Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: aguycalledritchie on July 28, 2025, 12:32:07 pm
-
Sorry, as per your previous post no.4:
https://i.imgur.com/ciWBTiY.png
1. A threat
2. Date of issue and date first seen cannot possibly be the same.
-
I hope this is what you mean.
https://imgur.com/a/4VsehDx#WqYP6Yz
https://imgur.com/a/4VsehDx#xnSsWmN
-
Please screenshot the challenge page and report back what it says.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X-S2mL2jygApHh74b1fH3V6RvcUwYQuK/view
Suffice it to say that I agree with Mr Morgan that what was on the website amounted to an unlawful demand for payment, a view shared by a number of other Adjudicators. Whilst I have no doubt that Mr Warden is correct that the computer system cannot be
amended overnight some very clear form of disclaimer would be required to neutralise its effect.
*****
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.
-
Hi Hippocrates. What do you mean by the website issues? I’d like to appeal but it seems I have to pay either way and await a reply. Would that be the case? I’ve appealed Lambeth bus lane fines on my scooter and they’ve always delayed the discounted payment until a decision is reached.
I did mention I’d been to the Velodrome in Bubage Road twice already. I genuinely didn’t expect the fine and was following satnav because it hadn’t wronged me prior to that Monday.
Thx
-
This will only be won if at all on the website issues.
-
Your successful case example is 2022. The photos show that you made a left turn into Burbage Road, and there is and advance sign on approach on Turney Road: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/CHk42ZNwoqaa2VEt6
So maybe being a bit robotic obeying the satnav voice commands ?
However, what puzzles me is the use of Bus Gate signs instead of the usual "Flying Motorbike" signs that are in use now all over London. One has to wonder if use of these for restricting a street is allowed. Is there a bus service along there ? This does look very fishy to me, so wait for others to comment.
I had a quick look at TSRGD 2016 and these doesn't seem to be anything specific that would bar use of this sign instead of the alternative "Flying Motorbike" sign, but one has to wonder why they chose this sign.
-
I hope I've provided enough. I also found this article which mentions Burbage Road in particular with:
A motorist has won an appeal against a fine in Dulwich after the adjudicator said “signage of the restricted route is not adequate to alert motorists in the restrictions in place.”
This could open the floodgates to a whole series of appeals with Southwark council possibly having to return thousands of pounds in fines they have already pocketed over the signs at Burbage Road / Gallery Road.
And it could lead to other motorists fined for going through LTNs in Southwark – and in neighbouring boroughs – following suit.
Motorist Margaret Condon posted details of her successful appeal on Next Door social media:
Take heart I have made successful appeal to London Tribunals and a rebate on your fine may be claimed by you.
My case ref 2210441488 JK03571005 ( Mrs Margaret Condon)
Appeal adjudicated by Mr Sean Stanton-Dunn on 26 August 2022 Address London Tribunals. P.O. Box 10598, Nottingham, NG6 6DR.
“I am allowing appeal because I agree that the signage of the restricted route is not adequate to alert motorists in the restrictions in place.
-
I was hoping the video would be revealing as it was 18 seconds long and could have shown me entering the Velodrome but it cut to a photo montage at 8 seconds in. That's when I put my indicator on I expect.
(https://i.imgur.com/zspN6y3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ciWBTiY.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/5clalhS.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/oYLzyVa.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/CjKbxn3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/f9LbKYU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/g7HOkAN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/ILsbMlQ.png)
-
There's more coming. I've just checked out the photos and video they hold as it was seemingly available.
-
Thanks....
(https://i.imgur.com/JEbuesA.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/0qFHqce.png)
-
This may well need to be a technical appeal. Please screenshot their website payments page AS IF TO MAKE A CHALLENGE and post here.
-
I have received a PCN from Southwark Council for entering Burbage Road from Turney Road to attend a cycling lesson for my little boy at the Velodrome. I'd like to appeal and wouldn't mind a bit of help if possible.
I live in West Norwood and although local, I don't know the Herne Hill area enormously well. I had been to the Velodrome for lessons twice on consecutive Saturdays and then my Wife booked a 4pm lesson on a Monday as it was the school holidays. I didn't register on the Saturday visits that there was a restriction in place on the road during weekdays, AM and PM. TomTom took me a different route to the Saturdays and I didn't realise there was an issue until I turned into Burbage Road and the road turned red on screen. The turn into the Velodrome's only entrance and its public car park is approx 60 metres into Burbage Road as you can see from the photos. I have a receipt for the lesson and this is also linked.
Where do I stand on this? Can anyone offer any help?
GoogleMap and Streetview links:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/wFNc982tppwgVEWf8
https://maps.app.goo.gl/P2X2L5iLXZA9Ktod8 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/P2X2L5iLXZA9Ktod8)
(https://i.imgur.com/uoyDgBT.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/YUHkh0k.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gIKSvUt.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3OFQb06.jpeg)
I can't say I paid much attention to the big sign on Turney Road as I glanced at SatNav as it told me to turn left. On turning into Burbage Road, the smaller signs are angled such that you can't actually see them and are covered by trees on approach. This is apparent in the supplied photos. I’ve now viewed the video which shows me travelling a tiny portion of the road and cuts before I indicate to turn right into the Velodrome. I read that Southwark have lost a few cases regarding Burbage Road recently so hope that works in my favour. Links to that provided.
I'd expect them to support the amenities they have instead of screwing over their customers. I'm taking a 6 year old to a cycling lesson and don't wish to park miles from the venue when it has parking facilities on site. Surely this is safer for the kids too. To be clear, the lesson started at 4pm and we all have to safely cross the outer ring of the Velodrome for it. We have to arrive earlier to be on a painted line at 4pm or we forfeit the lesson and fee.
(https://i.imgur.com/3vbY3rE.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/a9HQTz5.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/d5177h0.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/3KLw14N.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/tuauwkg.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/gEbbwBt.jpeg)
Hope that all links up and thanks in advance for any assistance you might provide. As you can see, I drive a 12 year old Subaru so I’m the kind of man who’d like to avoid handing over my hard earned English Pounds to the ‘Man’ for such a minor infraction.
Ritchie