Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: hussainash on January 14, 2025, 12:02:53 pm
-
I've applied to Tribunal based on printing errors on the notice of rejection sent to my house.
I'm not sure if I have a strong case. I am sure others would have also received similar copies until they fix their printers.
Attached are pictures of the printing defects on the posted letter I received.
What are the peoples thoughts on this?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi @Johnsmith86 - Could you share a link of your post and your appeal details, maybe we can use the same arguments?
I am in the same situation and have also received a PCN for the same alleged contravention on the same road. I was having a look online and found the below:
"Home » Contraventions for Moving Traffic » Contravention Code 52
Contravention Code 52
Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicles – Contravention Code 52
Specific grounds of appeal for this contravention:
Was the PCN sufficiently clear as to the contravention. In one case the PCN stated failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle, however the signage at the location stated motor vehicles prohibited. The adjudicator said the PCN should have referred to “motor vehicles” rather than “certain types of vehicle”. Certain types of vehicles is too general. The contraventions have various suffixes. The correct suffix must be used and the contravention stated must be the exact one that relates to the stated contravention code.
Does anyone think i have a grounds for an appeal based on the above? Unfortunately I couldn't find reference to the above case where the adjudicator cancelled the PCN.
-
I'm still unsure if I should pay the reduced amount or argue that the signs could be made clear.
Here is a list of my issues:
- One side of Townmead Road has a sign with a roundabout and clearly shows which road is restricted.
-The side of Towmead Road I drove in had no such sign.
- Also the ENTRY of Imperial Road where there are cameras does not have any sign mentioning it is a LTN road.
Another poster in this mentioned this:
Specific grounds of appeal for this contravention:
Was the PCN sufficiently clear as to the contravention. In one case the PCN stated failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle, however the signage at the location stated motor vehicles prohibited. The adjudicator said the PCN should have referred to “motor vehicles” rather than “certain types of vehicle”. Certain types of vehicles is too general. The contraventions have various suffixes. The correct suffix must be used and the contravention stated must be the exact one that relates to the stated contravention code.
Is that a strong case?
The PCN mentions "certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicle"
Thank you for any help.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I am in the same situation and have also received a PCN for the same alleged contravention on the same road. I was having a look online and found the below:
"Home » Contraventions for Moving Traffic » Contravention Code 52
Contravention Code 52
Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicles – Contravention Code 52
Specific grounds of appeal for this contravention:
Was the PCN sufficiently clear as to the contravention. In one case the PCN stated failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle, however the signage at the location stated motor vehicles prohibited. The adjudicator said the PCN should have referred to “motor vehicles” rather than “certain types of vehicle”. Certain types of vehicles is too general. The contraventions have various suffixes. The correct suffix must be used and the contravention stated must be the exact one that relates to the stated contravention code.
Does anyone think i have a grounds for an appeal based on the above? Unfortunately I couldn't find reference to the above case where the adjudicator cancelled the PCN.
The rule for posting is one OP per thread, so please start your own thread.
-
I am in the same situation and have also received a PCN for the same alleged contravention on the same road. I was having a look online and found the below:
"Home » Contraventions for Moving Traffic » Contravention Code 52
Contravention Code 52
Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicles – Contravention Code 52
Specific grounds of appeal for this contravention:
Was the PCN sufficiently clear as to the contravention. In one case the PCN stated failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibition on certain types of vehicle, however the signage at the location stated motor vehicles prohibited. The adjudicator said the PCN should have referred to “motor vehicles” rather than “certain types of vehicle”. Certain types of vehicles is too general. The contraventions have various suffixes. The correct suffix must be used and the contravention stated must be the exact one that relates to the stated contravention code.
Does anyone think i have a grounds for an appeal based on the above? Unfortunately I couldn't find reference to the above case where the adjudicator cancelled the PCN.
-
All I can say is they've probably decided that enough time has gone by to not cancel for first time contraventions here, which is a shame but not unexpected.
To win an appeal we'd have to find something wrong with the signs or PCN wording etc.
Not sure that the lack go 'any other grounds' would work.
-
I've just had an e-mail replay (letter will be in the post) and they have not cancelled the PCN :( (Just my luck!)
Should I just pay the discounted rate or are there any technicalities that I can argue?
Could the sign have been show which road in the roundabout is restricted? (screenshot)
Attaching the PDF response letter.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Well pick 'the penalty charge exceeded...' and add at the start:
Please note you have not provided the ground of "Any other ground you wish to raise" so I have picked one of your other options to make this challenge for discretion.
-
The PCN/website should offer an 'any other ground you wish to raise' option shouldn't it?
That was the option I was looking for an feel none of the ones in the list apply to me, I've managed to take a screenshot:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The PCN/website should offer an 'any other ground you wish to raise' option shouldn't it?
-
The PCN limits to one ground. The law states one or other of the grounds.
Register Kept Under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)(London) Regulations 1993, as amended or Paragraph 21 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, as applicable
Case Reference: 2120030405
Appellant: Mr Rinat Bikatov
Authority: Waltham Forest
VRM: X998VYJ
PCN: FR21052928
Contravention Date: 07 Nov 2011
Contravention Time: 09:09
Contravention Location: Forest Road E17/Fernhill Court E17
Penalty Amount: £130.00
Contravention: Failing to comply with a sign indicating a prohibited turn
Decision Date: 23 Jun 2012
Adjudicator: John Lane
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons: This is an application by Mr. Rinat Bikatov in accordance with Paragraph 12 of Part 2 to the Schedule of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations And Appeals Regulations 2007 to review an Adjudicator's decision of 24th March 2012 in refusing his appeal.
The grounds for review are:
There was an error by administrative staff;
The appellant failed to appear or be represented at the hearing for good and sufficient reason;
After the hearing new evidence had become available since the conclusion of the hearing the existence of which could not have been reasonably known or foreseen;
The interests of justice require a review.
The appellant, who appeared on 9 th June 2012 with Mr. Herbert, relied on the last criterion, asserting that the Adjudicator had misdirected himself. The appellant produced a previous decision of the Adjudicator-appeal 211070709A. The appellant also produced other judgments by other Adjudicators. I have caused all these to be scanned onto the system as evidence.
I reserved judgment in accordance with paragraph 11(1) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.
The penalty notice in this case was issued under Section 6 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London act 2003 says that the penalty notice must state:
1 the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
2 the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
3 that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
4 that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
5 that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
6 the amount of the increased charge;
7 the address to which the penalty charge must be sent;
8 that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act; and
9 specify the form in which such representations are made.
Paragraph 1(3) to the Schedule states, "The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty notice in question was served."
The penalty notice in this case is silent on that.
The original Adjudicator stated this in his judgment.
As stated above, the legislation at Section 4(8) says that the penalty notice "must" state it.
In the High Court case of Barnet v The Parking Adjudicator, Mr. Justice Jackson in paragraph 37 of his judgment said that if the legislation says that something "must" be stated then "that suggests that the exact words are not mandatory but the pcn must accurately convey the information set out in the subsections."
The original Adjudicator has said that, "Absolutely no prejudice has been suffered by the appellant."
At paragraph 41 of his judgment in the Barnet case Mr. Justice Jackson stated that prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established.
In the same paragraph Mr. Justice Jackson said if statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.
In this case the penalty notice, on its first page, says that the penalty/reduced amount must be paid not later than 28 or 14 days from the beginning of the date of the notice, "Or the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations."
On the second page of the penalty notice there are instructions to the recipient how to make representations and the grounds of appeal available. The penalty notice invites the recipient to select one ground whereas the legislation states that representations may be made on "one or other of the grounds"
As stated above the penalty notice is silent as to paragraph 1(3) to the Schedule in that there is no mention that the local authority may disregard representations served on the local authority after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty notice is served.
It was accepted in the Barnet Case that substantial compliance with statutory requirements will render the penalty notice valid.
I find that the message contained in paragraph 1(3) is an important warning to the recipient of a penalty notice issued under the London Local Authorities act 2003. Without it I cannot find that the penalty notice is substantially compliant.
I will therefore allow the review and allow the appeal.
Original Decision Subsequently Reviewed Under Regulation 11 of The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993
Decision Date 24 Mar 2012
Previous Decision Refused
Adjudicator Francis LLoyd
Direction None
Reasons Mr Bikatov attended in person at the hearing of his appeal before me. He had received a Penalty Charge Notice after performing a prohibited right turn in Forest Road. He accepted that such a turn had been made and that the contravention had been proved. He argued, however, that the Penalty Charge Notice was invalid as it did not state on it that representations should be made within 28 days of the receipt of the notice, but 28 days of the notice itself. Mr Bikatov claimed that the notice foreshortened the time in which he was able to make representations and was thus invalid. He referred me to decisions made by two other adjudicators - those decisions being Tuttle v Camden (Ref: 2080721804) and Stubbs v Westminster (Ref: 2090397156).
I have looked at the relevant piece of legislation which is the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Section 4(8) of the Act lists what must be included in a PCN. It reads as follows:
(8) A penalty charge notice under this section must-
(a) state-
(i) the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(ii) the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi) the amount of the increased charge;
(vii) the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and
(viii) that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and
(b) specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
It will be noted that it is stated there that for payment of the PCN, the relevant date is the date 28 (or 14) days beginning with the date of the notice. However, Schedule 1 paragraph 1(3), dealing with representations, reads as follows:
(3) The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.
It will be noted here that the relevant date for consideration of representations is here given as being 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.
Mr Bikatov argued that the PCN was invalid as it did not make clear that representations could be considered up to 28 days after the service of the notice.
I do not agree. The PCN in this instance correctly tells the recipient that he has 28 days to pay at the full rate (or 14 days at the reduced rate). That is in accordance with section 4(8) of the Act. It also tells him that he can make representations. It is correct that the PCN is silent as to the permitted time in which representations can be made, but this does not appear to be a requirement of section 4(8)(b) which merely says that the PCN must specify the "form in which any such representations are to be made". What is clear, I would suggest, from the PCN, is that representations should be made within 28 days. The legislation permits a certain latitude to the appellant by indicating that the authority should only disregard submissions made more than 28 days after service. However, I do not see that this needs be indicated on the PCN itself.
In any event, on the facts of this case, absolutely no prejudice has been suffered by the appellant. The PCN was issued on 28/11/12. The appellant responded on 12/12/12. In an email sent on that day, he pointed out the alleged failings of the PCN. The authority responded on 20 December rejecting those submissions, and granting the appellant a further 14 days to pay at the reduced rate. He did not accept that offer, and as a result the full amount of £130 is now correctly demanded.
The appeal is thus refused.
-
I am just about to make a representation. Which option would be best to choose from this list? Feels like none of them apply.
Please select your grounds for Representation:
- I was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged contravention
- The vehicle had been taken without my consent
- The contravention did not occur
- The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances
- We are a hire firm and have supplied the name of the hirer along with a signed hire agreement
-
You can make it shorter. I've added a couple of things (underlined).
--------
Dear Sir/Madam,
I kindly request that you consider my case for discretion, as I was unaware of the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) restrictions in the area. I am not local to the borough and was visiting the area during the school Christmas holidays to take my children to the Gambado Chelsea soft play center in STREET NAME, and so was accessing a local facility and not using the route as a cut-through.
I have attached receipts from Gambado as evidence of my visit.
At the time, I did not see any signs indicating the restrictions. Had I been aware of the LTN or seen clear signage, I would have avoided entering Imperial Road entirely. Additionally, I did not take a shortcut to avoid traffic, as the roads were quiet due to the holiday season.
This is my first PCN for this area and road, and I sincerely apologise for this inadvertent mistake. I assure you that I had no intention of violating any restrictions and understand the importance of adhering to all local traffic regulations.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my representation, and I look forward to your response.
Thank you for this, I will submit and keep you posted.
-
You can make it shorter. I've added a couple of things (underlined).
--------
Dear Sir/Madam,
I kindly request that you consider my case for discretion, as I was unaware of the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) restrictions in the area. I am not local to the borough and was visiting the area during the school Christmas holidays to take my children to the Gambado Chelsea soft play center in STREET NAME, and so was accessing a local facility and not using the route as a cut-through.
I have attached receipts from Gambado as evidence of my visit.
At the time, I did not see any signs indicating the restrictions. Had I been aware of the LTN or seen clear signage, I would have avoided entering Imperial Road entirely. Additionally, I did not take a shortcut to avoid traffic, as the roads were quiet due to the holiday season.
This is my first PCN for this area and road, and I sincerely apologise for this inadvertent mistake. I assure you that I had no intention of violating any restrictions and understand the importance of adhering to all local traffic regulations.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my representation, and I look forward to your response.
-
Here is my draft, any comments or suggestions for improvement? Anything I should not mention? (Thank you in advance)
Hammersmith and Fulham Council
Parking Services
Subject: Challenge Against PCN HZXXXXX
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge the Parking Charge Notice (PCN) referenced above, issued to my vehicle (registration number FEXXXXX) on 22/12/2024 for allegedly failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicles at Imperial Rd NWbnd - NW of Fulmead St.
I kindly request that you review my case, as I was unaware of the Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) restrictions in the area. I am not local to the borough and was visiting the area during the school Christmas holidays to take my children to the Gambado Chelsea soft play center. I have attached receipts from Gambado as evidence of my visit.
At the time, I did not see any signs indicating the restrictions. Had I been aware of the LTN or seen clear signage, I would have avoided entering Imperial Road entirely. Additionally, I did not take a shortcut to avoid traffic, as the roads were quiet due to the holiday season.
This is my first PCN for this area and road, and I sincerely apologise for this inadvertent mistake. I assure you that I had no intention of violating any restrictions and understand the importance of adhering to all local traffic regulations.
Given the circumstances, I kindly request leniency and the cancellation of this PCN. I hope you will consider the following mitigating factors:
1. This being my first contravention.
2. My status as a non-local visitor.
3. Unawareness of the restriction
4. Evidence of my purpose for visiting the area (receipts provided).
I greatly appreciate your understanding and consideration of my case.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my representation, and I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
-
Here is the video from the h&f website (Attached below). The signs here are clear :(
I still don't know why i missed it. Maybe I got distracted by the car turning in on my left or the traffic light having a slight hump.[attach=2]
I'm still drafting a reply and will post this shortly...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
H&F has cancelled every one of these first time PCNs in low traffic zones I've been involved with and they are relaxed about say PHV drivers accessing local addresses. Or they have been.
No, there isn't an archive of Pepipoo (old forum) I think.
-
You are right in that Townmead Road is freely accessible, but every turning north of Townmead has warning signs about No Through Road to New Kings Road
In Imperial Road you would have passed these signs :(
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1RQmVdJAeEpqjrwA8
Perhaps a polite letter asking for mercy?
Post a draft here first, but do not miss deadline.
-
H&F has a record of cancelling first time contraventions here especially if you were accessing a local facility.
A polite ask should probably get this cancelled. But did you go back through the restriction the other way?
On the old forum I helped someone get four PCNs cancelled for going to and fro I think the same soft play place.
I will draft up a polite request for this to be cancelled not had much success in the past when I have done it.
I must have taken the route via Townmead Road from Wandworth bridge which I believe doesn't have any restriction. The road look similar from the roundabout near the soft play center.
A few things that have come to my mind:
1) When approaching Imperial Road from Townmead Road (coming from Wandsworth Bridge) - the Signage is so much more clear as they have a restriction map of the road and roundabout - see screenshot but when coming from the other side of the roundabout there is no such sign.
2) From the north side Townmead Road (coming from imperial wharf) There is no placement of a restriction sign on the ENTRANCE of Imperial road, rather it is on the Townmead Road so for people not familiar with the road it seems that Imperial Road is straight ahead (see 2nd Screenshot)
I'm not sure if i've explained the above two points clearly.
@stamfordman - how can I see your old posts from the previous sites - are there any archived copies available - thank you?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
H&F has a record of cancelling first time contraventions here especially if you were accessing a local facility.
A polite ask should probably get this cancelled. But did you go back through the restriction the other way?
On the old forum I helped someone get four PCNs cancelled for going to and fro I think the same soft play place.
-
From this map you van see the camera which caught you and the extent of the LTN
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/clean-air-neighbourhoods/south-fulham-clean-air-neighbourhood
At what point did you enter the green area? That is where the signs should be located.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jCZvgXLrrNjvHrST8
The signage at the roundabout imperial Road/Townmead Road junction is here
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oKyErcHhT5ouiZ786
Thanks John for your reply.
I took this route : https://maps.app.goo.gl/VHAvK2NvyFWuy15X6
I just noticed the sign for Imperial Road from your 3rd link, I feel it is a bit sneaky to put it there rather than the entrance of Imperial Road i.e I took a right on that roundabout from your 3rd screenshot.
The roads looks so normal and I must have been concentrating more on the satnav rather the the signage and I honestly missed all the signs.
-
From this map you van see the camera which caught you and the extent of the LTN
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/transport-and-roads/clean-air-neighbourhoods/south-fulham-clean-air-neighbourhood
At what point did you enter the green area? That is where the signs should be located.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/jCZvgXLrrNjvHrST8
The signage at the roundabout imperial Road/Townmead Road junction is here
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oKyErcHhT5ouiZ786
-
Hello everyone,
I use to use the pepipoo with great success and was sad to see it close.
I just received a PCN from Hammersmith & Fulham council for:
Contravention Description: Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (m) motor vehicles
Location: Imperial Rd NWbnd - NW of Fulmead St
I did a search on this site and couldnt see many matches for the above PCN, which I was suprised about as I feel that this could be a common issue with a lot of drivers.
My reason for driving on this road was that I took my children to the Soft Play nearby (Gambado Chelsea, 7 Station Court, Townmead Road, SW6 2PY) and when I entered Imperial Road from the roundabout I did no see any signs of restrictions, i was surprised to receive the PCN through the post.
I'm not from the area so not familiar with the roads and restrictions.
Do I have any reasonable ground to appeal?
[attachment deleted by admin]