Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: seventhson1975 on August 12, 2025, 10:59:32 am
-
Hi there, I seem to have a PCN from exactly the same place - did your appeal work?
@Hippocrates Thanks for your response.... Shall I just stick to this ... also the grounds on which website, sorry i'm a bit confused here.
I contest this PCN on the following grounds:
1. The PCN is Missing Mandatory Information
Under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Section 4(8)(v), a PCN must state:
“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable”
and
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”
This PCN fails to include the second requirement in full and instead uses wording that conflates payment and appeal timeframes, rendering the notice unclear. As the PCN omits mandatory statutory wording, it is invalid and must be cancelled.
2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my vehicle passing the relevant restriction signs. It merely shows the vehicle already inside the alleged restricted area.
Since the PCN is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed by prescribed signs, the absence of these signs in the evidence means the contravention has not been proven.
Given the above, I request that this PCN be cancelled.
-
@Hippocrates Thanks for your response.... Shall I just stick to this ... also the grounds on which website, sorry i'm a bit confused here.
I contest this PCN on the following grounds:
1. The PCN is Missing Mandatory Information
Under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Section 4(8)(v), a PCN must state:
“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable”
and
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”
This PCN fails to include the second requirement in full and instead uses wording that conflates payment and appeal timeframes, rendering the notice unclear. As the PCN omits mandatory statutory wording, it is invalid and must be cancelled.
2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my vehicle passing the relevant restriction signs. It merely shows the vehicle already inside the alleged restricted area.
Since the PCN is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed by prescribed signs, the absence of these signs in the evidence means the contravention has not been proven.
Given the above, I request that this PCN be cancelled.
-
8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a)state—
(i)the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;
(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
(vi)the amount of the increased charge;
(vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and
(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and
(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.
-
Procedural impropriety is not a ground. We say: collateral challenge instead. What does the website say please as I cannot access it? I need to see the grounds page.
Also add: The ground about the Traffic Order being invalid is NOT a ground in this legislation.
-
@Hippocrates it does state on the third page about the penalty charge being increased by 50% to £240 so I can't really quote
1. This PCN is missing mandatory information. as provided at 4 (8 ) (v) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted (v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
How should I proceed with this. Do I just stick to the fact there's no signage?
I contest this PCN on the following grounds:
1. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my vehicle passing any restriction signs. It only shows the vehicle already within the alleged restricted area.
The contravention is based on non-compliance with prescribed signs, and the authority must prove that such signs were present, lawful, and visible at the time. In the absence of such evidence, the alleged contravention is not proven.
2. Procedural Impropriety – Defective Wording
The PCN misstates the statutory time periods. Under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, the 28-day period for payment runs from the date of the notice, while the 28-day period for making representations runs from the date of service of the notice. By conflating these distinct periods, the PCN is unclear and potentially misleading to the motorist. This amounts to a procedural impropriety.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, the PCN is invalid and I respectfully request that it be cancelled.
-
I'm going to send this for my appeal. From what I'm gathering the council will reject the appeal and once It goes to online tribunal do I submit the same thing or shall I come back for advice on how to proceed?
I make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the following grounds:
1. Procedural Impropriety – Defective Wording
Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires that a Penalty Charge Notice must state, among other things:
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice”; and
“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.”
The PCN served in this case fails to include the first requirement in the prescribed form. Instead, it uses wording that conflates the 28-day payment period with the 28-day period for making representations. This omission of mandatory statutory wording renders the PCN defective and invalid.
2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided shows only my vehicle within the alleged restricted area. It does not show the vehicle passing or failing to comply with any prescribed restriction signs.
As the alleged contravention relies entirely upon the presence and visibility of such signage, the Authority is required to prove that compliant signs were in place and that the vehicle failed to comply with them. In the absence of such evidence, the alleged contravention is not made out.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the PCN is invalid and unenforceable. I therefore respectfully request that it be cancelled.
-
I prefer the shorter version. The more you start speculating about what a driver may or may not have seen, the more you stray from the upper level considerations in this matter:
Where is the authority's evidence that compliant and visible signs were passed;
Has the authority complied with mandatory procedure in pursuing any penalty?
I'll stick with the shorter one and attach the screenshot from legislation.gov.uk
There's no evidence of any signs being passed, in either the video or the stills. So I'm guessing in that instance I have a strong defence?
Don't understand this though "Has the authority complied with mandatory procedure in pursuing any penalty?"
Thanks for your response.
-
I prefer the shorter version. The more you start speculating about what a driver may or may not have seen, the more you stray from the upper level considerations in this matter:
Where is the authority's evidence that compliant and visible signs were passed;
Has the authority complied with mandatory procedure in pursuing any penalty?
-
Sorry to be a pain here, just need a bit of advice how to proceed here. I don't wanna send anything yet until I know what I've written is ok . All help has been much appreciated. Thank you.
-
Or do i just keep it short and to the point?
I contest this PCN on the following grounds:
1. The PCN is Missing Mandatory Information
Under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Section 4(8)(v), a PCN must state:
“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable”
and
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”
This PCN fails to include the second requirement in full and instead uses wording that conflates payment and appeal timeframes, rendering the notice unclear. As the PCN omits mandatory statutory wording, it is invalid and must be cancelled.
2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my vehicle passing the relevant restriction signs. It merely shows the vehicle already inside the alleged restricted area.
Since the PCN is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed by prescribed signs, the absence of these signs in the evidence means the contravention has not been proven.
Given the above, I request that this PCN be cancelled.
Do I have to submit this appeal by tomorrow the latest to stick within the 14 days, or is it now the case that it doesn't matter as long as I appeal within 28 days?
-
Would this be ok to send when appealing?
1. The PCN is Missing Mandatory Information
Under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Section 4(8)(v), a PCN must state:
“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable”
and
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”
This PCN fails to include the second requirement in full and instead uses wording that conflates payment and appeal timeframes, rendering the notice unclear. As the PCN omits mandatory statutory wording, it is invalid and must be cancelled.
2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my vehicle passing the relevant restriction signs. It merely shows the vehicle already inside the alleged restricted area.
Since the PCN is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed by prescribed signs, the absence of these signs in the evidence means the contravention has not been proven.
I put the authority to strict proof of:
The presence, condition, and visibility of the signs on 13 July 2025; and
That my vehicle passed them.
Library images or generic stock photographs would not suffice because they do not address the condition and visibility of the signs on the actual date and time in question.
3. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage
There was no clear advance warning before entering the restricted zone.
Furthermore, diversions in Romford around the date of the contravention may have contributed to driver confusion and reduced sign visibility. I request disclosure of any temporary traffic orders or diversion records for this area at that time.
4. Request for Disclosure
Please provide:
The full Traffic Management Order for this restriction.
All CCTV footage showing my approach to the restriction and any signs passed.
Proof of posting and date of service of the PCN.
Conclusion
Given the PCN’s legal defects, lack of conclusive evidence, and inadequate signage, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled. If the representation is rejected, I will pursue the matter with the independent adjudicator.
-
OP,....
As the authority knows and can see clearly in the CCTV evidence, there are no traffic signs in view therefore the PCN, which is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed by prescribed signs, is predicated upon an assumption by the authority as to the presence, condition and visibility of these signs on the day.
I put the authority to strict proof on this matter i.e. library pictures would not suffice because these cannot address the issues of condition and visibility on the day.
..but could you say to an adjudicator that you did not see the signs?
-
Screenshot of website? Can't see it.
I attached it above... also uploaded
https://imgur.com/dvCMfue
-
Screenshot of website? Can't see it.
-
Really appreciate the help and responses.
So all I would need to do is quote the 2 paragraphs and attach the screenshot when appealing?
Would I need to mention that there isn't any signage in their photo or video evidence that shows any motor contravention?
-
Yes. I would also screenshot their website.
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/havering-council-charge-notice-without-pcn/msg85265/#msg85265
Have a look at this please. Obviously, disregard the prices and the last sentence asking for the original PCN.
Is this the part you mean?
1. This PCN is missing mandatory information. as provided at 4 (8 ) (v) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
2. I make this collateral challenge regarding the wording of the sentence "If after...." Since the PCN omits mandatory information that the PCN must be paid by 28 days beginning with the date of the notice, the said statement therefore conflates the two distinct time periods and renders the PCN unclear and invalid. In light of the above, please cancel.
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/havering-council-charge-notice-without-pcn/msg85265/#msg85265
Have a look at this please. Obviously, disregard the prices and the last sentence asking for the original PCN.
-
If this is the same road, it says no vehicles except for access?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dzmtjV5X7AV4eybN6
Indeed it does, but their video of the alleged contravention doesn't show them.
The video is the sole evidence of the contravention. Of course if it gets to adjudication, and the lack of a view of the signs allegedly passed is pointed out by the appellant, the council would be under an obligation to show that the signs were there on the day and time of the contravention. Lack of basic evidence like this has often won appeals.
-
So the video doesn't show the traffic signs and their visibility and condition on the day, the camera is sited after the signs and we're left to infer that any prohibited vehicle in shot must therefore by definition be in contravention because everything was hunky-dory with the signs on the day?
-
If this is the same road, it says no vehicles except for access?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/dzmtjV5X7AV4eybN6
-
Looks like a head-on approach, but the video doesn't show the signs you passed, so you could argue that their evidence of the alleged contravention, (the video), shows no contravention.
-
I'm not sure can't remember
I've uploaded the video.
https://imgur.com/6VODogU
-
Here, I think: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TRweEmtRL7UBZDsP8
However, GSV is not up-to-date, so the "Flying Motorbike" signs are not there.
Ahh yes that looks like it from the video. Thankyou.
Did you approach the signs head-on, or turn left into South St ?
-
Here, I think: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TRweEmtRL7UBZDsP8
However, GSV is not up-to-date, so the "Flying Motorbike" signs are not there.
Ahh yes that looks like it from the video. Thankyou.
-
Here, I think: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TRweEmtRL7UBZDsP8
However, GSV is not up-to-date, so the "Flying Motorbike" signs are not there.
-
Hi Hope all is well.
I received this PCN dated 1st August, yesterday (11th August). From what I understand I have only a couple of days to appeal this as I received it 11 days later. I realised the mistake I made only after entering the zone and being a one way street I had no option to reverse or turn around. There were also alot of road diversions in the area which added to a bit of confusion.
I've looked online to find a street view image but i'm not sure exactly where this location is.
Any help will be much appreciated
Thankyou
Alex Stassi
https://imgur.com/a/52m-rm1-Tir2nSg