Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Torenaga on July 26, 2025, 11:51:04 pm
-
I think the collateral argument needs to be re-thought. In the cited decision, Adams v LB Havering the issue was the wording which included the use of the term Charge Certificate in the same sentence as making representations.
I think Wandsworth have been smart here. Their PCN does not refer to a CC, even less making representations in this context, as indeed is correct, they simply state what's mandated by the Act i.e. if payment is not made within the 28-day period..a period which is stated beforehand, namely 28 days beginning with the date of issue of the notice.
IMO this is distinguished from the cited decision in such a way that I think there is great doubt as to whether you would succeed on this point.
-
Any other opinions on this?
I just wanted to know before the discount period runs out.
Kind regards
-
I understand Incandescent, of course, nothing is ever 💯. ;D
I will repost the pcn now.
I don't know why it got deleted from flickr.
https://flic.kr/p/2ryb25r
https://flic.kr/p/2rygDGw
Kind regards
-
OP, would you pl repost the PCN as the link no longer works.
-
I'm afraid that we cannot predict the mind of an adjudicator, sorry to say it, except where the circumstances show that there is clearly a slam-dunk win. All signage must be adequate, but unfortunately this is subjective.
Try the words of the Marquis of Montrose.........
"He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small
Who fears to put it to the touch
To win or lose it all"
-
Thank you Incandescent,
This will have to go to the adjudicator now if I don't go for the discount, how likely is it that an adjudicator would accept that as grounds to accept an appeal, I understand it can be hard to give a 100 percent answer on this.
Kind regards
-
Looking at the restriction signs, I think you might care to add that they are absurdly high, and therefore likely to be missed by motorists.
-
Thank you for the reply,Incandescent.
I did think so, it is confusing 😆.
Is there anything in the rejection letter to go on?
Kind regards
-
Hi Everyone,
I finally got a reply back from wandsworth council and they rejected my appeal, I just recieved the letter today, seems a bit of a long time for a reply, or does the 56 day time not apply in this case as from my calculations it has been 59 days from my appeal to them writing a notice of rejection.
I have attached the notice of rejection and would appreciate any opinions on the next step please.
Thanks in advance ;)
https://flic.kr/p/2rxYdDb
https://flic.kr/p/2rxYdD1
https://flic.kr/p/2rxYdC9
https://flic.kr/p/2rxTMPL
https://flic.kr/p/2rxZttG
https://flic.kr/p/2rxZoyh
56 days only applies to responses to formal representations against PCNs issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004. Your PCN was served under the LLA & TfL Act 2003. Yes, legislation on parking and traffic contraventions is a total mess, but don't expect it to be sorted out in your lifetime.
-
Hi Everyone,
I finally got a reply back from wandsworth council and they rejected my appeal, I just recieved the letter today, seems a bit of a long time for a reply, or does the 56 day time not apply in this case as from my calculations it has been 59 days from my appeal to them writing a notice of rejection.
I have attached the notice of rejection and would appreciate any opinions on the next step please.
Thanks in advance ;)
https://flic.kr/p/2rxYdDb
https://flic.kr/p/2rxYdD1
https://flic.kr/p/2rxYdC9
https://flic.kr/p/2rxTMPL
https://flic.kr/p/2rxZttG
https://flic.kr/p/2rxZoyh
-
"Ground: the penalty charge exceeded the amount.
The 2003 Act states that representations may be made on “one or other grounds”. Clearly, your website only allows me to choose one ground. This is a clear ambiguity which must be resolved in the favour of the owner. Furthermore, the PCN states: “If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, the charge may increase to £240.00.” Clearly, the period to which this refers is 28 days from the date of the notice. This flies in the face of paras. 5(1) and (2)(a) as provided at Schedule 1 which states that a charge certificate may be issued 28 days from the date of service of the PCN.
I have considered Adjudicator’s reasoning in Adam Jones v London Borough of Havering Case No 2190374806 in adopting this ground of appeal since procedural impropriety is not afforded to an appellant in this legislation.
Considering the above, I ask the the PCN be cancelled. Should you not agree to do so, I am quite prepared to take the matter to the Tribunal.
I would also like to add, that the signage leading into openview isn't very clear, due to the wording and the overgrown tree on approach to the sign on Burntwood Lane, 'please see attached picture of the signage'. it is also rather misleading because not all of Openview is restricted. Only when one gets to Lydiard road that the rest of Openview is restricted. This can lead to much confusion while turning into Openview.
Kind regards."
Does this seem ok?
Use this one yes.
-
Should I just stick to the original draft?
-
Please keep it simple. I have one of my own!
-
You are making reps to the authority, not appealing to the adjudicator - which is where the body of your draft stems from.
IMO, ..l
I am making representations on the following grounds:
'that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.'
I believe these grounds apply because the PCN fails to comply with the requirements of the Act.
I would refer the authority to the PCN which, as far as is relevant, states the following in the order laid out:
The penalty charge.. must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice;
Or you may make representations ..the grounds on which you may make representations are set out overleaf;
If the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period the charge may increase to £240;
the council may disregard any representations received after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which this notice was served on you:
The only plain English interpretation and logical deduction from the above is that:
There is no indication that the strict time period allowed for payment is affected, let alone paused, should representations be made;
Although a longer period is allowed for making representations, that is to say 28 days beginning on the date of service as opposed to date of the notice(a difference which could extend to 4 or more days), the recipient risks a higher penalty, whatever the circumstances, if they do not pay by the payment deadline.
Is what the PCN states IMO. It's not for an owner to overlay with knowledge of the Act, they're entitled to read the document as it stands.
-
Great, I will sort this out now. thank you so much for your help.
-
I like it. Just remember to screenshot each page when you attempt to tick each ground.
-
"Ground: the penalty charge exceeded the amount.
The 2003 Act states that representations may be made on “one or other grounds”. Clearly, your website only allows me to choose one ground. This is a clear ambiguity which must be resolved in the favour of the owner. Furthermore, the PCN states: “If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, the charge may increase to £240.00.” Clearly, the period to which this refers is 28 days from the date of the notice. This flies in the face of paras. 5(1) and (2)(a) as provided at Schedule 1 which states that a charge certificate may be issued 28 days from the date of service of the PCN.
I have considered Adjudicator’s reasoning in Adam Jones v London Borough of Havering Case No 2190374806 in adopting this ground of appeal since procedural impropriety is not afforded to an appellant in this legislation.
Considering the above, I ask the the PCN be cancelled. Should you not agree to do so, I am quite prepared to take the matter to the Tribunal.
I would also like to add, that the signage leading into openview isn't very clear, due to the wording and the overgrown tree on approach to the sign on Burntwood Lane, 'please see attached picture of the signage'. it is also rather misleading because not all of Openview is restricted. Only when one gets to Lydiard road that the rest of Openview is restricted. This can lead to much confusion while turning into Openview.
Kind regards."
Does this seem ok?
-
Draft first pl.
-
Thank you so much Hippocrates,
I will sort this out shortly.
Kind regards
-
Ground: the penalty charge exceeded the amount.
The 2003 Act states that representations may be made on “one or other grounds”. Clearly, your website only allows me to choose one ground. This is a clear ambiguity which must be resolved in the favour of the owner. Furthermore, the PCN states: “If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, the charge may increase to £240.00.” Clearly, the period to which this refers is 28 days from the date of the notice. This flies in the face of paras. 5(1) and (2)(a) as provided at Schedule 1 which states that a charge certificate may be issued 28 days from the date of service of the PCN.
I have considered Adjudicator’s reasoning in Adam Jones v London Borough of Havering Case No 2190374806 in adopting this ground of appeal since procedural impropriety is not afforded to an appellant in this legislation.
Considering the above, I ask the the PCN be cancelled. Should you not agree to do so, I am quite prepared to take the matter to the Tribunal.
*****
Stick in the signage issue too and report back. Please screenshot the reps page as you cannot enter 2 grounds.
-
Thank you for the replies.
How would I put this into a representation Hippocrates?
Kind regards
-
Case reference 2240512370
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 2240512370
Appellant Franklin Durand-Vibert
Authority London Borough of Wandsworth
VRM WF14 TWA
PCN Details
PCN WA91071794
Contravention date 19 Sep 2024
Contravention time 13:24:00
Contravention location Clapham Common North Side JCT. Stormont Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Performing a prohibited turn
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
I heard these is Appeals by telephone speaking to Mr Murray-Smith representing the Appellant and Mr Inge, an officer of the Council. Having done so I reserved my decision.
The grounds of appeal are as set out in Mr Murray--Smith’s detailed skeleton argument and the Tribunal decisions there cited. These are, in bare summary, that the PCN is defective in that it incorrectly states that a Charge Certificate may ne issued after the expiry of 28 days from the date of the notice; whereas the Regulations require 28 days from the date of service of the notice. His second ground is that there is no evidence that the required authority to enforce has been given by TfL – something that is required on what is a GLA road.
I will take the second point first. Section 4 of London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 that a Council may not exercise the power to enforce on a GLA road unless they have obtained the written consent of TfL. The Council does not challenge that as a result of the Designation cited by Mr Murray-Smith both the roads in question in the present case were GLA roads. In response to Mr Murray-Smiths submissions the Council has produced a letter dated the 19th September2011 giving consent. However as Mr Murray -Smith was quick to point out, the consent is expressed to run only for the duration of an Experimental Traffic Order which has long since expired. Mr Inge stated that he believed that further correspondence could be obtained but I did not consider it in the interests of justice to adjourn the hearing for that purpose. The Council was clearly on notice of what it was being required to produce and ought to have been in a position to produce the necessary consent if they had it. If follows that on the evidence I am unable to be satisfied that the Council had the power to issue a PCN at this location and the Appeals must be allowed on that ground.
The first ground raises a more difficult issue and one which has on many occasions been the subject of decisions by Adjudicators. The difficulty arises from what I do not shrink from calling sloppy drafting of the legislation which requires a PCN to state that the penalty may be increased if not paid within 28 days from the date of the Notice whereas additional requirements in the Schedule prevent the issue of a Charge Certificate within 28 days of the date of service of the Notice. My learned colleague Mr Walsh sets out the difficulty with clarity and precision in his decision in Mohammad Ahmed v City of London (2240382490, 14 December 2024) as follows:-
“If the penalty is not paid within the period of 28 days from the date of the penalty charge notice (PCN), then may be payable at the increased amount. A charge certificate may be served if, within the period of 28 days from the date of service of the PCN, payment is not made and no representations have been made. The legislation creates an odd anomaly in that there is a period (likely to be a couple of days or so) within which the penalty is now payable at the increased amount, but the enforcement authority (EA) is not yet empowered to serve a charge certificate because the time within which a recipient is permitted to make representations has not yet elapsed. There is, however, a clear distinction between the point in time when the increased penalty is payable and the point in time when the EA is empowered to serve a charge certificate”.
The Council in the present case can point to the fact that the PCN states what it is required to state under s 4; and the real question in this and other cases is whether the inclusion of other information not required by virtue of S4 renders the PCN either non-compliant, or otherwise non-enforceable, if that additional information is not correctly stated. As Mr Walsh noted, S4 does not require any reference to a charge certificate.
If the additional information were positively to contradict or undermine the matters specifically required to be stated by S4 there would in my view be no difficulty, One would
find that, as a result, the PCN did not contain the information required by that Section. In the present case, however that is not the position. The wording in issue is as follows:- “If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period the charge may increase to £195 and we may serve a Charge Certificate seeking payment of the increased amount”. “The 28 day period “clearly refers back to date of the notice previously mentioned ; and the statement therefore if anything reinforces the s4 requirement rather than contradicting it.
One is therefore left to decide whether the mis-statement as to when the Charge Certificate may be issued is so grave or misleading as to render the enforcement of a penalty impossible on the basis of a collateral challenge. The wording in this case does in my view amount to such a mis-statement “and we may serve a Charge Certificate” being given its natural meaning that one may be served at that point i.e the expiry of the 28 day period.
The point has been raised before numerous Adjudicators with only one dissenting voice. The decision in the present case is of course my own, but where there is a substantial body of decisions on the point, I naturally give the views of so many colleagues some weight and I find myself in agreement with them, particularly the careful decision of Mr Walsh. Motorists are entitled to know exactly where they legally stand when it comes to enforcement procedures.
I would therefore in addition allow the Appeal on the first of Mr Murray-Smiths grounds. The Council might be wise to consider revising its wording to make it clear the correct point at which a Charge Certificate may be served.
PCN WA91081506
Contravention date 20 Sep 2024
Contravention time 14:14:00
Contravention location Clapham Common North Side JCT. Stormont Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Performing a prohibited turn
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
I heard these is Appeals by telephone speaking to Mr Murray-Smith representing the Appellant and Mr Inge, an officer of the Council. Having done so I reserved my decision.
The grounds of appeal are as set out in Mr Murray--Smith’s detailed skeleton argument and the Tribunal decisions there cited. These are, in bare summary, that the PCN is defective in that it incorrectly states that a Charge Certificate may ne issued after the expiry of 28 days from the date of the notice; whereas the Regulations require 28 days from the date of service of the notice. His second ground is that there is no evidence that the required authority to enforce has been given by TfL – something that is required on what is a GLA road.
I will take the second point first. Section 4 of London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 that a Council may not exercise the power to enforce on a GLA road unless they have obtained the written consent of TfL. The Council does not challenge that as a result of the Designation cited by Mr Murray-Smith both the roads in question in the present case were GLA roads. In response to Mr Murray-Smiths submissions the Council has produced a letter dated the 19th September2011 giving consent. However as Mr Murray -Smith was quick to point out, the consent is expressed to run only for the duration of an Experimental Traffic Order which has long since expired. Mr Inge stated that he believed that further correspondence could be obtained but I did not consider it in the interests of justice to adjourn the hearing for that purpose. The Council was clearly on notice of what it was being required to produce and ought to have been in a position to produce the necessary consent if they had it. If follows that on the evidence I am unable to be satisfied that the Council had the power to issue a PCN at this location and the Appeals must be allowed on that ground.
The first ground raises a more difficult issue and one which has on many occasions been the subject of decisions by Adjudicators. The difficulty arises from what I do not shrink from calling sloppy drafting of the legislation which requires a PCN to state that the penalty may be increased if not paid within 28 days from the date of the Notice whereas additional requirements in the Schedule prevent the issue of a Charge Certificate within 28 days of the date of service of the Notice. My learned colleague Mr Walsh sets out the difficulty with clarity and precision in his decision in Mohammad Ahmed v City of London (2240382490, 14 December 2024) as follows:-
“If the penalty is not paid within the period of 28 days from the date of the penalty charge notice (PCN), then may be payable at the increased amount. A charge certificate may be served if, within the period of 28 days from the date of service of the PCN, payment is not made and no representations have been made. The legislation creates an odd anomaly in that there is a period (likely to be a couple of days or so) within which the penalty is now payable at the increased amount, but the enforcement authority (EA) is not yet empowered to serve a charge certificate because the time within which a recipient is permitted to make representations has not yet elapsed. There is, however, a clear distinction between the point in time when the increased penalty is payable and the point in time when the EA is empowered to serve a charge certificate”.
The Council in the present case can point to the fact that the PCN states what it is required to state under s 4; and the real question in this and other cases is whether the inclusion of other information not required by virtue of S4 renders the PCN either non-compliant, or otherwise non-enforceable, if that additional information is not correctly stated. As Mr Walsh noted, S4 does not require any reference to a charge certificate.
If the additional information were positively to contradict or undermine the matters specifically required to be stated by S4 there would in my view be no difficulty, One would find that, as a result, the PCN did not contain the information required by that Section. In the present case, however that is not the position. The wording in issue is as follows:- “If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period the charge may increase to £195 and we may serve a Charge Certificate seeking payment of the increased amount”. “The 28 day period “clearly refers back to date of the notice previously mentioned ; and the statement therefore if anything reinforces the s4 requirement rather than contradicting it.
One is therefore left to decide whether the mis-statement as to when the Charge Certificate may be issued is so grave or misleading as to render the enforcement of a penalty impossible on the basis of a collateral challenge. The wording in this case does in my view amount to such a mis-statement “and we may serve a Charge Certificate” being given its natural meaning that one may be served at that point i.e the expiry of the 28 day period.
The point has been raised before numerous Adjudicators with only one dissenting voice. The decision in the present case is of course my own, but where there is a substantial body of decisions on the point, I naturally give the views of so many colleagues some weight and I find myself in agreement with them, particularly the careful decision of Mr Walsh. Motorists are entitled to know exactly where they legally stand when it comes to enforcement procedures.
-
OK, the sign is a bit of disaster, with the tree in the way, but it is also rather misleading because not all of Openview is restricted. Only when one gets to Lydiard road that the rest of OPenview is restricted.
However, even if the sign is not seen or noticed, one can turn into Openview, and after a short distance at 20 mph, one approaches the signs from head-on. So it would be very difficult explaining to an adjudicator that you missed seeing the two prominent "Flying Motorbike" signs when driving at 20mph.
I think Hippocrates has the strongest appeal argument, which is a 'technical' one, as it has no relation to the actual contravention, but argues that Wandsworth have mismanaged the enforcement process.
-
Hi everyone.
I went to the location today and took a few pictures of the signage on the approach to openview which is on Burntwood lane.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/CSp9FdVsK77eUoxb6?g_st=ac
This is the signage on approach to openview. It is very restricted due to the overgrown tree. Which you can already see on google street view, the tree is even more overgrown now. I have taken a few pictures from different angles on foot. There is no signage to signal a school street up ahead, instead it is "no through road" at certain times sign, not sure if this makes any difference. On openview itself, there is just the standard school no entry times sign. But nothing before these signs.
Kind regards
https://flic.kr/p/2rjhptm
https://flic.kr/p/2rjnKmd
https://flic.kr/p/2rjmApA
https://flic.kr/p/2rjnKmi
https://flic.kr/p/2rjmArp
https://flic.kr/p/2rjnQcS
https://flic.kr/p/2rjoicV
-
28 day period (above) is wrong. C.C. can be served 28 days from date of service. Back later.
-
Thank you for your reply Incandescent.
I will take a drive down that road later on today and get some pictures.
Kind regards
-
PCN penalties are about double the rest of the UK, because the Mayor of London can set them, not the government, so they set them as high as they think they can get away with.
I had a look on GSV, but latest for this street is 2022, so I can't see the signs. However, the council photos are very clear and show you passing two "Flying Motorbike" signs that mean No Entry for motor vehicles. The sign also has a plate giving the restriction times of 08.30-09.15 am and 2.45-3.45 pm. PCN contravention time is 15.05, well into the afternoon restriction. It is a School Street restriction and there is a yellow panel at the top of the signs announcing this. As GSV isn't up-to-date, we can't check to see if there are any advance warning signs.If you could look and tell us if there are any and take photos it would help for fuller advice.
There may also be a 'technical' appeal argument unrelated to the contravention, based on Wandsworth mismanagement of the enforcement process, so wait and see if anything is suggested by someone more knowledgeable than me. However don't miss the deadline for paying or submitting reps, or it's game over.
-
Hi everyone, My partner was driving down openview road, how she has done so many times in the past, but she hadn't noticed that they had started a school street time until she got this PCN. Lesson learned.
Is there anything on this PCN that I could appeal on, I recieved it on Wednesday in the post so hasn't given me much time to appeal, I can't believe that fines are £160 without the discount, it's crazy.
Kind regard
[attachment deleted by admin]