Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Tod on June 09, 2026, 12:16:43 pm
-
1 February 2027 is ridiculous. I doubt City will contest this.
-
Just to update the thread, I have now submitted my appeal.
Thank you all for your help, particularly @stamfordman, @tincombe and @Incandescent.
The appeal has been accepted by London Tribunals and a Teams hearing has been listed for 1 February 2027.
I'll update the thread once the adjudicator has reached a decision.
-
These regs have been superseded, it's now these:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
No difference in substance, just terms and format.
-
Opt for a telephone or online hearing. I will be surprised if they contest it.
----------------
See tincombe's link as I linked to old regs.
-
I would suggest:
1. The PCN does not state the time of contravention, which is a 'regulatory matter', contrary to para. 3(1)(b) of Schedule 2 to the General Regulations.
This omission on the face of the PCN is not contested by the authority who nonetheless contend that the time of contravention can be found 'in red' within a timestamped photograph included within the PCN.
Firstly, I contend that s3(1)(b) requires the 'regulatory matters' to be printed on the face of the PCN, which objectively it is not. Secondly, given that this photo shows only the rear of my car at some point during the CEO's consideration of the issue, then I submit that it has no evidential value whatsoever in terms of specifying the moment at which the CEO's thoughts crystallised into a determination that a contravention had occurred, which is what the regulations demand.
-
Many thanks for all your help so far.
I've drafted my tribunal appeal based on your advice. Before I submit it, would you mind having a quick look to see if there's anything you would change or add?
Ground of Appeal: Procedural Impropriety
I rely on the following grounds.
1. The PCN does not state the time of contravention.
The PCN states the date of the alleged contravention but does not state the time of contravention as a mandatory item on the notice itself.
In its Notice of Rejection, the authority contends that the timestamp shown on the accompanying photograph satisfies this requirement. I do not agree.
A photograph is not a mandatory component of a Penalty Charge Notice and cannot be used to supply information which the legislation requires the PCN itself to state. The authority has therefore failed to comply with the statutory requirements.
2. The authority has failed properly to address the issue of service.
I explained in my representations that I returned to my vehicle, had a conversation with the Civil Enforcement Officer and that at no stage did the CEO attempt to serve a PCN on me or affix one to my vehicle.
The Notice of Rejection merely repeats the statutory wording that the vehicle was driven away before service could be effected. It does not address my account or explain how I prevented service.
I respectfully submit that the authority has failed properly to consider my representations on this point.
3. Signage (if appropriate).
If the authority relies upon the particular signing of this bay, I invite it to produce the relevant Traffic Management Order and any authorisation relied upon in support of the signage, as questions have been raised regarding whether the bay is correctly signed and authorised.
For the above reasons I respectfully ask the Adjudicator to allow the appeal.
-
So tincombe was right to anticipate their reference to pictures but that doesn't rescue the PCN.
Note it's the time not the date that is missing.
The rejection also doesn't deal with the service issue in my view.
The legend/sign is a possible third line issue.
You should appeal and ask for a telephone or online hearing.
-
Just a note to say that photographs are not a legal requirement on a PCN or, indeed, to accompany it, therefore the PCN is still non-compliant. They are bluffing their way, as usual.
-
They took the simple and lazy way out, as I feared.
The PCN is flawed because it omits a date. A non-mandatory element cannot replace a mandatory one, IMO at all but certainly without an explanation. This is not a guessing game where the keeper is required to join up dots.
The Traffic Signs Regs state:
Where the bay is reserved for an individual disabled badge holder, an alphanumeric identifier, with or without the word “ONLY” may be added after “DISABLED”.
But when so reserved, the upright traffic sign must include the alphanumeric identifier, otherwise the road marking and sign would conflict.
Contrary to their assertion, an upright traffic sign may include the word "ONLY".
It makes you wonder whether there is a TMO in this case and what it provides.
-
These were my representations:
"I am challenging the PCN on two grounds.
1. Procedural impropriety - the PCN is not compliant as it does not state the time of contravention, only the date. The time is a mandatory item under the legislation.
2. Procedural impropriety - at no point did I prevent service of the PCN either to me or on my car. I had a conversation with the CEO in which I said I had just completed a drop-off as an Uber driver and he advised me it would be better to wait on yellow lines.
I request that the PCN be cancelled."
-
Your actual reps pl.
-
I've now received the Notice of Rejection.
They state that the timestamp on the photograph forms part of the PCN, so they consider the time of contravention to be shown.
They also maintain that the CEO had begun preparing the PCN and that the vehicle was driven away before it could be served.
I've attached the Notice of Rejection. I'd be grateful for your views on whether it's worth taking this to the tribunal.
https://ibb.co/4n0w549k
https://ibb.co/93ndPK7H
https://ibb.co/R4jrKfgQ
https://ibb.co/prb4v8vZ
https://ibb.co/YBJ6mLTz
https://ibb.co/zHRBRbB3
https://ibb.co/CpXTzwKm
-
It's an attempt to pre-empt them taking the simple and lazy way out.
-
I thought of mentioning the picture but it isn't part of the mandatory fields on the PCN, and I don't think mentioning what's on the website is relevant. The PCN is what it is. Or isn't.
-
+1.
But I would suggest amending 1 to read:
Procedural impropriety - the PCN is not compliant as it does not state the time of contravention, only the date. The time is a mandatory item under the legislation. If the authority's position is that the time of contravention could be inferred from the photo in the PCN, then this would clearly be untenable because the photo reads 18.26 whereas your website(see snapshot enclosed) states '..time of contravention 18.27'.
The PCN does not comply with the regulations and must be cancelled.
-
Wait for others to check this but this is all you need in my view. I see the CEO did say you'd get a PCN so if that is the only point it would hinge on whether he really had got the PCN partially logged.
------------
I am challenging the PCN on two grounds.
1. Procedural impropriety - the PCN is not compliant as it does not state the time of contravention, only the date. The time is a mandatory item under the legislation.
2. Procedural impropriety - at no point did I prevent service of the PCN either to me or on my car. I had a conversation with your CEO in which I said I had just completed a drop-off as an Uber driver and he advised me it would be better to wait on yellow lines.
I look forward to your early cancellation on this PCN.
-
Thank you. I found the evidence tab and can now see the photographs.
There are seven photos in total. One is timestamped 18:26 and the remaining six are timestamped 18:27.
What would you suggest as the next step?
-
I think there's an evidence tab when you log-in here:
https://cityoflondon.tarantoportal.com/PCNs
Other pics are close-up to check for a blue badge.
The pic on the PCN is not relevant for the compliance of the PCN so this looks like an easy win.
-
As far as I can see, the PCN itself only states the date of the alleged contravention (05/06/2026).
I cannot see any field on the PCN stating the time of contravention.
The only time I can find is the timestamp shown on the photograph, For some reason I can't see any photographs at all on the City of London portal, either in Chrome or Safari. How are you able to see the seven photos and their timestamps? Is there a link or section of the portal that I'm missing?
-
Can you see a time of contravention on the PCN?
It's mandatory to have both date and time.
-
Thank you @stamfordman.
I certainly did not make any attempt to evade service of a PCN.
As I explained above, when I returned to the vehicle the CEO was already there taking photographs. I explained that I had just completed a drop-off and had only been away from the vehicle for around 30 seconds.
I also asked him if he had seen my hazard lights on, which he confirmed. He said I could have stopped on the yellow line instead. I replied, "Thanks, next time I will know", and that was the extent of the conversation.
There was no argument, no confrontation and no attempt whatsoever to hand me a PCN or place one on the vehicle. I then continued with my work and left.
To be honest, I was quite surprised when the postal PCN arrived.
-
EDIT: The PCN is defective because it doesn't have the time of the contravention that I can see, only the date.
If you made to attempt to evade service of the PCN either to you or on the vehicle then you have a good case.
The PCN is timed at 18:27 according to the website and nearly all the pics have the same time (only one of seven at 18:26) which may mean the PCN may not have been in preparation and only pics taken.
(https://i.ibb.co/gFgdkBCR/Screenshot-2026-06-09-at-13-41-33.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Ndt1W66K/Screenshot-2026-06-09-at-13-41-24.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/mrTnq34y/Screenshot-2026-06-09-at-13-41-16.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/cSpkVRvz/Screenshot-2026-06-09-at-13-41-50.png)
-
I was actually surprised when the postal PCN arrived. There was no argument or confrontation. The CEO did not attempt to hand me a PCN or place one on the vehicle. We simply spoke briefly and then went our separate ways.
-
You've been served with a "driveaway" PCN. The bold text at the top says it is because the CEO had begun to prepare a PCN, but you drove off before he could serve it. Is this true ? I ask because if the CEO had the PCN ready and could have served it, this postal PCN is void.
So please tell us more.
-
Hi all,
I'd appreciate some advice on this PCN from the City of London.
I'm an Uber driver and on 5 June I dropped passengers off in Playhouse Yard. The street is very narrow and stopping in the carriageway would have blocked access, so I pulled into the bay with my hazard lights on while the passengers got out.
After the drop-off I briefly left the vehicle.
When I came back to the car, a CEO was already there. I explained what had happened and that I had just completed a drop-off and gone to return forgotten property. I also asked him if he had seen my hazard lights and he said that he had. He nevertheless said a PCN would be issued.
No PCN was placed on the vehicle and I've now received a postal PCN.
I've attached the PCN, the Uber trip details and Street View images of the location.
The council website doesn't show any CEO photos, notes or observation records, which I find odd.
Do you think I have any grounds to challenge this, and should I first ask the council for the CEO notes and photographs?
Many thanks.
https://ibb.co/FLPfCpwv
https://ibb.co/C3y36X3v
https://ibb.co/fd6NrDLz
https://ibb.co/fd6NrDLz