Free Traffic Legal Advice

That's bonkers - their system has gone haywire. Obviously two can't stand and I would challenge all three on the same basis of duplication to try and get all cancelled.

Hi both, thanks for the quick replies!

That's bonkers - their system has gone haywire. Obviously two can't stand and I would challenge all three on the same basis of duplication to try and get all cancelled.

These are the options that are available to me when I go to challenge the PCN online:


I'm guessing I should choose F and go for the procedural impropriety angle? Is there any further advice you'd be able to offer in terms of wording my argument?

Are all the PCNs for the same time and date ? You have yet to post any of the PCNs, so please do so.

Sorry in case it wasn't clear in my long post above - you can see the PDF with all 3 of the scanned PCNs
here.

Three letters were delivered with a 2 x double sided A4 pages (12 sides of A4 total). You can see that the alleged offence is the same in the video links in my original post above - all three videos start at with a slightly different frame and their duration is slightly different too. The PCN numbers are all distinct, however, with a distinct web code allowing me to view the evidence and contest the alleged offence.

Yes, choose F.

I think you can have some fun with this. For each one send:

I am challenging the PCN because it is a triplicate of PCNs xxxxx and xxxxx which you have also sent to me. This is a procedural impropriety and it must be cancelled.

Obviously vary the PCN numbers for each challenge.

We have to be careful of Havering because they don't reoffer the discount but I can't see how any of these can stand.

Wait for other views.

Fantastic, thank you! Unfortunately, I felt like I had no choice but to challenge these out of the sheer sense of injustice of it all, so I figured whether I did so within a 14 day or 28 day period was immaterial. This effectively waives my ability to pay at the discounted rate as you've pointed out and as I noticed in the small print. I'm hoping that this doesn't have to go to tribunal and the council chalks this off, but I'll patiently await someone else's input who is far more experienced with these things before I get back to them.

These are London Local Authority and Transport for London Act 2003 PCNs. There is no procedural impropriety ground in the legislation and you shouldn't have been offered it. So I suggest you use grounds E and I and not F. You are being told you have to pay £390 when the penalty is £130. And mention that the possible grounds for a challenge available on the website don't agree with those stated on the PCNs and that is misleading or even prejudicial.

Of more concern is that the PCNs are dated the 7th Nov, the deadline to pay was yesterday, Tuesday. So you are about to run out of time to get formal representations (challenge) submitted against the 3 PCNs.

Post up a draft of what you think your challenge should say for a credibility check

The website is pants. Procedural impropriety is not a ground. The PCN also contains two incorrect grounds AND there are two lists of grounds which do not tally with each other.

I was the representative in the case mentioned. I would not use it at this stage. as this will alert them to their error.

Dear Sirs
1. There appear on the PCN two lists of grounds, which clearly do not agree
with each other and, indeed, another wrong ground concerning the TWOC: The
vehicle had been permitted to rest in the place in question by a person who was
in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner. – Clearly, this and the
aforementioned ground belong to parking legislation.
2. This issue is further compounded and exacerbated by the council’s
website (attached as a screenshot) which contains further grounds pertaining to
parking legislation and some irrelevant grounds. Its contents are selfexplanatory;
 however, I would wish to add that the council has had similar
issues with its Code 34 j PCNs as the costs decision in Gar Poon v London
Borough of Havering 223043933 proves. Similarly, in that case, they included
procedural impropriety as a ground and also in Tal Ofer v London Borough of
Havering Case No 2230533614. In the latter case, they did not contest the costs
application.
3. With particular regard to the grounds on the website, I rely upon the
following decisions allowed by the following adjudicators, some of which agree
with other’s decisions: 2230228494; 2180498755; 2230274232; 2230398949;
2230446542; 2230398949; 2230446542; 2230494501; 2230541860;
2230539585; 2230487415; 2230464748; 2230545861; 2230483130;
2230496595; 2230534763; 2240258389; 2240138955. The Adjudicators who
allowed these appeals are in alphabetical order: Miss Alderson, Ms Brennan, Mr
Greenslade, Mr Harman, Mr Styles, Mr Teper and Mr Walsh. For example, I
rely upon Mr Harman’s decision in Case no 2230483130. Mr Murray-Smith, for
the appellant company, attended the hearing today via telephone. The council
did not attend the hearing either in person or via telephone nor did it seek an
adjournment. Mr Murray-Smith made submissions in accordance with those set
out in his skeleton argument uploaded to the case on 17/12/23. I reserved my
decision. I accept Mr Murray-Smith's argument that the grounds upon which
representations can be made were correctly stated on the PCN but not on the
council's website. My noting his submissions on the point supported by the
decisions upon which he relies (one of which is mine) I am not accordingly
satisfied that the council's online system adequately conveys to motorists the
grounds upon which they can make representations the council thus I find being
in breach of its duty to act fairly. I am satisfied for that reason that enforcement
may not be pursued. That being so I need make no finding as to any other issue
raised by either party to the proceedings. Of course, in this instance the grounds
are not correctly stated on the PCN as it includes two which are wrong. It
follows, therefore, that this scenario presents an appellant with a somewhat
aleatoric predicament to put it mildly, which is hardly legally valid.

@FocusDriver: I have tried last week to file a representation and their website is clearly not right. I had to write to the council leader and parking manager. If you have any problems, please get back to me.