Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Al on July 17, 2025, 09:06:13 am
-
Just to close this, I decided to pay the discounted PCN. Thank you for all your help.
-
Once the NtK is sent the "discounted sum is not available "
Is correct in law because the regulations mandate the 'discount' for a 14-day period at 50% of the penalty.
Thereafter, when authorities offer payment terms with unsuccessful reps these more often than not offer a sum identical to the discounted sum, but strictly speaking the 'discount' only arises with a PCN in its initial stages.
-
I combined JohnUK and MrMustard for my challenge:
Reason for appeal: 'I was not at the location on the day'
This PCN alleges the vehicle was parked o/s 85 Derwent Road. As your own photos clearly show it was not parked outside or near 85 Derwent Road.
You will be aware that a PCN must show the correct location. I was not waiting at the location alleged on the PCN and accordingly the vehicle was not in contravention. As it does not, I look forward to receiving your early cancellation.
I also attached an image of the traffic order highlighting the location of 85 Derwent Road (and cropped out fox Lane 85)
The reasoning, I parked there over night. Im not justifying as i accept i am at fault, but It is often busy and other do it too, there were 2 on this occasion. I have parked there many times, as it happened on this occasion I was running 10 minutes late saw the CEO drive off.
Once the NtK is sent the "discounted sum is not available "
-
We still don't know why you were there and for how long
-
Let's see your actual submission pl.
-
I have gone for the simplified version and submitted a challenge.
Did you write O/S 85 Derwent Road or just plain Derwent Road in your challenge?
I am leaning towards paying the reduced fine.[/i]
I sympathise with your quandary.
On the one hand, there is the wrong location and the fact that in rejecting there is a a 'failure to consider' the specific point you made about location.
On the other, an adjudicator might judtifiably consider, in light of the fact that the vehicle was parked on DYL in Derwent Road, that the foregoing points were de minimis and refuse your appeal.
The 'double or quits' gamble has become a lot more serious since the huge increase in London penalty charges. I do not know if Enfield is still a London Borough that routinely re-offers the discount if it rejects reps against the NtO.
At the moment, I'd be inclined to payment, but see what others say.
-
Unfortunately, but as I expected, Enfield NSL are not prepared to cancel the PCN. They plainly state the location as Derwent Road and no mention to the house number. It feels like a generic response to a 01 contravention challenge with no acknowledgement to my content. (Council response (https://imgur.com/a/NhNbnim))
As I understand it, the next stage is a formal appeal to the council and if that fails it can move on to the tribunal.
As I am now out of the country on holiday and with only the location to challenge. I am leaning towards paying the reduced fine.
-
Thanks for your suggestions. I have gone for the simplified version and submitted a challenge. Now for time to take its course.
-
I agree with HCA
let them assert location was O/S 85 Derwent.
-
Ok, change location to 85 derwent rd.
-
With respect Mr M, because unless the specifics and effect of 'o/s 85' are included then the council would be free to simply interpret 'at the location' as being on the yellow lines in the photo in Derwent Street. Which the car was.
We need them to respond to 'o/s 85' and IMO the issue and effect of 'o/s 85' must be included.
-
AI is not an adequate substitute for the real intelligence of a human. Why were you stopped there anyway?
All you need is:
I was not waiting at the location alleged on the pcn and accordingly the vehicle was not in contravention. Please cancel the PCN.
-
(Please note: GSV accepted my edit and searching on '85 Derwent Road, London' now goes to the correct location.)
-----------------------
With the help of my AI friend how is this for an appeal?
If possible, would it be worth adding image evidence such as the traffic order map highlighting the actual 85 Derwent Road
Not my style - for the initial challenge I'd go for something much simpler, perhaps along the lines of:
Dear Enfield,
re PCN EF11590749 issued 17th July 2025.
This PCN alleges the vehicle was parked o/s 85 Derwent Road. As the your own photos clearly show it was not parked outside or near 85 Derwent Road.
You will be aware that a PCN must show the correct location. As it does not, I look forward to receiving your early cancellation.
Yours etc.
See what others say, but Enfield's expected rejection might be helpful.
I comment below on AI's draft, but generally it spoonfeeds the Council info, rather than making them work. (By the way at this stage it's a challenge, rather than an appeal.)
I am writing to appeal against the issuance of challenge PCN EF11590749, issued on 17/07/25, for an alleged contravention on Derwent Road N13 os 85.
Upon reviewing the notice and the location details provided, I must raise concern regarding the accuracy of the location as stated in the PCN. The alleged contravention is reported to have occurred “outside 85 Derwent Road.” However, searching Google Maps for '85 Derwent Road, London' house number 85 is not situated on Derwent Road, but on Fox Lane, which intersects with Derwent Road. The house referenced (number 85) is positioned on the corner and has its official address on Fox Lane, not Derwent Road. Furthermore, number reveals 85 Derwent Road is located further down the street and was not in proximity to the location nowhere near where your own photos show the car to be.the alleged contravention took place. This discrepancy in the recorded location raises doubt about the correctness of the PCN, as the stated location does not match where the vehicle was parked.
As such, I respectfully request that this PCN be reviewed and cancelled on the grounds of incorrect or misleading location information, which affects the validity of the charge and fails to clearly identify the place of the alleged contravention.
Throw the ball into their court and see what they come back with.Also see what others here say. I see that the Council photos helpfully do not show the white house at 85 Fox Lane.
-
With the help of my AI friend how is this for an appeal?
If possible, would it be worth adding image evidence such as the traffic order map highlighting the actual 85 Derwent Road
I am writing to appeal against the issuance of PCN EF11590749, issued on 17/07/25, for an alleged contravention on Derwent Road N13 os 85.
Upon reviewing the notice and the location details provided, I must raise concern regarding the accuracy of the location as stated in the PCN. The alleged contravention is reported to have occurred “outside 85 Derwent Road.” However, house number 85 is not situated on Derwent Road, but on Fox Lane, which intersects with Derwent Road. The house referenced (number 85) is positioned on the corner and has its official address on Fox Lane, not Derwent Road.
Furthermore, number 85 Derwent Road is located further down the street and was not in proximity to the location where the alleged contravention took place. This discrepancy in the recorded location raises doubt about the correctness of the PCN, as the stated location does not match where the vehicle was parked.
As such, I respectfully request that this PCN be reviewed and cancelled on the grounds of incorrect or misleading location information, which affects the validity of the charge and fails to clearly identify the place of the alleged contravention.
-
OP, this is the informal stage only.
The process:
If informal reps are rejected then the authority may serve a Notice to Owner on the registered keeper, in this case you;
The RK may make formal representations and only if these are rejected in a Notice of Rejection would the option of adjudication come in. Many authorities re-offer the discount even with unsuccessful reps.
-
If you read the two location lines separately they are true so an adjudicator will probably not cancel for that especially as the vehicle is on doible yellows.
whilst you are correct in reading both lines but I suggest an address should be read as a whole. there in "Derwent road OS No 85" which is not the correct location
it could also be argued the OP was "Derwent road OS No 3" as there is also a door numbered "3"
-
Yes, I am the registered keeper.
That's a good spot on the location. Although on Derwent Road not at the specified number. However, I assume the council would reject the appeal. This leaves it to the adjudicators discretion. I will do some research later on the tribunal. A slight issue is Im off on holiday soon so won't be able to recieve postal communications.
-
We're not there yet. I note the point but the OP would be entitled to put this point at the informal stage and while as regards the PCN they may well be on separate lines adjudication would be against the RK, an NOR and a NTO ..and where and how this info would be presented in the latter is an unknown at present.
OP, IMO it would help to know whether you are the registered keeper before thinking how, if at all, to present this issue.
-
If you read the two location lines separately they are true so an adjudicator will probably not cancel for that especially as the vehicle is on doible yellows.
-
85 Derwent Road (as per PCN) is here
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ioRm1Hh2xNf6fWtJ6
Weirdly, GSV won't let you put the marker on 85 - one has to use 83 or 85 (likewise for search).
GSV search for 85, Derwent Road produces a marker on 85, Fox Lane.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/N8UDH6U64YDDd7gE6
(I've submitted an edit.)
I thought wrong location, no doubt confirmed by Council photos, was fatal to PCN?
EDIT:
The confusion for the CEO presumably arose because the white door of 85, Fox Lane is in Derwent Road and unhelpfully marked with just a plain '85'.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/hKyZtVhv4J5edZNM9
-
Here's the traffic order map.
(https://i.imgur.com/1g5IZgZ.png)
-
You weren't parked o/s 85 Derwent Road and if you were then there aren't any waiting restrictions.
85 Fox Lane is another matter.
-
A quick look at GSV shows the double-yellow lines were extended at some point between GSV of 2022 and GSV 2020 which shows them as not going so far into the street: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/zVTL8RzBFJZksVvr6
-
Here is the PCN https://imgur.com/a/p4oSso7 (https://imgur.com/a/p4oSso7)
And GSV (https://maps.app.goo.gl/veZhLTiCDywjsrRy7?g_st=ac)
I know I shouldn't have parked there and will accept paying the fine if it comes to it.
-
They can paint lines wherever they like and do not need a reason, but the do need a valid traffic order. I think your only hope is that the traffic order might be written in such a way that it doesn't match the new situation (perhaps specifying that the lines are a certain distance from a junction that isn't now a junction), but that's a long shot. We certainly can't help you without knowing where this is, so you will need to show us the PCN.
-
Lines are underpinned by the law, motorists can't decide for themselves that a parking or speeding restriction is no longer required, that way leads to anarchy.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
Post the PCN with no redactions.
It doesn't sound hopeful though unless there's no traffic order for the yellow lines.
-
Hi,
I haven't listed the details as this may be applicable to any LTN.
I was wondering if there is any grounds to challenge a PCN I received. Contravention code 01. I parked on a double yellow line. It used to be a minor road joining a major road but now is a dead end because an LTN has been placed at the end of the minor road. The road blocks are planters with a bollard to allow cyclists through.
The double yellow would have initially been to keep the junction clear. Now its not a junction does that matter? Can they essentially be arbitrarily placed? The only grounds I can think are to keep clear a turning space for the dead end.
Many thanks,
Al