Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Sandymarton on November 18, 2024, 02:47:06 pm
-
I think you should accept the discounts and pay them as there isn't a case we can see that will succeed at the tribunal.
What you could do is pay the first and go back to them on the second saying you didn't consider my request to cancel owing to not getting the first PCN to make you aware, and would they consider this for cancellation.
On reflection it may have been best to have paid the first and asked for discretion on the second, which we'd advise with multiple PCNs - some people get a lot more than two.
-
can someone please advice on what to do next, should I pay or bring them to independent tribunal??thanks
-
Could someone help me pls?
-
Draft something and post here first.
Sir what should I do now? I attached in my previous message the reply of the council.
-
Probably best to submit reps against the 2nd one, stating that you have submitted reps against the two PCNs and repeat the text. We don't want the council to issue a Charge Certificate, so this will stop them.
So Barking & Dagenham just rejected both of the PCN, and no mention of the fact that they issued 2 pcn back to back without me receiving the first one and I was still unaware of it , I've attached pdf of both rejections, can someone help pls, what should I do now? thank you very much
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Probably best to submit reps against the 2nd one, stating that you have submitted reps against the two PCNs and repeat the text. We don't want the council to issue a Charge Certificate, so this will stop them.
yeah I did for both the same
-
Probably best to submit reps against the 2nd one, stating that you have submitted reps against the two PCNs and repeat the text. We don't want the council to issue a Charge Certificate, so this will stop them.
-
I suggest you keep to a single representation but make clear at the top that your reps are against two PCNs, (list them).
I can write max 1000 characters, so I shortened it like this
Formal Representation for PCN Numbers [BZ81205600] and [BZ81167727]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I challenge the above PCNs for “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham, on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate Signage Visibility: The signage is placed on the inner pedestrian pavement, not clearly visible to motorists. It is also positioned immediately after a T-junction with no prior warning, leaving drivers no chance to avoid the restriction safely. The lack of advance warning requires sudden stops or U-turns, creating a hazard.
2. Unfair Issuance of Multiple PCNs: I was unaware of the first PCN until after committing the second alleged contravention. It is procedurally unfair to issue multiple PCNs before the driver is aware of the restriction, denying a fair chance to correct behavior.
I request cancellation of both PCNs. If not, please provide evidence of TSRGD 2016 compliance and justification for issuing multiple PCNs before awareness of the first.
Yours faithfully,
So I'm challenging the first one I received stating on the top both PCN Numbers, and making it Clear I received 2
but what with the second one I received? do I leave it like this without challenge cause I put the reference number in this challenge I'm doing for the first pcn I got? will the 14 days period to pay freeze?
-
I suggest you keep to a single representation but make clear at the top that your reps are against two PCNs, (list them).
-
There is no informal challenge stage,(informal reps), with postal PCNs, one can only submit a single formal representation, with the next stage being the adjudicators, (London Tribunals).
For me, your reps look well written and considered. However, may I suggest some small alterations: -
I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for an alleged contravention of “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham. I request the cancellation of these PCNs based on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate Signage Visibility and Placement:
The signage indicating the restriction is placed on the inner side of the pedestrian pavement, making it insufficiently visible to motorists. It is not positioned on the main carriageway where drivers would naturally expect to see such warnings. This placement does not conform to the standards of visibility and clear communication required for traffic signs under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. As a driver unfamiliar with this restriction, I had no reasonable opportunity to see or interpret the signs, which is evident from the attached photograph of the sign’s location.
In addition to this, there is no advance warning of this restriction, which occurs very shortly after the motorist would have made a turn left at a T-junction. A sign that indicate that there is a restriction after the left turn would have made it very unlikely I would have missed it. Also with no advance warning, the motorist must stop and make a U-turn which is surely a hazard in itself that the council has created by its failure adequately to sign the restriction
2. Unreasonable Issuance of Multiple PCNs for the Same Contravention:
The two PCNs were issued for alleged contraventions that occurred within a short timeframe (on 05/11/2024 and 15/11/2024). However, I was not made aware of the first PCN until after I had committed the second alleged contravention when the PCN for the first alleged contravention arrived. It is both procedurally and substantively unfair to issue multiple PCNs for the same restriction when I was not given the opportunity to be aware of, or correct, my behavior following the first notice. The principle of fairness dictates that motorists should be afforded reasonable time to receive, understand, and adjust to an initial penalty notice before subsequent penalties are issued for the same alleged contravention.
3. Mitigating Circumstances:
At the time of the alleged contraventions, I had no prior knowledge of the pedestrian zone restriction on Stevens Road. As the first PCN had not been delivered to me before the second contravention occurred, I was denied the opportunity to rectify my actions in light of the restriction. Furthermore, the lack of clearly visible signage compounded this lack of awareness.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. I believe the issuance of these penalties does not reflect the principles of fairness and proportionality that underpin the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations.
Should you decide not to cancel the PCNs, I kindly request that you provide:
• Evidence of compliance with TSRGD 2016 regarding the placement and visibility of the signage.
• A justification for issuing multiple PCNs within such a short timeframe without allowing the driver to receive and respond to the first notice.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,faithfully
thanks a lot Sir, I appreciate your help, one last question, shall I challenge both online separately with this same challenge?
-
There is no informal challenge stage,(informal reps), with postal PCNs, one can only submit a single formal representation, with the next stage being the adjudicators, (London Tribunals).
For me, your reps look well written and considered. However, may I suggest some small alterations: -
I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for an alleged contravention of “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham. I request the cancellation of these PCNs based on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate Signage Visibility and Placement:
The signage indicating the restriction is placed on the inner side of the pedestrian pavement, making it insufficiently visible to motorists. It is not positioned on the main carriageway where drivers would naturally expect to see such warnings. This placement does not conform to the standards of visibility and clear communication required for traffic signs under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. As a driver unfamiliar with this restriction, I had no reasonable opportunity to see or interpret the signs, which is evident from the attached photograph of the sign’s location.
In addition to this, there is no advance warning of this restriction, which occurs very shortly after the motorist would have made a turn left at a T-junction. A sign that indicate that there is a restriction after the left turn would have made it very unlikely I would have missed it. Also with no advance warning, the motorist must stop and make a U-turn which is surely a hazard in itself that the council has created by its failure adequately to sign the restriction
2. Unreasonable Issuance of Multiple PCNs for the Same Contravention:
The two PCNs were issued for alleged contraventions that occurred within a short timeframe (on 05/11/2024 and 15/11/2024). However, I was not made aware of the first PCN until after I had committed the second alleged contravention when the PCN for the first alleged contravention arrived. It is both procedurally and substantively unfair to issue multiple PCNs for the same restriction when I was not given the opportunity to be aware of, or correct, my behavior following the first notice. The principle of fairness dictates that motorists should be afforded reasonable time to receive, understand, and adjust to an initial penalty notice before subsequent penalties are issued for the same alleged contravention.
3. Mitigating Circumstances:
At the time of the alleged contraventions, I had no prior knowledge of the pedestrian zone restriction on Stevens Road. As the first PCN had not been delivered to me before the second contravention occurred, I was denied the opportunity to rectify my actions in light of the restriction. Furthermore, the lack of clearly visible signage compounded this lack of awareness.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. I believe the issuance of these penalties does not reflect the principles of fairness and proportionality that underpin the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations.
Should you decide not to cancel the PCNs, I kindly request that you provide:
• Evidence of compliance with TSRGD 2016 regarding the placement and visibility of the signage.
• A justification for issuing multiple PCNs within such a short timeframe without allowing the driver to receive and respond to the first notice.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,faithfully
-
Draft something and post here first.
I wrote this challenge, should I challenge formally or informally...I see two options on the site
Draft Representation to Challenge PCNs
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
Parking Services
Subject: Formal Representation for PCN Numbers [BZ81205600] and [BZ81167727]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge the issuance of the above Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued for an alleged contravention of “failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone” at Stevens Road, Dagenham. I request the cancellation of these PCNs based on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate Signage Visibility and Placement:
The signage indicating the restriction is placed on the inner side of the pedestrian pavement, making it insufficiently visible to motorists. It is not positioned on the main carriageway where drivers would naturally expect to see such warnings. This placement does not conform to the standards of visibility and clear communication required for traffic signs under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016. As a driver unfamiliar with this restriction, I had no reasonable opportunity to see or interpret the signs, which is evident from the attached photograph of the sign’s location.
2. Unreasonable Issuance of Multiple PCNs for the Same Contravention:
The two PCNs were issued for alleged contraventions that occurred within a short timeframe (on 05/11/2024 and 15/11/2024). However, I was not made aware of the first PCN until after I had committed the second alleged contravention. It is both procedurally and substantively unfair to issue multiple PCNs for the same restriction when I was not given the opportunity to be aware of, or correct, my behavior following the first notice. The principle of fairness dictates that motorists should be afforded reasonable time to receive, understand, and adjust to an initial penalty notice before subsequent penalties are issued for the same alleged contravention.
3. Mitigating Circumstances:
At the time of the alleged contraventions, I had no prior knowledge of the pedestrian zone restriction on Stevens Road. As the first PCN had not been delivered to me before the second contravention occurred, I was denied the opportunity to rectify my actions in light of the restriction. Furthermore, the lack of clearly visible signage compounded this lack of awareness.
For the reasons outlined above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. I believe the issuance of these penalties does not reflect the principles of fairness and proportionality that underpin the enforcement of parking and traffic regulations.
Should you decide not to cancel the PCNs, I kindly request that you provide:
• Evidence of compliance with TSRGD 2016 regarding the placement and visibility of the signage.
• A justification for issuing multiple PCNs within such a short timeframe without allowing the driver to receive and respond to the first notice.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your prompt response.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Contact Information]
-
Draft something and post here first.
ok the guy of the council on the phone said he didn't see any other pcn, today just arrived another one, Please what should I do...I have time till Friday to challenge. Should I challenge both unformally and in the first on put this one too?
-
Draft something and post here first.
-
Should I challenge it online and see what they reply?
I can see only one allowed appeal for this end of Stevens Road and it's back in 2021. Taking it to the tribunal may be risky unless there are other grounds.
------------------
2220435346
I decided this appeal having heard evidence from the appellant in person.
I can only allow an appeal if the authority has acted unlawfully by failing to comply with road traffic law or follow its own procedures.
The authority relies on CCTV evidence and photographic evidence which it says shows that the appellant's vehicle drove into a restricted road. The CCTV shows the appellant's vehicle driving past signs on either side of the road warning morning motorists of the restriction.
The appellant said that she was unfamiliar with the area and was collecting a child from school who may have had Covid. She says that the signs were not adequately visible for motorist turning left into the restricted road.
I have looked carefully at the authority's evidence. In my view it is not possible to tell from the CCTV evidence whether the signs would have been adequately visible to motorists turning left into the restricted road. What was needed was clear photographic evidence giving a better perspective of what the driver of the appellant's vehicle was likely to have been able to see.
Unfortunately, none of the photographs provided by the authority appeared to show what a vehicle approaching the restriction, from the direction in which the appellant's vehicle was travelling, would have seen. Instead they appeared to relate to other parts of the road. I certainly found it impossible to match up the photographs to the CCTV.
The appellant provided photographs however before I only consider her photographs, if I am satisfied the authority has provided sufficient evidence to support the alleged contravention. This includes sufficient evidence to show that the signage warning motorists of the restriction, would have been adequately visible to motorists turning left into the restricted road.
In my view, the CCTV and photographic evidence provided by the authorities not of sufficient quality to do this. I am therefore unable to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the authority has shown it discharge its legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure motorists were aware of the restriction in force at that location.
Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied the authority has shown a contravention occurred all that it acted lawfully by issuing and enforcing the penalty charge notice.
-
I called them, the operator told me on the phone that doesn't result anything apart from the one I received
What do I do now? thanks a lot
Submit reps for the one you have received, putting in also that you suspect there are others that occurred beteen you receiving the PCN and the date it arrived. State that until you received the PCN you were not aware any contravention had occurred. Post up their response when you get it.
I called the, apparently there are no other pcn arriving, didn't result anything not heir terminals apart the one I received. Should I challenge the one I have online myself?
-
I can see only one allowed appeal for this end of Stevens Road and it's back in 2021. Taking it to the tribunal may be risky unless there are other grounds.
------------------
2220435346
I decided this appeal having heard evidence from the appellant in person.
I can only allow an appeal if the authority has acted unlawfully by failing to comply with road traffic law or follow its own procedures.
The authority relies on CCTV evidence and photographic evidence which it says shows that the appellant's vehicle drove into a restricted road. The CCTV shows the appellant's vehicle driving past signs on either side of the road warning morning motorists of the restriction.
The appellant said that she was unfamiliar with the area and was collecting a child from school who may have had Covid. She says that the signs were not adequately visible for motorist turning left into the restricted road.
I have looked carefully at the authority's evidence. In my view it is not possible to tell from the CCTV evidence whether the signs would have been adequately visible to motorists turning left into the restricted road. What was needed was clear photographic evidence giving a better perspective of what the driver of the appellant's vehicle was likely to have been able to see.
Unfortunately, none of the photographs provided by the authority appeared to show what a vehicle approaching the restriction, from the direction in which the appellant's vehicle was travelling, would have seen. Instead they appeared to relate to other parts of the road. I certainly found it impossible to match up the photographs to the CCTV.
The appellant provided photographs however before I only consider her photographs, if I am satisfied the authority has provided sufficient evidence to support the alleged contravention. This includes sufficient evidence to show that the signage warning motorists of the restriction, would have been adequately visible to motorists turning left into the restricted road.
In my view, the CCTV and photographic evidence provided by the authorities not of sufficient quality to do this. I am therefore unable to conclude on the balance of probabilities that the authority has shown it discharge its legal duty to take reasonable steps to ensure motorists were aware of the restriction in force at that location.
Accordingly, I cannot be satisfied the authority has shown a contravention occurred all that it acted lawfully by issuing and enforcing the penalty charge notice.
-
I called them, the operator told me on the phone that doesn't result anything apart from the one I received
What do I do now? thanks a lot
Submit reps for the one you have received, putting in also that you suspect there are others that occurred beteen you receiving the PCN and the date it arrived. State that until you received the PCN you were not aware any contravention had occurred. Post up their response when you get it.
-
I think I would be tempted to take them to London Tribunals on this one. The signs are almost immediately after one turns left, with no advance warning whatsoever. Presumably the council are happy that if you do see the signs, you jam your brakes on and do a three-point turn.
If you say there are more PCNs coming, I suggest you contact the council to find out how many, because at least you should not have to pay those arriving after the first one, but dated between the first one and the day it arrived in the mail. This is a well-established appeal argument.
I haven't challenged it yet, I was waiting for advice, I don't know how to proceed. Should I challenge it or should I contact them first to see if there are more coming? and in case there are more coming what I should do or say to them?
Contact them first. At least get the PCN Numbers off them, so you can include them in your representation. You need for them all to be in a single rep.
ok I ll call them tomorrow and I update you thank you very much!
I called them, the operator told me on the phone that doesn't result anything apart from the one I received
What do I do now? thanks a lot
-
I think I would be tempted to take them to London Tribunals on this one. The signs are almost immediately after one turns left, with no advance warning whatsoever. Presumably the council are happy that if you do see the signs, you jam your brakes on and do a three-point turn.
If you say there are more PCNs coming, I suggest you contact the council to find out how many, because at least you should not have to pay those arriving after the first one, but dated between the first one and the day it arrived in the mail. This is a well-established appeal argument.
I haven't challenged it yet, I was waiting for advice, I don't know how to proceed. Should I challenge it or should I contact them first to see if there are more coming? and in case there are more coming what I should do or say to them?
Contact them first. At least get the PCN Numbers off them, so you can include them in your representation. You need for them all to be in a single rep.
ok I ll call them tomorrow and I update you thank you very much!
-
I think I would be tempted to take them to London Tribunals on this one. The signs are almost immediately after one turns left, with no advance warning whatsoever. Presumably the council are happy that if you do see the signs, you jam your brakes on and do a three-point turn.
If you say there are more PCNs coming, I suggest you contact the council to find out how many, because at least you should not have to pay those arriving after the first one, but dated between the first one and the day it arrived in the mail. This is a well-established appeal argument.
I haven't challenged it yet, I was waiting for advice, I don't know how to proceed. Should I challenge it or should I contact them first to see if there are more coming? and in case there are more coming what I should do or say to them?
Contact them first. At least get the PCN Numbers off them, so you can include them in your representation. You need for them all to be in a single rep.
-
I think I would be tempted to take them to London Tribunals on this one. The signs are almost immediately after one turns left, with no advance warning whatsoever. Presumably the council are happy that if you do see the signs, you jam your brakes on and do a three-point turn.
If you say there are more PCNs coming, I suggest you contact the council to find out how many, because at least you should not have to pay those arriving after the first one, but dated between the first one and the day it arrived in the mail. This is a well-established appeal argument.
I haven't challenged it yet, I was waiting for advice, I don't know how to proceed. Should I challenge it by myself online?, should I contact them first to see if there are more coming? and in case there are more coming what I should do/say to them? What do I do with this one in the meantime, cause I see I have 14 days to challenge it.
-
I think I would be tempted to take them to London Tribunals on this one. The signs are almost immediately after one turns left, with no advance warning whatsoever. Presumably the council are happy that if you do see the signs, you jam your brakes on and do a three-point turn.
If you say there are more PCNs coming, I suggest you contact the council to find out how many, because at least you should not have to pay those arriving after the first one, but dated between the first one and the day it arrived in the mail. This is a well-established appeal argument.
-
OP, did you understand the meaning of the two "flying motorbike signs" ? We see so many cases where the recipient of the PCN had no idea what they meant.
Please post the PCN, all sides, with only name and address redacted, and also a GSV link to the location, because at the moment we are totally in the dark.
here, these are second page front and back, the other page front back is in my first message on the thread, sorry. What should I do?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Video. Signs look oddly positioned. Is there an advance warning sign?
(https://i.imgur.com/qtbysj0.gif)
No those are the only signs you can see on the road
I've attached the photos front and back of the pcn on the first message, is it not working?
here's the link on google map https://maps.app.goo.gl/2N9iVArFUKhamaXr7
thanks
-
Video. Signs look oddly positioned. Is there an advance warning sign?
(https://i.imgur.com/qtbysj0.gif)
No those are the only signs you can see on the road
-
OP, did you understand the meaning of the two "flying motorbike signs" ? We see so many cases where the recipient of the PCN had no idea what they meant.
Please post the PCN, all sides, with only name and address redacted, and also a GSV link to the location, because at the moment we are totally in the dark.
-
Video. Signs look oddly positioned. Is there an advance warning sign?
(https://i.imgur.com/qtbysj0.gif)
-
Hi everyone, and thank you in advance for your time. I'm new to the forum and I'm seeking help because I received a pcn in Barking and Dagenham and probably will arrive more, 2-3 more. I was picking up my son from school and sometimes I took him to the nearby park to let him play, and I went through a road that seemed like all other roads and I did in the past, but never aware that was a road closed to car traffic for like 1 hour in the afternoon, so I did it unintentionally and totally unaware cause the road signal from driving direction is not on the road but on the far left side of the pedestrian pavement like you can see in the photo I attached. Could someone please help me with this cause I'm in financial stress lately and can't afford this blow. On a personal level I'm also shocked, I'm Italian, in Italy when a road is closed to traffic even for few hours they put in place removable barriers, here in UK there are not clear signals, it seems everything is done to cash out on drivers (not that in Italy is different) but here is crazy, are we supposed to pay attention to the road/vehicles/possible hazards or every 10 seconds watch out for a possible small signal, camera etc...this is just out of frustration, sorry. I did write a challenge with the help of chatgpt but I haven't challenged it yet, I could post it here if you'd like. I'd be very grateful is someone could help me. Thank you in advance
[attachment deleted by admin]