Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Mor2488 on January 26, 2025, 09:25:13 pm
-
Thank you Hippocrates! I'm PM you back.
-
Hold fire. I'll PM you as this is technical. I am offering to represent you free. I say Tribunal time.
First seen at Wed, 15 Jan 2025 9:06
Issued at Wed, 15 Jan 2025 9:06
The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 very soon. Please pay £130.00 now.
You have already made representations for this PCN and we replied on Tue, 18 Mar 2025. You cannot make representations twice
The usual threats and error re date of NOR. And wrong date of issue of the PCN. And failure to consider.
I have taken a full screenshot for future reference. Please take your own.
This Musketeer, at least, has won the last 8 out of 8 apart from the other two. ;D
I also have a novel technical argument v the PCN itself. and this will be tested very soon.
-
I’m going to submit my reply tomorrow. Just wanted to do a final check in case anyone has any advice. Either way the forum has already been invaluable so I have plenty to go on already.
Before submitting post your draft reps here for any final comments.
-
I’m going to submit my reply tomorrow. Just wanted to do a final check in case anyone has any advice. Either way the forum has already been invaluable so I have plenty to go on already.
-
Hi all,
Thanks for your help on the witness statement. I submitted that successfully and it's gone back to the rejection of my representations stage. Photos of the letter from the council below.
Looking at their initial rejection, they've made points about the signage of the restriction but nothing on the incorrect dates on the council portal. I assume it's a pretty templated response.
Given they're not offering the reduced rate on the fine any more I think there's nothing to be lost by going to tribunal. And it sounds like from your previous case with the same council Hippocrates there's a reasonable chance I'll be successful.
Any advice on what to include in the paperwork? Just the same explanation I gave for my initial representations? Any other advice on how best to approach this?
Thank you again for your continued support!
(https://i.imgur.com/CXIBddH.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/yrAnX0S.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/GMuA3td.jpeg)
-
Fantastic, thank you Hippocrates and John U.K.!
-
For the process see this:
https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/charge-certificate-cases-under-the-traffic-management-act-2004-no-original-notic/
-
Keep all receipts. Wait for the Order for Recovery and tick the appropriate box. Sign it in front of a solicitor or court officer.
-
Hi team. I didn't hear anything back from Lambeth but just received this in the post:
(https://i.imgur.com/KvYAYSz.jpeg)
They said they'd come back to my challenge within 28 days but that passed long ago so perhaps they issued a rejection that never reached me and then when they didn't receive a reply they sent this? Alternatively they just messed up and issued this incorrectly.
Any suggestions on how to proceed? Obviously I want to flag that they seem to have just ignored my challenge. Do I take this up with Lambeth themselves or escalate elsewhere?
Thank you in advance!
EDIT - realised I could check on the online portal. It says that they replied to my challenge on the 18th March, so I assume they think they sent me a rejection then and that I never replied to it. But I haven't received anything in the post before this letter and nothing by email either. I have an email receipt of my challenge and nothing after that.
-
Thanks Hippocrates, that makes sense.
Submitted! Will let you know how I get on.
-
Thank you both! This is fantastic.
Ok to attach the photos of the signs or lack of too? I assume that's useful to support the argument.
I would leave out your proof of the signs - let them prove the adequacy/their case.
-
Thank you both! This is fantastic.
Ok to attach the photos of the signs or lack of too? I assume that's useful to support the argument.
-
Add this too *
(1. Go to the website: www.lambeth.gov.uk/mypcn
2. Skip the chat box.
3. Make a pdf of this and attach the screenshot. No contravention)
*Dear Lambeth
I make this collateral challenge too. A motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from a Council as to what is required to be paid and when. Your website fails in this regard as proved by the attached screenshot. Therefore, please cancel the PCN as this plays fast and loose with the statutory process.
-
Shove it up them !
-
"Cancel", not "dismiss"
Thank you! Will update. Otherwise does it look ok?
-
That's fantastic, thank you Hippocrates! If you hadn't pointed it could I could well have read the website and thought I had until 16th Feb to pay £65 when by my reckoning the fee would actually have increased to £195 by that point.
If you have some wording to include that would be great.
How does this sound for challenge on signage?
I challenge the notice on the grounds of inadequate signage as to the restriction concerned.
There are two entrances to the restricted area on Telferscot Road, one from Emmanuel Road and one from Burnbury Road. Both involve turning off a main road onto Telferscot Road which is the minor road. If entering from Emmanuel Road there are two signs, back to back, placed perpendicular to both directions of travel on that main road which outline the restriction. This makes the restriction clear before turning onto the road.
Identical perpendicular signs are also in place for the same restriction on nearby Scholars Road.
However when entering from Burnbury Road, as my car did, no such sign exists. The only signs in place are parallel to the direction of travel, making them hard to see until you've already entered the restriction.
The placing of these signs perpendicular to the direction of travel at one end of the restriction shows that the Council believes they are required to secure "adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road" (The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders Regs 1996, Section 18, Para (1)(a)). Therefore by omitting such signage from the Burnbury Road entrance the Council has failed in this duty.
The Council should therefore dismiss the notice.
"Cancel", not "dismiss"
-
That's fantastic, thank you Hippocrates! If you hadn't pointed it could I could well have read the website and thought I had until 16th Feb to pay £65 when by my reckoning the fee would actually have increased to £195 by that point.
If you have some wording to include that would be great.
How does this sound for challenge on signage?
I challenge the notice on the grounds of inadequate signage as to the restriction concerned.
There are two entrances to the restricted area on Telferscot Road, one from Emmanuel Road and one from Burnbury Road. Both involve turning off a main road onto Telferscot Road which is the minor road. If entering from Emmanuel Road there are two signs, back to back, placed perpendicular to both directions of travel on that main road which outline the restriction. This makes the restriction clear before turning onto the road.
Identical perpendicular signs are also in place for the same restriction on nearby Scholars Road.
However when entering from Burnbury Road, as my car did, no such sign exists. The only signs in place are parallel to the direction of travel, making them hard to see until you've already entered the restriction.
The placing of these signs perpendicular to the direction of travel at one end of the restriction shows that the Council believes they are required to secure "adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road" (The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders Regs 1996, Section 18, Para (1)(a)). Therefore by omitting such signage from the Burnbury Road entrance the Council has failed in this duty.
The Council should therefore dismiss the notice.
-
The correct date is 3rd January. I won a case on this recently. Please do your own draft re the signage and I will provide a technical one later.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/motorbike-52m-pcn-lambeth/msg41795/#msg41795
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2240362722
Appellant Ian Prideaux
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM KY15HXG
PCN Details
PCN LJ2877492A
Contravention date 15 Jun 2024
Contravention time 18:27:00
Contravention location Larkhall Rise
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The Appellant appeared in person and was represented by Mr Morgan. Having heard the Appeal I reserved my decision to give further consideration to the rather detailed procedural and technical issues raised. I directed the Appellant to produce a chronological summary which has proved to be of assistance.
The Appellant has produced in evidence a copy of The Lambeth (Moving Traffic Restrictions) Order 2024 coming into force on the27th April 2024 which provides that “ all previous Orders are hereby revoked in their entirety.” This must include the 2023 Order relied on by the Council. However it seems to me highly probable that the 2024 Order would re-enact the restriction based on the “map-based schedule” and that if the Appellant is to challenge order relied on by the Council on this basis the onus is on him to produce a complete, not a partial, copy of it.
The main challenge lies on procedural grounds, In bare summary the Appellant submits that the Council’s website was giving incorrect and/or confusing information regarding payment dates, and that it was still showing a demand for payment after an appeal had been lodged. It seems to me that even if the Statutory notices are in themselves technically correct what is shown on the Council’s website should be in accordance with those notices; and that if it is not, it inevitably has the effect of undermining what is sted in the Notices. In the present case I see no reason to doubt the Appellant’s evidence, supported by screenshots, as to whet was shown on the website at various times These include a statement that “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Tue,16 Jul 2024. Please pay £65.00 now”. The correct date (the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the PCN) is in fact the 17th July. There is a subsequent statement that “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Mon,5 Aug 2024. Please pay £65.00 now. The Rejection Notice is dated the 16th July and states correctly that the Appellant has 28 days from that date before a Charge certificate may be issued. The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from a Council as to what is required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious enough for the Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge. In addition, I agree with the decision of my learned colleague Mr Greenslade in the case cited by the Appellant, 2240178326 Maurice Fisher v London Borough of Hackney, in which he sted that “it is not open to the Enforcement Authority to seek any sum beyond the prescribed amount or any amount at all whilst an appellant is appealing to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.”
The Appeal is therefore allowed.
-
Thank you both!
Please screenshot the payment status page and report back as it will be wrong most probably.
Is this the correct page? I can see the date for the price to increase to £130 appears to be wrong. I believe it would go up to £130 after 14 days on 3rd Feb rather than 16th Feb as stated.
(https://i.imgur.com/rBIVbVt.png)
-
Please screenshot the payment status page and report back as it will be wrong most probably.
-
Yes, you do have reasonable grounds to challenge the PCN on the basis of inadequate signage. You should emphasise that the council have placed warning signs on the street at the other end. Councils are under a duty to place adequate signage to show the presence of traffic restrictions under Regulation 18 of LATOR : -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
The problem is who defines 'adequate'. Hopefully if you take the matter to London Tribunals an adjudicator will agree with you.
However, be aware that councils typically reject about >95% of all challenges they receive because they know from previous experience that almost all people then just cough-up. It's called "gaming the system", and London councils game it ruthlessly. The only unbiased place for a decision is London Tribunals, but you have to risk the full PCN penalty if you take them there.
If it were me, I'd take them to LT, but it's not my money at risk. Others may know of a 'technical' appeal based on Lambeth mismanagement of the enforcement process. These can win an adjudication on their own regardless of the alleged contravention, so wait a bit but don't miss the deadlines on the PCN.
-
Hi everyone. Firstly thanks for the time everyone puts into this forum! I've used it previously to gather advice based on others' cases and successfully challenged an unfair PCN. This one I'm less sure about, but having read several similar but not identical 53J cases on here I'm interested in opinions about my case.
The council PCN states that on On 15/01/25 I drove down Telferscot Road SW12 0HW at 09:06, contravening a no entry restriction that's in place from 08:15-09:15 (I believe due to a school on the road). Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/oyLoSydoNqfYgRni6
The council sent a PCN notice dated 20/01/25:
(https://i.imgur.com/czvMSV6.jpeg)
The Council evidence is CCTV footage which shows my car entering the road and passing the signs.
I had a look at the online legal docs outlining the restriction and it all looks correct to my layman eye. The order is a written doc with a supporting map. There's an online portal to view traffic restrictions which is actually pretty good, kudos to the council: https://streets.appyway.com/lambeth
The reason I'm thinking about challenging the PCN is because of signage. When approaching the road, the signs showing the restriction are parallel to the road you travel on before turning into that road, making them harder to spot:
(https://i.imgur.com/pQXrWI2.jpeg)
If you enter from the bottom of the road, off Emmanuel Road, they've helpfully put signs that are perpendicular to the direction of travel which are more visible:
(https://i.imgur.com/xcYPBdy.jpeg)
They also have the same signs, perpendicular to the direction of travel, on nearby Scholars Road which has the same restrictions.
However where my car entered the top of the road, from Burnbury Road no equivalent sign is in place. This is where the sign would be, on the post with the CCTV camera on it:
(https://i.imgur.com/OH11fe7.jpeg)
I'd welcome thoughts on whether you think there's reasonable grounds to challenge here, or if it's unlikely to be successful. Thank you in advance!