Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: ihateinjustice24 on March 19, 2026, 03:22:05 pm
-
Just replying to OP, yes valid point indeed, they have not given much consideration to signage placement, as one of the signs is not roadside compared to its respective counterpart, the sign is placed on the pavement boundary, rather than curbside. Read LT case reference: 2250620799 vs 2240515459, I suspect the signage argument was recently refused due to blue advance warning sign. Unfortunately it’s classic Lambeth, poor signage placement for restriction that’s caveated with a blue advance warning sign. Noticed a similar situation on Crescent Lane / Elm Crescent, GSV not up to date. Just wish the LA would appreciate that an advance warning sign is not there to nullify the flaws in the placement of a restriction, rather both should meet the requisite standard to give effect. Presuming it’s a ‘penalty exceeded amount applicable in the circumstances of the case’, after listing the collateral points of appeal, if there are any flaws in legal notices, PCN portal, procedural improprieties (if applicable), then one can always mention signage as supplementary point. Be interesting to hear the outcome.
-
ive just sent it over to you via Email ;)
-
What representation's exactly were written as I need these to file the appeal(s)?
-
Take a look at the signage: https://postimg.cc/8jCMMFyM
another member has pointed out that by the time the sign becomes fully readable, the manoeuvre to turn on the road has already begun. add to that, most people will be focused on pedestrians and oncoming cars when turning. (in my pcn you can literally see pedestrians crossing right where this picture is taken)
“While signage may technically comply, the nature and positioning of the restriction meant the issue was not immediately obvious to a driver unfamiliar with the area turning into the road. This contextualises why repeated contraventions occurred before the first PCN was served.”
this could potentially support my appeal, curious to know what you guys think.
-
@Hippocrates Ive PM'ed you!
-
@ryan93
Thank you, that is really helpful.
The “failure to consider” point is something I had not properly considered before, especially as the rejection responses seem almost entirely focused on signage and do not appear to engage with the actual timeline/proportionality arguments I raised regarding all subsequent PCNs occurring before service of the first notice.
I also appreciate the advice regarding screenshots and portal dates. I will make sure to document everything carefully from this point onwards, including submission dates, portal status and discount deadlines in case any inconsistencies arise.
The discretion point is also interesting, particularly given that I provided evidence of financial hardship and immediate behavioural change once notified, yet the responses do not appear to address that context at all.
Thanks again for taking the time to explain this.
-
additionally, If this progresses to London Tribunals, is there anyone here who undertakes representation or drafting assistance for these types of cases? i'd be willing to pay.
I sir. Free.
-
Exactly, That is essentially the basis on which I intend to continue the formal representations for the remaining PCNs.
however if i lose my formal appeal ill be looking at 2x the fine amounts of which i have already shown evidence to the council i cannot afford to pay, evidence of which they have ignored completely.
-
Continuous contravention has, up to now, been used for cases where several PCNs were served to a car, but the car didn't move over the period when the PCNs were served.
I've not seen "repeated contravention" at the adjudicators, but if it is in use, I would think that it applies to a person receiving a postal PCN on a particular date, then several more for the same location, dated between the first PCN, and the date it was served, (arrived) at the person's address.
-
Hopefully someone will respond to your question.
If they have failed to consider your representation then that's a legal point that can be challenged in accordance with paragraph 1(7) under Schedule 1 of the relevant legislation. Now if you cited all the PCNs in that single representation, then that argument may apply to all the PCNs you cited.
If you submit a representation, make sure the PCN portal cites the correct date for submission, once I submitted a representation on Lambeth’s PCN portal, it cited the correct date, then a few days later it changed the date, it seemed to change the date when I sent a question to Lambeth Parking services. I used this error as another legal point to challenge. Also, calculate the last day for the PCN discount and take a screenshot of portal on that date, then take a screenshot the day after incase there are errors.
With regards to the LA exercising discretion, under Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act, they should give regard to the guidance from the secretary of state, this official guidance explicitly mandates that authorities must not fetter their discretion. Gov.uk states on 28 May 2026: “They should approach the exercise of discretion objectively and without regard to any financial interest in the penalty or decisions that may have been taken at an earlier stage in proceedings.”
However, I think the failure to consider argument and screenshot errors on the PCN portal (if any occur) may be a valuable strategy of appeal. I had a recent win against Lambeth, they did not contest at tribunal, just on the basis of a PCN portal screenshot error and telephone recordings where they misinformed the appellant of the enforcement process. Though I am unsure if they operate customer service by telephone or email in recent times.
@Incandescent, please correct me if I am mistaken but for moving traffic pcns would a “repeated contravention” be considered if service of the first PCN comes after the other contraventions occurred or is it strictly limited to parking pcns? In terms of a “continuous contravention” could that apply if a driver passed through multiple traffic restrictions in an area in a window of time on the same date. As I recall seeing cases like that on the previous forum (though it does not apply here).
-
additionally, If this progresses to London Tribunals, is there anyone here who undertakes representation or drafting assistance for these types of cases? i'd be willing to pay.
-
Just following up in case anyone has had a chance to look at this further.
Any guidance before I move into the formal stage would be hugely appreciated.
-
@Hippocrates and all,
Just updating as the further 4 rejection responses have come through.
The responses appear to be template replies focusing mainly on signage, without really addressing anything i've said. They are all identical in wording
My position from here is that I intend to continue contesting the remaining PCNs on the basis that I had no opportunity to modify my behaviour before becoming aware of the restriction (first contravention 27/02, first notice received approx 09/03).
I also intend to rely on the point raised earlier regarding a motorist being entitled to know when and what to pay according to the statutory process and council publications, as the sequence and timing here meant liability accumulated before I was even aware there was an issue.
The financial aspect is not my primary argument, but I have provided evidence showing the cumulative amount is beyond what I can realistically afford, which I believe is relevant when considering proportionality and discretion.
My concern is that if I continue through the formal process and ultimately lose, the penalties increase substantially despite already having demonstrated financial hardship. However, I also feel I have little option but to continue, as the rejection responses so far do not appear to engage with the actual circumstances or points raised, and instead seem largely standardised.
Does that seem like the correct overall approach from here, particularly for formal representations and potentially tribunal if necessary?
Appreciate all the help so far.
-
Do not pay anything and simply state that a motorist is entitled to know when and what to pay according to the statutory process in all publications provided by the council.
-
@Hippocrates
Just following up as I’m conscious of the 14-day deadline approaching.
I’m planning to pay the first PCN at the discounted rate to limit the risk.
For the remaining PCNs, I intend to make formal representations on the basis that all contraventions occurred before I received the first PCN (27/02 contravention, first notice received approx 09/03), so I had no opportunity to modify my behaviour. And under evidence of financial hardship.
I may try contacting Lambeth for clarity as well, but I understand they’ll likely just refer me back to the formal process.
Would you be able to assist with drafting the formal representations for the remaining PCNs on that basis?
Happy to provide anything further needed.
-
Thanks, I appreciate that.
I’ll pay the first PCN at the discounted rate.
For the remaining PCNs, would you be able to help me draft the formal representations based on the proportionality and/or financial hardship argument?
All contraventions occurred before I received the first PCN (27/02 contravention, received around 09/03), and I stopped using the road immediately after becoming aware.
Happy to provide any further details needed.
-
Best if you get a moderator to combine this with your other thread, (see bottom right of the post)
-
The latter and I am happy to assist.
-
Hi all, I’m looking for some advice as a follow-up to my situation, as things have now progressed and I’m unsure on the best course of action.
I previously posted about receiving multiple PCNs from Lambeth for driving through a pedestrian/school street restriction on Sunnyhill Road. The first contravention occurred on 27th February 2026 at 15:35, but the first PCN was only received around 9th March. During that period, I continued to use the road, so any further contraventions occurred before I had any opportunity to change my behaviour.
Following the advice given here, I submitted informal challenges for all PCNs, explaining that I was unaware of the restriction at the time and that all contraventions took place before I received the first PCN. I also explained that the total amount is more than I can afford to live on for the month, and I provided evidence of this.
I have now received a rejection for the first PCN, which appears to be a standard/template response. It focuses only on the signage being clear and does not address the key point that all subsequent contraventions occurred before I had any opportunity to modify my behaviour. It also does not acknowledge the financial evidence I provided or offer any form of payment arrangement.
At the moment this rejection is only for the first PCN, but I have already received 4 further PCNs for the same location, and I can only assume the others will be rejected in a similar way.
For clarity:
* First contravention date: 27/02/2026 at 15:35
* First PCN received: approximately 09/03/2026
* Additional PCNs: 4 further PCNs already received, all for the same location and all occurring before I became aware of the restriction
As soon as I received the first PCN, I stopped using the road during restricted hours.
From the advice in my previous thread, I understand this is not “continuous contravention” in the strict sense, but rather an argument that enforcing multiple PCNs in these circumstances is disproportionate, as I had no opportunity to change my behaviour before being notified.
This is already unaffordable for me and does not seem proportionate to the nature of the contravention. I did provide evidence of my financial situation, but I don’t feel this has been considered at all.
Given this, I would really appreciate advice on:
1. Is it worth pursuing formal representations (and potentially tribunal) for all PCNs on the basis of proportionality?
2. If i am forced to pay all 5 pcns, is there any ways to spread the cost or ways in which there is support for someone in my financial situation?
I am conscious of the 14-day discount period for the first PCN, so any guidance on the best approach from here would be greatly appreciated.
link to pcn's and appeal response: https://postimg.cc/gallery/CLLdcvc
**TL;DR:**
Received 5 PCNs for the same restriction, all before the first notice arrived. Challenged all; first one rejected with a template response ignoring the timeline. Total cost is unaffordable. Trying to decide whether to pay the first at discount or pursue formal appeals for all based on proportionality.
-
Yes. You wrote this in your initial post:-
* Can I argue “continuous contravention” or that multiple PCNs are disproportionate since I wasn’t aware of the restriction before receiving the first notice?
* Has anyone had success getting additional PCNs cancelled in similar circumstances?
YOu cannot argue "continuous contravention"; that applies to parking where a car remains at the same spot for several days and gets several PCNs, but even then this argument can sometimes fail to succeed. What you can argue is that until the first PCN arrived by post, you were unaware of committing the contraventions. So you could argue that {CNs dated between the date of the first PCN, and the date it arrived are disproportionate, and unfair. SOme councils will agree to cancel such PCNs on the basis you pay the first one. Others, being venal and rapacious, insist all be paid. Then if you take the matter to London Tribunals, success is not guaranteed either, and this time it is with the full PCN penalties in play.
So to handle this as a representation, you need to group them together into a single representation, and request the PCNs between the date of the first and the date the first one arrived, be cancelled.
-
any advice ?
-
Update 4 more pcn's have arrived as suspected, same road, so £400 total now.
Hoping i can argue continuous contravention.
-
third times a charm: https://postimg.cc/gallery/DJZ1nM5
-
There is no need and no help to us in obscuring the VRM and PCN details.
-
apologies, updated link includes the price and discounted price as well as proof of screen shot time in the top right
: https://postimg.cc/gallery/6NMNFV1
-
Screenshot is missing the vital information: the price, the date of increase and your proof of date of the shot.
We win cases because of this.
-
Here's a link to the details and screenshot: https://postimg.cc/gallery/6NMNFV1
-
Please show us the PCN and VRM details and screenshot the website re all payments and dates periods as shown for starters.
-
Hi, I’m looking for some advice on multiple PCNs I’ve received from Lambeth for entering a pedestrian/school street zone on Sunnyhill Road.
I’ve recently received my first PCN (reduced to £80), but it was issued around 10–11 days after the contravention date. During that time, I continued to drive through the same road daily to get to work, completely unaware of the restriction.
I now realise this is a timed school street restriction, but the signage is positioned right at the turn, so I didn’t notice it at the time. I am also not from the local area.
Because the first PCN arrived late, I have unknowingly committed the same contravention multiple times before I had any opportunity to change my behaviour.
I’m concerned I could now receive multiple PCNs for the same mistake, potentially amounting to a large total I cannot afford.
My questions are:
* Can I argue “continuous contravention” or that multiple PCNs are disproportionate since I wasn’t aware of the restriction before receiving the first notice?
* Has anyone had success getting additional PCNs cancelled in similar circumstances?
For context, I have now stopped using the road during restricted hours as soon as I became aware.
Any advice would be really appreciated.