Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Pcnninjagirl on April 24, 2025, 09:17:48 pm
-
Final update, thanks to everyone who helped me, stamfordman 🙏 and pastmybestt 🤩. Couldn’t have done it without you. My sister is chuffed, she’s a ticket collector, so, I’ll be back in the future😂
https://imgur.com/a/YLR0Gl8
-
They mentioned the sign was there with round red and horizontal white line. So, I suppose they addressed my concern, albeit, the sign can’t be seen.
Anyone else with input please, next stage is to appeal to the tribunal I guess.
I think they've handed you a win here. Their site said it was on hold and you could submit a challenge - she did so and they pretty much ignored it saying they cancelled the charge certificate but this was established anyway.
But did she just send what I wrote?
See what others say but although the discount is on offer I'd take it to the tribunal.
(https://i.ibb.co/chwv6bR6/image.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Q3wGdq2m/image.png)
-
I think they've handed you a win here. Their site said it was on hold and you could submit a challenge - she did so and they pretty much ignored it saying they cancelled the charge certificate but this was established anyway.
But did she just send what I wrote?
See what others say but although the discount is on offer I'd take it to the tribunal.
(https://i.ibb.co/chwv6bR6/image.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Q3wGdq2m/image.png)
-
She’s received a reply, please see below. Basically, to pay up and the sign was there. Don’t think they even looked at the pictures enclosed.
https://ibb.co/5hrY5kPg
https://ibb.co/DyGM4KJ
https://ibb.co/GvHdkydL
-
Yes they did invite challenge by email so it should be fine. Make sure the PCN number is in the subject field along with wording such as challenge to PCN no xxxxxx
and repeat details in body of text.
Dear Harrow,
thanks for giving me the opportunity to challenge PCN no xxxxxxxxx and I do so on the grounds that the no entry signage could not be seen on my approach from the left, where I only entered the mouth of Grove Hill Road to turn around as seen in your video.
I have been back to the location and made a video walking to Grove Hill Road, and the left-hand no entry sign is not positioned to be seen by a driver turning left.
I enclose pictures of the approach from the video for your attention.
I trust you will agree that no contravention occurred owing to inadequate signage and look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
-
Thanks, their online one won’t allow it, I’ll get her to email it. Will update once they reply.
-
Sorry we were just clearing up a possible issue that isn't now relevant.
You can send the challenge I did and attach the stills from your video I posted if their online system allows this.
-
I’m completely lost now with you guys talking about legislations 🥴
What exactly, should I get my sister to do please from here? Copy your letter and pictures and send to the council, challenging the penalty?
-
I don't know the date of the quote stamf gave from an adjudicator about the need fr a TMO. In 2016 when the TSRGD was updated the no entry sign was missed off the s36 sign list So a breech of them was no longer a breech of the RTA 1988 and became a local TMO required issue. This error was corrected at a later date circa 2020 IIRC
Ah that clears it up. The case was in 2018
2180301985
The Appellant’s case, which I have heard from her in person, is essentially that she merely executed a U-turn and did not contravene the No Entry signs.
On looking at the CCTV evidence I am unable to be satisfied that the vehicle did pass the signs, at least to a degree more than the legally insignificant amount which would attract the principle of de minimis. The Council , relying as it does on the signs alone, must prove that the signs were clearly passed, not merely the road markings. The Appeal is therefore allowed.
[ For future reference it would appear that by virtue of Schedule 3 Part 5 Para 1 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 the sign must be supported by (in this case) a TMO. The sign in question is not specified as a s36 Traffic Sign - column 6 of Schedule 3 part 2 specifies the applicable provisions of Part 4 only as 2 and 4, not 1 which is the application of s 36. If the Council is aware of authority or legislation to the contrary it might be wise to refer to it in any future case of this type]
-
I don't know the date of the quote stamf gave from an adjudicator about the need fr a TMO. In 2016 when the TSRGD was updated the no entry sign was missed off the s36 sign list So a breech of them was no longer a breech of the RTA 1988 and became a local TMO required issue. This error was corrected at a later date circa 2020 IIRC
But yes there was no chance to see the sign positioned as it is
-
Here are some screenshots you can attach with the representation showing the approach.
(https://i.ibb.co/rR5B6ZZ7/Screenshot-2025-05-21-at-17-44-14.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/5htRfDhG/Screenshot-2025-05-21-at-17-44-19.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/FqnwQsZ3/Screenshot-2025-05-21-at-17-44-22.png)
-
Thanks Stamfordman. I’ll get sister to email them with your suggested challenge, unless anyone else, has another input.
I think there is a good case.
I've looked at the tribunal and there are cases refused where drivers have turned right and u-turned, as clearly they would have seen signs. Once you go over the road lines and past signs the contravention is made out.
There is one case where the adjudicator couldn't be sure the line was breached.
But your video showing the approach from the left is convincing as the nearside sign is not pointing towards traffic.
An adjudicator also posted this which someone may be able to make sense of:
[ For future reference it would appear that by virtue of Schedule 3 Part 5 Para 1 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 the sign must be supported by (in this case) a TMO. The sign in question is not specified as a s36 Traffic Sign - column 6 of Schedule 3 part 2 specifies the applicable provisions of Part 4 only as 2 and 4, not 1 which is the application of s 36. If the Council is aware of authority or legislation to the contrary it might be wise to refer to it in any future case of this type]
Anyway I think a challenge should be sent soonest and I would send:
Dear Harrow,
thanks for giving me the opportunity to challenge the PCN and I do so on the grounds that the no entry signage could not be seen on my approach from the left, where I only entered the mouth of Grove Hill Road to turn around as seen in your video.
I have been back to the location and made a video walking to Grove Hill Road, and the left-hand no entry sign is not positioned to be seen by a driver turning left.
I enclose a picture.
I trust you will agree that no contravention occurred owing to inadequate signage and look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
---------
(https://i.ibb.co/JF3vysxg/IMG-2272-ezgif-com-optimize.gif)
-
I think there is a good case.
I've looked at the tribunal and there are cases refused where drivers have turned right and u-turned, as clearly they would have seen signs. Once you go over the road lines and past signs the contravention is made out.
There is one case where the adjudicator couldn't be sure the line was breached.
But your video showing the approach from the left is convincing as the nearside sign is not pointing towards traffic.
An adjudicator also posted this which someone may be able to make sense of:
[ For future reference it would appear that by virtue of Schedule 3 Part 5 Para 1 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 the sign must be supported by (in this case) a TMO. The sign in question is not specified as a s36 Traffic Sign - column 6 of Schedule 3 part 2 specifies the applicable provisions of Part 4 only as 2 and 4, not 1 which is the application of s 36. If the Council is aware of authority or legislation to the contrary it might be wise to refer to it in any future case of this type]
Anyway I think a challenge should be sent soonest and I would send:
Dear Harrow,
thanks for giving me the opportunity to challenge the PCN and I do so on the grounds that the no entry signage could not be seen on my approach from the left, where I only entered the mouth of Grove Hill Road to turn around as seen in your video.
I have been back to the location and made a video walking to Grove Hill Road, and the left-hand no entry sign is not positioned to be seen by a driver turning left.
I enclose a picture.
I trust you will agree that no contravention occurred owing to inadequate signage and look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
---------
(https://i.ibb.co/JF3vysxg/IMG-2272-ezgif-com-optimize.gif)
-
It’s been like this a week now, think they’ve just reduced it and not communicated it. I guess, my sister can email in a challenge and potentially go to tribunal if need be.
I feel the sign, when coming from where she drove from, isn’t clear.
They've put it on hold and say they'll accept a challenge.
The tribunal can be hard to search - I'll have a look tomorrow.
(https://i.imgur.com/KsyAkjm.png)
-
They've put it on hold and say they'll accept a challenge.
The tribunal can be hard to search - I'll have a look tomorrow.
(https://i.imgur.com/KsyAkjm.png)
-
Checked the register for Harrow council and that particular road, nothing I can rely on but I’ll broaden my search tomorrow.
We've seen this one before - question is this manoeuvre a breach of the no entry given the visibility of the approach from the left - I don't think it is but can't recall outcomes. We should check the register.
(https://i.ibb.co/8L2XJLHG/har1-ezgif-com-optimize.gif)
-
No, I wrote to the council that the initial pcn wasn’t received. So they adjusted the penalty. However I feel, my sister might have grounds to appeal. What do you think about the signage not being adequate from where she drove from?
-
Has the statutory declaration been sent? it would seem that it has been accepted and the next step is the councils in resending the PCN wait for that
-
We've seen this one before - question is this manoeuvre a breach of the no entry given the visibility of the approach from the left - I don't think it is but can't recall outcomes. We should check the register.
(https://i.ibb.co/8L2XJLHG/har1-ezgif-com-optimize.gif)
-
Another thing, Harrow has reduced it from £195 to £65.
-
Could someone help me determine if my sister should appeal please. She didn’t notice the sign of no left turn and so used that entrance to turn around. I went there and sure enough, the sign wasn’t facing the motorists. What do you think please?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18FZOGj-EpFKWUatdNNUUXRgDiFzPieYr/view?usp=drivesdk
-
Thanks, I’ll check it for her daily and see when it goes up.
-
Process is covered here:
https://www.ftla.uk/announcements/charge-certificates-london-local-authorities-and-tfl-act-2003-london-local-autho/
-
Fine, she's got the Charge Certificate. Don't pay it !! You cannot submit representations against this, that time has gone. As I said before, when the amount on their website goes up by £10, the debt is registered and a Statutory Declaration can be submitted stating reps were submitted against the PCN but no notice of rejection was not received.
-
She received this on Saturday. Looks like a photocopy and address is correct on it. Any advice on how to proceed now please?
https://ibb.co/5hcqYmyV
https://ibb.co/TMLDRRzP
She challenged it. I’ll get her to call them and Monday and find out the address they’re sending it to.
Fine, but did she get the address the council are using to send out the statutory documents ? Two have gone astray now. It could be an error of the council when transcribing the address provided by the DVLA, to use in their enforcement process.
Don't forget to keep an eye on the debt amount. As soon as it gets to £205, it means the debt is registered at TEC and a Statutory Declaration can be submitted. Or you can ring TEC at intervals of 10-14 days. In-time SDs are accepted automatically, but if you get out-of-time, the enforcing authority can object, and you don't want that to happen.
-
She challenged it. I’ll get her to call them and Monday and find out the address they’re sending it to.
Fine, but did she get the address the council are using to send out the statutory documents ? Two have gone astray now. It could be an error of the council when transcribing the address provided by the DVLA, to use in their enforcement process.
Don't forget to keep an eye on the debt amount. As soon as it gets to £205, it means the debt is registered at TEC and a Statutory Declaration can be submitted. Or you can ring TEC at intervals of 10-14 days. In-time SDs are accepted automatically, but if you get out-of-time, the enforcing authority can object, and you don't want that to happen.
-
She challenged it. I’ll get her to call them and Monday and find out the address they’re sending it to.
Fine, but did she get the address the council are using to send out the statutory documents ? Two have gone astray now. It could be an error of the council when transcribing the address provided by the DVLA, to use in their enforcement process.
-
Fine, but did she get the address the council are using to send out the statutory documents ? Two have gone astray now. It could be an error of the council when transcribing the address provided by the DVLA, to use in their enforcement process.
-
She checked her v5c today and her address is correct. She’s contacted the council to say, no post received.
Only noticed the please call me because she got a pcn on her windscreen yesterday and went to check it online with her Reg and found another from March.
Her option now, with a Charge Certificate apparently served, (although not received), is to wait until the council register the debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. When they do this, they will send her an Order for Recovery, and add £10 to the CC amount. The £10 is the TEC registration fee. You can therefore check when they have done this by going onto their website to see when the amount increases by £10. Of course, she should receive the paper OfR by post, but her mail does seem to be going astray. Are you absolutely sure she hasn't changed address since the contravention date ? It might be worth checking with the council what address they are using.
When the debt is registered, she can submit a Statutory Declaration that she submitted representations, but did not receive a notice of rejection. The matter will then be reverted to the "reps" stage, and the council must ask the adjudicator at London Tribunals what they must now do. So don't cough-up yet.
-
Her option now, with a Charge Certificate apparently served, (although not received), is to wait until the council register the debt at the Traffic Enforcement Centre. When they do this, they will send her an Order for Recovery, and add £10 to the CC amount. The £10 is the TEC registration fee. You can therefore check when they have done this by going onto their website to see when the amount increases by £10. Of course, she should receive the paper OfR by post, but her mail does seem to be going astray. Are you absolutely sure she hasn't changed address since the contravention date ? It might be worth checking with the council what address they are using.
When the debt is registered, she can submit a Statutory Declaration that she submitted representations, but did not receive a notice of rejection. The matter will then be reverted to the "reps" stage, and the council must ask the adjudicator at London Tribunals what they must now do. So don't cough-up yet.
-
Thanks for the input. I just got my sister to check her v5c and her address is correct on it. She got her tax reminder by post alright too not long ago.
She didn’t receive anything by post from the council unfortunately.
What are her options now please?
You need to set your Drive link to "Public". At the moment it's "Private" and cannot be opened.
The £195 is the amount for a Charge Certificate, (PCN penalty - £130, plus CC surcharge 50% - £65 = £195). The PCN is for a moving traffic contravention, so the PCN would have been sent by post to the address on the V5C for the vehicle. So are you absolutely sure the V5C address is correct, because it seems you have also missed receiving the Charge Certificate, the second statutory document in the process ? Is the address on the V5C now the same as it was on the contravention date of 7th March ? I suggest you check the V5C carefully.
-
Thanks, set to public, hope it works.
-
You need to set your Drive link to "Public". At the moment it's "Private" and cannot be opened.
The £195 is the amount for a Charge Certificate, (PCN penalty - £130, plus CC surcharge 50% - £65 = £195). The PCN is for a moving traffic contravention, so the PCN would have been sent by post to the address on the V5C for the vehicle. So are you absolutely sure the V5C address is correct, because it seems you have also missed receiving the Charge Certificate, the second statutory document in the process ? Is the address on the V5C now the same as it was on the contravention date of 7th March ? I suggest you check the V5C carefully.
-
Hi all,
Pepipoo has been super helpful in the past and really saved me once, so I’m hoping for some guidance again.
My sister has been caught out at my place for parking without displaying a ticket. She rarely comes by during the day as she works full-time, but she popped round yesterday, parked up, forgot to get a ticket—and ended up with one.
While checking online using her reg, she found out she also had another unpaid ticket from March that she had no idea about. That’s actually the main reason for this post, though I’ll include the recent parking one too in case there’s a chance to appeal that as well.
She never received anything in the post. Her V5 and driver’s license are both registered at the correct address.
Here’s the location:
https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.578134,-0.333901,190.04h,-1.56p,4z,wjUXb-ug2GDYGLEt7r_BQg
She was driving down and didn’t immediately notice the restriction sign. By the time she realised, she’d already entered, panicked, and turned out. There's no physical ticket, but there’s a £195 fine pending. She’s already appealed, saying she never received the original notice—despite me telling her to hold off while I looked into it… smh.
Would appreciate any advice on what her next steps should be.
https://ibb.co/4nvKbc7c
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1a4JD81r6QUDGmW0wVo4B6VoXuMsTmWM3/view?usp=drivesdk