: 15/08/2026 at 17:27
Date of Notice: 19/08/2026
PCN Number: JK20237655
Vehicle Registration (VRM): LN68VDD
PCN Google Drive

Could anyone advise if there are any known issues with the signage at this specific junction? I would also appreciate it if the experts could review the wording of the PCN to identify any technical flaws that could render it invalid.
#4
Thanks for your reply. I made a right turn into the road from Walworth Road into Larcom Street.
So it seems you missed the sign. Were you following any high-sided vehicles, or DD-buses just before the turn ?
Also were you following satnav ?
#6
@onais: I will deal with this for you personally as the PCN is flawed.
@ALL MEMBERS

I HAVE A HIGH COURT CASE RE JUDICIAL REVIEW BUT WILL DO MY BEST TO ADVISE AND TAKE ON CASES IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
#9
Representations

I make this collateral challenge as the PCN is substantially non-compliant because of this statement:

“If full payment has not been made before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice, a
Charge Certificate may be issued increasing the amount outstanding by 50% to £240.00” is wrong as it flies in the face of the law. Schedule I @ paras. 5(1) and (2)(a) states from the date of service.

Please cancel.

Response

You have made stated that difference in wording from date of notice and service invalidate the PCN.

Schedule 1 paragraph 5 governs the circumstances in which a Charge Certificate may lawfully be issued; it does not mean that every reference to enforcement on a PCN must mirror the statutory wording verbatim. The notice simply warns that, if payment is not made, a Charge Certificate may be issued and the penalty increased by 50%.

It does not purport to alter the statutory conditions for service of a Charge Certificate, nor does it authorise the authority to act earlier than permitted by law.
@ALL MEMBERS

I HAVE A HIGH COURT CASE RE JUDICIAL REVIEW BUT WILL DO MY BEST TO ADVISE AND TAKE ON CASES IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.

If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"