Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: TheParkingmeister on March 24, 2026, 08:19:35 pm
-
Perhaps I should offer my own important advice that they must now follow... that they should act with due diligence and in a timely manner lol
-
Their usual arrogant tosh.
-
The Council submitted a DNC and sent me an email saying
"Thank you for writing to us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
I am writing in connection with your appeal to the London Tribunals Environment and Traffic Adjudicators.
We have decided, without prejudice to our position, to cancel this Penalty Charge Notice (PCN).
We will therefore not be contesting your appeal and have advised London Tribunals of our decision.
However, this is not an acceptance of your arguments.
The PCN was correctly issued, and your vehicle did not have an exemption.
This is purely a one-off discretionary gesture of goodwill, with important advice that you must now follow.
For delivering to the Imperial Road development site, drivers must access the area from Wandsworth Bridge Road and then via Townmead Road, and must then depart back the same way to Wandsworth Bridge Road.
The centre part of Imperial Road cannot be used.
Please inform your drivers.
As you have now been fully informed, any future PCN issued in similar circumstances may not be cancelled."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QMT7jaUlI3-AyRiwlhcLAdtd-3VN7Q8X/view?usp=drivesdk
-
Thanks for clarifying, I will do that. I had not considered that it applied to anything other than the literal charge value. And actually just reading the London Tribunal site would have dispelled my assumptions.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/grounds-appeal/grounds-appeal-moving-traffic
-
Your argument relates to substantive and procedural issues, I therefore suggest you go with 'contravention did not.' and 'penalty exceeded.....circumstances of the case..'.
-
I took on board what you said and this is my draft atm https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OWYHlxvDCru14Mjwm3OtPFToHAcxAZiC/view?usp=drivesdk
And I'm presuming I go with "The contravention did not occur" as the grounds of appeal.
-
You have posted:
I received a Notice of Rejection to a PCN I appealed 130 days ago.
The driver has misunderstood directions given
And, in the context of a different PCN, We received a Charge Certificate October 16 2024 for a PCN we didn't receive.
So, as you weren't the driver what weight would the adjudicator give to the issue of signage - as it appeared to the driver in real time- as opposed to just looking at the council's 'cold light of day' video and photos?
This question probably doesn't need to be asked, but I will...are you the person to whom the PCN was addressed or are you a corporate entity? If the latter, then do you have the addressee's authority to submit an appeal?
More info about a company background could help IMO.
For example, IMO if you should try to give the adjudicator some real practical and operational background rather than just go in cold with your 'unconscionable' argument.
If it applies maybe.......
***** is a haulage company which operates X vehicles from ** to ** tonnes. Such an activity in London invariably includes the risk of poor directions from clients in combination with what appears to us to be a proliferation of useage restrictions on main access roads. Consequently, being served with PCNs is not an unknown. We make every attempt to deal with these within procedural time frames and could at any time have one or more PCNs in various stages of enforcement.
Dealing with these is not a full-time establishment post within the company but recently has been taking up more of our time as authorities' responses, when strict regulatory limits do not apply, seem to be taking longer. This makes effective management more difficult and could even lead to drivers and authorised persons concerned having left.
....
-
Fair enough. Just to clarify though, which appeal grounds am I choosing here (a pcn issued under the LLA and TfL Act 2003) for appealing to London Tribunal for unconscionable delay?
-
One case one thread.
-
Unrelated to this PCN, but is a Council also required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner in regards to registering the debt with the TEC after issuing a Charge Certifcate?
We received a Charge Certificate October 16 2024 for a PCN we didn't receive. This year they started sending letters offering us an extra-statutory reduced charge of £65. But I want to submit a Witness Statement saying we didn't receive the PCN, and eventually appeal the PCN once it has been reissued.
-
You know who acted with due diligence in and in a timely manner recently? Transport for London. Last week I appealed a box junction PCN, they accepted my appeal in 23 hours and 52 minutes. That has to be some kind of world record for them.
-
That history actually helps you, because although moving traffic PCNs under the 2003 Act do not carry the 56-day statutory response limit that applies to parking cases, London Tribunals say an authority should normally respond within 3 months, so evidence that Brent answered similar cases in 75 days and even within a month in 2023 makes it harder for a council to dress up a 131-day delay as due diligence rather than simple unreasonable delay.
-
Wow, I can belive that, last year Brent were taking 130-170 days to respond to my appeals. They were all for a 7.5 tonne weight restriction for HGVs with an exception for access. Our vehicle was delivering to a Travis Perkins site on the road every time.
I gave them a test earlier this year to see if they would respond quicker. I appealed a PCN without Proof of Delivery (partially because I hadnt received it from the relevant department yet) but I included the GPS tracking data to show where the vehicle had been. Brent responded in 75 days that time, rejecting the appeal and providing an email address to send further evidence to, so they may reconsider the charge. I submitted the POD and 5 days later they accepted. This one simple trick will cut your council appeal response times in half lol
Back in 2023 they were taking less than a month to respond.
-
I've not read your case details - if there's no excuse for going well beyond 3 months you should win this.
Another case.
---------
Case reference 2250537855
Appellant Nicholas Dunham
Authority London Borough of Brent
VRM MM22VOP
PCN Details
PCN BT24867530
Contravention date 15 Mar 2025
Contravention time 10:46:00
Contravention location Salusbury Rd / Hartland Rd
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Mar 2026
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant has attended for his appeal by video link, the Authority was not in attendance.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped in the box junction when prohibited when in Salusbury Road / Hartland Road on 15 March 2025 at 10:46.
The Appellant denies the contravention advancing a number of points, which I considered.
I find that the principal reason advanced by the Appellant, in relation to the time delay from the Appellant's submission of their representations and the time taken to respond, to be well founded.
There is no statutory time limit in relation to a Notice of Rejection in relation to moving traffic case.
However, an Authority is required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. The key case of Paul Richard Davis - v - The Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (case number 1970182813) where this matter was dealt with comprehensively by the Adjudicator Mr G Hickinbottom (as he then was), is good case law for the requirement of an Authority to act with due diligence.
The PCN in this case was in relation to a contravention on 15 March 2025. The PCN was issued on 20 March 2025 and representations were received from the Appellant on the 31 March 2025. The Notice of Rejection is dated 17 September 2025. This is well in excess of 5 months.
I find that the time taken to deal with this case is not justified and is excessive. Previous cases have found that delays in excess of 3 months without a sufficient explanation to be unacceptable.
Whilst I have considered the explanation advanced by the Authority, I do not find that it is sufficient to justify the long delay in this particular case, which is not far off 6 months.
Accordingly, I find, as a fact, that the Authority has failed to act with due diligence and in a timely manner in this case.
The appeal is allowed.
-
Recent case.
----------
Case reference 2250468796
Appellant Balbinder Suman
Authority London Borough of Hounslow
VRM BT66YPO
Thanks for providing that, thts very helpful. I’m curious what justification the council could provide for the delay that would satisfy an adjudicator that they acted with due diligence and within a reasonable timeframe.
-
Have you registered your appeal yet?
I'm with colleagues on the unreasonable delay.
The relevant case we always used 'back in the day' was Davies vs Kensington.
Your complaint about advance warning signs is liable to backfire imho.
The whole point of the scheme is to prevent traffic using certain roads; in this case using a short length of restricted road, rendering the whole road or area restricted in effect, as you say.
No, I haven't appealed yet but the unreasonable delay will be the main point in the appeal.
I saw Davies vs Kensington was referenced in each of the decisions so I had read it a few days ago. In this instance what ground for appeal would be selected?
And the vehicle was delivering to a construction site (Kings Road Park) on the road though, it just happened to be on the other side of this short restricted section of road. But if the goal is to prevent vehicles using certain roads would it not make more sense to have distance plates so a driver doesn't have to drive right upto it to know here it actually starts? Which causes the vehicles the Council don't want using the roads leading upto the restriction, to use them not just once, but twice. The signs say no through road, but the vehicle wasn't attempting to use Imperial Road as a through road.
So, the scheme actually only fulfills it's purpose if people have pre planned their route and know before hand where exactly the restriction is on this road and which end to enter from.
Once the vehicle is at the restriction signs what can it realistically do? It could maybe turn into Emden Street and reverse out to turn around but I don't think it could do that without crossing into the restricted zone and setting off the cameras anyway, or otheriwse crossing into the bus lane, it's 16.5m long.
The driver has misunderstood directions given, but frankly should have been sent a map by their planner of the exact route to take here.
Had the driver gone the correct way though they are seeing advance signage that to me indicates that they can't go the correct way. Which is what doesn't seem right to me.
I'm not trying to be argumentative btw, just wanting to better understand why it could backfire I guess
-
Recent case.
----------
Case reference 2250468796
Appellant Balbinder Suman
Authority London Borough of Hounslow
VRM BT66YPO
PCN Details
PCN NJ42174463
Contravention date 28 Apr 2025
Contravention time 16:43:00
Contravention location Bell Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Fail comply restriction vehicles entering ped zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The 56 day time frame in which the council is required to serve a notice of acceptance or rejection only applies to parking penalty charges. It does not apply to moving traffic penalty charges such as this. Whilst, however, there is no requirement that the council respond to representations made on a moving traffic PCN within any set time period it is, on the decided cases, required to act with due diligence and in a timely manner. Representations were received by the council in these proceedings on 19/05/25, it issuing a rejection notice letter on 21/08/25, over three months later. I am satisfied given that delay that the criteria set out above were not met, and find that enforcement may not therefore be pursued. The appeal must accordingly be allowed without consideration of any of the other issues raised by either party to the proceedings.
-
Have you registered your appeal yet?
I'm with colleagues on the unreasonable delay.
The relevant case we always used 'back in the day' was Davies vs Kensington.
Your complaint about advance warning signs is liable to backfire imho.
The whole point of the scheme is to prevent traffic using certain roads; in this case using a short length of restricted road, rendering the whole road or area restricted in effect, as you say.
-
Thanks for providing that case and the spreadsheet.
It's interesting that the same adjudicator ruled a 3 - 4 month delay is not acting in a timely manner during the pandemic but the one from 2023 (2220948442) was rejected for a 3 month delay. I wonder why it changed? Do you think that they were fed up of councils using covid as an excuse, or perhaps there were less cases as less vehicles on the road etc and they should have been able to deal with the PCN numbers quicker. If 97 days is not excessive, then would 131 days be. That's the £160 question I guess.
-
I will find the relevant case(s) re unconscionable delay
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oa-DnXdccFz_DXx_6Tj4hfO8pf3ZrxWK/view
BUT not all agree!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit?gid=642784037#gid=642784037
571 ff: hence my drive for a change in the law. This is ridiculous. Adjudicators should apply 56 days as per parking PCNs.
Still WHO CARES as 95% people just pay up? Hence the failure of my petition last year to consolidate the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) with the The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 which would have created a MUST that all authorities attend to answer questions re camera evidence.
Let's go for a Higher Tribunal too.
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/the-need-for-a-higher-tribunal-9546/
-
Your 130 days is a powerful appeal argument, the signs issue not quite so powerful, but should be included in reps to London Tribunals. However, I note they have re-offered the discount in their response, but if you take them to London Tribunals, the full £160 will be in play, (just so you know if you didn't already).
-
They are indeed advance warning signs.
But they imply the entire road is restricted. Which it isn't. A general motorist could not possibly know where the restriction actually starts without driving down either end of the road to find out, as there are no distance plates at either end. Once committed on the west end of Imperial Road there is no alternative route. In this instance the vehicle was driving to a construction site just on the other side of the restriction. And so should have gone down the east end of the road to avoid it. However, that end also has prohibition signs indicating the restriction applies to the whole road (especially the map-type advance direction sign before the roundabout). Therefore, the signs surely do not effectively convey the effect of the Order which only restricts from the Emden Street junction to the Fulmead Street junction on Imperial Road.
But also, what about the collateral challenge for the Council taking 131 days to respond to the appeal? I can't find any specific cases where the 90 day reasonable response time was actually applied at a London Tribunal, are you aware of any?
-
Whay you have shown us are advance warning signs, (blue background); the actual restrictions are ahead of these signs. OK, they don't give the distance.
-
The signage at either end of Imperial Road seems to be ineffective at conveying where the signage begins - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1rkAypBWZLJPof-wKq5jcQ0fH-_25wTwG
I put an overlay of the TRO restrictions over the GPS tracking trail of the vehicle - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ib8KzvyCr7oAZmgUfgYBWEXl8llSVDSj/view?usp=drivesdk
Forget about the planning aspect of the HGV. A council must make all motorists using the road aware of the effect of the order, and most motorists are not planning every aspect of their route. Neither end identifies where the restriction actually starts on Imperial Road. The east end they even have just the 'no motor vehicles' diagram on a map-type advance direction sign. But the whole road isn't restricted. It should have a "360 yds" plate under it.
-
Please see my appeal - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1z2YwTEj1lOIm34nKRgM3Mfp6Yzsk9PTz/view?usp=drivesdk
And the Notice of Rejection - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ovc-hKaIQELHKKngdUPGzfq6CvEEgy3I/view?usp=drivesdk
Tbh I was trying my luck here, however the more I look at the signage from either end of the road, the more I think it's not right and doesn't convey the effect of the TRO as signage at both ends of the road (and approachin the road) seem to suggest the entire Imperial Road is 'No Motor Vehicles', which isn't the case.
Now, the fact they have taken 131 days to respond to the appeal just seems unreasonable to say the least.
-
Please post the usual document we require by reading this and updating your thread accordingly:-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
We do need to see your reps and their response.
-
I received a Notice of Rejection to a PCN I appealed 130 days ago.
I am aware that Penalty Charge Notices issued under Traffic Management Act 2004 (for parking) require a response to appeals within 56 days set out in the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) Regulations (England).
However, LLATLA 2003 has no such statutory maximum time period. But, I have read before that the London Tribunal have made decisions applying a "reasonable time" of 90 days.
I'm wondering if this case precedent is frequently applied or if it varies and what sort of reasons would the Tribunal accept for a 130 day delay?
Whilst looking into this just now I found on their site: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process
Which states, "The adjudicators have decided that a Enforcement Authority should normally respond to representations within 3 months."
For context it is a HGV that has gone to a big construction site (https://maps.app.goo.gl/VmFTnDuV7zKMMrmf8) on a road called Imperial Road, that has a "No motor vehicles" restriction on part (between Emden St & Fulmead St) of the road (like a bus gate but a no motor vehicle gate) as part of some Clean Air Neighbourhood initiative. However, for the west end of the road, the main road that it meets at a T junction, New Kings Road, has signage indicating a "No motor vehicle" restriction on the entire Imperial Road (https://maps.app.goo.gl/epUNdHf9WC4Bb7m16 & https://maps.app.goo.gl/nJc88j1ZUsx92bkn6). And you would go along this road around the block (King's Road, Lot's Road, Harbour Aveneue, Townmead Road, Imperial Road) to the the east end of the road having already gone past the "No motor vehicles" sign. On the east end there is signage indicating:
"No motor vehicles
Imperial Road
No through route
to
New King's Road" (https://maps.app.goo.gl/XVHm1K4xXDs7JDAC7)
Which indicates to me there is a "No motor vehicles" restriction on the entire road. However, the restriction is only between two junctions about 50m apart so both the east and west ends of the roads are open to motor vehicles until the restricted section. But the signage on either end does not make it clear at which point along the road the restriction begins. There are no "100 yards ahead" type signs that one might expect for such a strict restriction. The correct route is entering the road from the east, however, the signage on both ends is ambiguous and does not clealry inform motorists as to the effect of the TRO imo. As the whole road is not a no "Motor Vehicles" restriction, just a section of it in the middle.