Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: ap823 on June 08, 2025, 11:25:52 am
-
My absolute pleasure as ever.
-
Well done @Hippocrates! Many thanks for your help!!
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wvCbvSjR_o4OeKonS24WbYL_yA7S41zz/view).
-
;D 2250350548
-
Rejection of representations against penalty charge notice
3 Where any representations are made under paragraph 1 above but the enforcing authority do not accept that a ground has been established, the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of the said paragraph 1 (in this Schedule referred to as “the notice of rejection”) must—
(a)state that a charge certificate may be served under paragraph 5 below unless before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i)the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to a traffic adjudicator against the penalty charge;
Emboldened text not present.
*****
Appeal filed.
The PCN is invalid as per the attached case because it truncates the period allowed for consideration of representations. Further, the NOR fails to accurately define the period in which to make an appeal.
-
Me stressed? I did 4 hearings there, interspersed with beers at 2.50 euros per half litre. And shot a silly video.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/waltham-forest-pcn-bus-lane-whipps-cross-road/msg78286/#msg78286
Mail received. ;D
-
OMG, @Hippocrates so unfotunate to lose a passport while away, i hope you were not too stressed out because of it! and of course you do not need to apologise!
I will gladly accept your kind offer to represent me. many thanks in advance.
I have also seen your PM and will respond to it shortly.
-
I am very sorry I had not done a draft re the PCN. I was away and then subsequently lost my passport. I am happy to represent you as the PCN is beatable. I will PM you.
-
I have now recieved notice of rejection, included above.
Any opinions if it makes sense to go for tribunal and if so any help drafting a representation is greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
-
I have now recieved notice of rejection, included below.
Could you please advise if it makes sense to go for tribunal and if so any help drafting a representation is greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
(https://i.imgur.com/tlRvQek.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/zwbFMxj.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/juCrlkA.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3MAWgVE.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/af4xI9U.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/lZwsGHO.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/EEGTt5g.jpeg)
-
Yes, they will almost certainly reject your representations.
Do not resubmit that text if you subsequently take it to the tribunal - get someone on here to help you redraft as (I'm afraid to say) what you submitted is a bit of a word salad. It has some elements which can be used but it needs to be presented more coherently and persuasively and with more focus on the potentially winning arguments.
-
Sounds almost like AI wrote it! Did you already submit it?
yes submitted yesterday prior to the 14 day period expiry.
many thanks again for your input, @MrChips.
if I understand correctly, the councils are always rejecting the first representation and the same arguments will need to be presented to the adjudicator? If so, should I change anything in my text?
-
Sounds almost like AI wrote it! Did you already submit it?
-
appeal submitted (1000 character limit on the council website):
1. Excessive & Unlawful Demarcation: Yellow box extends into area physically segregated by traffic island, creating unenforceable zone (Highway Code Rule 174). Rain obscured painted lines, making island the sole visible boundary (evidence attached).
2. Zero Obstruction Proven: Vehicle stopped exclusively within protected island zone to facilitate junction clearance. Video confirms no traffic impediment or safety compromise occurred.
3. De Minimis Nature: Stopping caused no material obstruction – consistent with R (Davies) v Birmingham CC principle.
4. Available Exit: Had I proceeded at 5mph (as permitted), the departing vehicle created sufficient clearance before my exit point. Stopping was unnecessary.
5. Material Timing Inaccuracy: PCN alleges 11:50 violation, but your evidence shows entry at 11:49:44. 16-second discrepancy materially invalidates the alleged offense timing.
PCN void due to unlawful demarcation, de minimis impact, demonstrable exit clearance, evidence inconsistency
-
Thank you for your offer to draft something @Hippocrates, that would be very much appreciated, and thanks to @MrChips for your input.
@Hippocrates, 14 days from the notice is coming up (on Tuesday), shall i send you a draft i've put together for your review?
-
Few thoughts on this:
1) De minimis - you clearly intend to respect the box junction markings, but just slightly misjudge and stop slightly inside. Road conditions probably didn't help, with the rain making the markings more difficult to see. In any case the part you stopped in isn't a true part of the carriageway junction as it's protected by a traffic island.
2) Arguably no offence actually committed as the car on the other side isn't stationary for long before it moves off down the outside, so if you'd actually travelled through the box at a modest speed (around 5mph) by the time you'd reached the other side there would have been space to accommodate your vehicle. Hence you didn't actually have to stop as a clear exit emerged.
3) The PCN says offence committed at 1150 even their own evidence shows 1149.
-
PCN issue: they cannot disregard representations from the date of the notice. I'll do a draft later.
-
Please obtain and post up the video, which is the evidence.
https://vimeo.com/1091571354
Please also post up the How to make represenatations page(s).
(https://i.imgur.com/XdCGDy3.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tPVi4yu.jpeg)
Not sure why you believe the box is too large??
I believe the area I have marked in red on the image below cannot be used by crossing vehicles. why does the yellow box include it?
(https://i.imgur.com/N0Wow5g.jpeg)
-
Please obtain and post up the video, which is the evidence.
Please also post up the How to make represenatations page(s).
Not sure why you believe the box is too large??
-
Hello,
I believe the box junction is unjustifiably large.
Encroaching into the box as alleged has no chance of impacting the crossing traffic.
Please advise on the best next steps.
Many thanks in advance
PCN - 2 pages
(https://i.imgur.com/HSrSlHz.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/nmGHtey.jpeg)
Council Evidence
(https://i.imgur.com/QyU1nCn.jpeg)
Google streetview https://maps.app.goo.gl/MMqNQjqGSKYWM1kX6
Google areal view
(https://i.imgur.com/GJQcUCM.jpeg)