Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: taffer87 on August 13, 2025, 12:23:10 pm
-
I did not receive a reply but the ticket seems to not show any more on Redbridge's website and when i go to the view CCTV or pay pcn page it gives this message
"Sorry, we cannot find this ticket - please check the details you have provided are correct."
Hopefully case resolved - will update if anything further. Thank you for the help
-
The VWFS letter of 7 July 2025 is fatal to the council’s position because it discloses that the authority purported to act on a representation that did not fall within any of the permissible statutory grounds under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Section 6 of that Act permits the transfer of liability only in narrowly defined circumstances, one of which is where the recipient of the PCN is a vehicle hire firm and the vehicle was subject to a vehicle hiring agreement of not more than six months. Section 92 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which is imported into the 2003 Act, defines a vehicle hiring agreement in strict terms. It must be a written agreement, signed by the hirer, for a fixed term not exceeding six months, and it must be accompanied by a signed statement of liability from the hirer. None of these statutory prerequisites were satisfied.
VWFS’ letter referred to a one-day lease commencing and terminating on 22 June 2025. Such an agreement is inconsistent with your evidence, which demonstrates that your lease expired on 20 June 2025 and that you had acquired title to the vehicle under a sales contract by that date. Even if VWFS had still owned the vehicle on 22 June, their assertion of a one-day lease is unsustainable in law, because it was not evidenced by the production of the written agreement required by statute, nor by a signed statement of liability from you as hirer. The authority, in accepting this representation and cancelling the PCN of 26 June issued to VWFS, acted outside their powers. The issue is not whether you were in fact the owner of the vehicle, but whether the statutory machinery was properly engaged to make you liable. It was not.
The concern that some adjudicators may adopt a pragmatic approach and focus on your ownership status is understandable, but legally misconceived. Liability in civil enforcement proceedings of this nature arises not by virtue of beneficial ownership but by operation of statute. The starting point is the registered keeper, subject to specific statutory exceptions. Unless the council can demonstrate that VWFS made representations on a permitted ground, supported by the requisite documentation, and that the PCN was lawfully cancelled on that basis, any subsequent PCN issued to you is a nullity. This is not a matter of discretion but of jurisdiction. The tribunal’s own decisions recognise that procedural impropriety or ultra vires conduct renders enforcement void: see for example Camden LBC v The Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin), where it was emphasised that an authority must act strictly within the statutory framework.
The appropriate ground of representation is therefore that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. The circumstances are that VWFS were not a hire firm within the meaning of the 2003 Act at the material time, the letter of 7 July 2025 does not satisfy the statutory requirements for transfer of liability, and the council had no power to issue a new PCN in your name. To reinforce this point, you may invite the authority to produce the signed hire agreement and statement of liability that section 66(4) requires. If they cannot, the only proper course is cancellation of the PCN.
Tactically, it is unnecessary and potentially distracting to argue about your status as owner. The strongest position is to deny liability as a matter of statutory procedure, supported by the documentary inconsistency in VWFS’ letter. If pressed, you may rely on your sales invoice and correspondence showing purchase on 20 June, but only to demonstrate that VWFS’ account is false, not to prove ownership as a ground of liability. If the council reject your representation and the matter proceeds to the tribunal, your case will rest on clear statutory footing: the authority had no jurisdiction to transfer liability to you and the PCN is void.
The most effective remedy is therefore to pursue cancellation on the procedural ground alone. This maximises your prospects because it compels the council to justify its decision within the strict confines of the statutory scheme, where its case is plainly defective.
-
Thank you. Unfortunately it seems I can’t edit the opening post anymore but a moderator may kindly do it if they read this.
-
I am not the lease holder of the vehicle on the date of the alleged offence and my lease agreement regarding this vehicle with VWFS ended on 20 June 2025 (see attached lease agreement). I would start with your second para.
I understand from VWFS that they sent you a letter specifying that I had a one day lease with them with a start and end date of 22 June 2025 which is the date of the alleged offence. However, this is false and no such agreement existed.(see my lease termination confirming an end date of 20 June). VWFS could not have provided a signed statement of liability because none existed and therefore the council could not cancel VWFS's NTO and I may not be considered the 'owner' for the purposes of the Act. It is therefore axiomatic that PCN NO. ***** issued to me is void, unenforceable and must be cancelled.
Should the authority think that my PCN is valid, then they must produce the statement of liability signed by me which applied on 22 June.
PS - pl change your thread title, this is simply a moving traffic contravention, not a bus lane.
-
Yes agreed so I want to send a representation along the lines of below. I personally would rather not mention being the owner from 20 June 2025 etc. Unless it is somehow really a must.
I could probably get an email from VWFS confirming the last date of my lease agreement was 20 June 2025 too and attach that too
“Dead sir
I am not the lease holder of the vehicle ant the date of the alegend offence and my lease agreement regarding this vehicle with VWFS ended on 20 June 2025 (see attached lease agreement).
I understand from VWFS that they sent you a letter specifying that I had a one day lease with them with a start and end date of 22 June 2025 which is the date of the alleged offence. However this is false and no such agreement existed. The council should not have accepted this representation from VWFS to transfer liability to me without having sight of the actual hire / lease agreement.
Please therefore cancel the NTO issued in my name.
Regards”
-
Which simply confirms what I wrote.
And even IF they owned the vehicle and even IF there was a 'long lease' then the grounds of 'vehicle-hire firm' would not apply because a 'vehicle hire agreement' as defined is limited to a term of maximum 6 months, anything longer means these grounds are not permitted.
OP, back to basics.
ONLY the recipient of a NTO may make reps. This applies whether they're an absolute stranger to the matters because the authority have messed up their addresses or whether they are the RK as per DVLA. In this case, they're the RK but could rebut(sorry to get technical) the presumption that they were the 'person by whom the vehicle was kept', but NOT using their chosen grounds.
If they had done this intra-procedurally then the authority, acting intra-procedure, could issue a NTO to you.
But VWFS could not use their grounds; the authority could not accept; AND their power to issue a NTO to you does not arise. And as they had no power to issue your NTO, IMO it is void.
BUT, as with any 'recipient' of a NTO you MUST make reps to this effect otherwise by default you become liable for the, in this case improper, penalty.
-
In the meantime I have actually received from the lease company the actual letter they sent to the council to transfer liability.
(https://i.ibb.co/BKgXF7K7/IMG-7844.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7NGwLTNT)
-
Doesn’t that prove the procedural impropriety point? I worry that if it gets to tribunal and I have told them am the owner some adjudicators will just overlook the procedure and say I am liable since I am the owner in any case
-
And why would you want to do that?
-
I am debating whether I really need to mention I am the owner at all. Can’t I just say I am not the lease holder and my lease ended 20 June 2025 and the letter from VWFS for a one day lease should not lead to a transfer of liability to me [plus I thought for a less than 6 month lease/hire there a lot of special rules that must be complied with to transfer liability? Maybe not under the LLA and TFL 2003 act?]
-
'Penalty exceeded .....circumstances of the case'
The circumstances being that a PCN was issued to VWFS on 26 June and subsequently a new PCN to me on 8 August. VWFS made representations to the effect that:
d)..the recipient [VWFS]is a vehicle-hire firm and—
(i)the vehicle in question was at the material time hired from that firm under a vehicle hiring agreement
VWFS is not a vehicle-hire firm, instead it leases vehicles and on the date of the contravention the vehicle was not hired to me under a vehicle hiring agreement (or subject to a mysterious 1-day lease as claimed in their letter to you dated 7 July), but on the contrary I was the owner of the vehicle having acquired it from VWFS on ***.
I cannot explain, neither is it my burden to do so, why DVLA had not processed the change of registered keeper documentation but instead still showed VWFS as the registered keeper, but in law this is not germane. The authority issued a PCN to VWFS who for some unknown reason invented a '1-day lease' scenario when in fact, as the enclosed documents show, they were not acting as a 'vehicle-hire' firm and therefore could not make representations under these grounds neither could the authority accept such representations. VWFS were not a 'vehicle-hire firm' but in fact had ceased to be the owner prior to the date of the contravention and were obliged to make representations as such.
Unless the authority can establish that representations were made under these grounds and can evidence acceptance by producing a Notice of Acceptance the PCN must be cancelled.
Enclosed: documents proving my ownership, namely ***********
My thoughts.
-
I have the sale invoice as well as email confirmation from them attached. I had to fill a form to specify when I want to take ownership online and I chose 20 June 2025 there which was my lease end date. I have the lease agreement too with end date of 20 June 2025. I did not sign up to any agreement after that.
(https://i.ibb.co/BKn486B4/IMG-7843.jpg) (https://ibb.co/G3HsgMRs)
(https://i.ibb.co/rKXgvwFz/IMG-7842.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qL2zxr7c)
(https://i.ibb.co/vCtBjYw9/IMG-7841.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Y4rWLZRg)
-
What evidence do you have that you became the owner of the vehicle on 20 June? Pl don't describe the docs, post those which prove ownership - this has nothing to do with DVLA and who was keeper.
-
Skoda is a trading name of VWFS. That sentence is messed up as in the past they sent similar letters but with my name in the last sentence too.
As the lease expired on 20 June and I purchased the vehicle their systems have messed up that produce this template letter
-
IMO, e)that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
But before this, what have VWFS got to do with matters...'the vehicle is on long-term lease from SKODA'?
-
Thank you. Any suggested wording I should use for the representation?
-
The PCN (whose image I included) [dated 8 August] is in my name.
The original PCN was issued to the registered keeper VWFS on 26 June 2025
The so-called Third Party Authorisation letter is dated 7 July.
The authority could not lawfully transfer liability to you from VWFS based upon the TPA because it doesn't include the required mandatory information.
So, how did you get a PCN in your name?
As it stands, IMO this is a complete procedural f***-up.
-
When the time comes, the PCN is invalid due to missing information.
-
We've seen this location before, but I can't remember how appeals to London Tribunals worked out. Try a search of their Statutory Register using the location on the PCN as search argument.
Having said that, it does look like a clear contravention with a visible restriction sign, plus carriageway text.
I was puzzled with your GSV link that shows the bus-only restriction on the curve because it doesn't match the video view. So looking on GSV, I found the view as y ou come up to the give-way line on approach from Winston Way: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/db2tcycCLZ8r9rtu8
The signs are clear enough, but would be obscured by passing buses, and there is no advance warning sign that there is at the other end of this street.
So if you're up for a punt, submit reps pointing out the frequent bus traffic as seen in the videoobscured your view of the signs, and unlike the other end of Clements St, there is no advance warning on Handforth Road.
Thanks - it seems the adjudicators have rejected nearly all (but not all) the cases at this location.
However i have now posted the letter from the lease company to the council too (and I have explained the chronology in the post above). as the lease company told the council in their letter that it was a 1 day lease (when actually i had purchased the vehicle already and perhaps the DVA records were not updated) maybe i should challenge based on the council should not have transferred liability to me and my lease agreement with VWFS ended on 20 June 2025 (which was the last day of my 3 year contract)
-
We've seen this location before, but I can't remember how appeals to London Tribunals worked out. Try a search of their Statutory Register using the location on the PCN as search argument.
Having said that, it does look like a clear contravention with a visible restriction sign, plus carriageway text.
I was puzzled with your GSV link that shows the bus-only restriction on the curve because it doesn't match the video view. So looking on GSV, I found the view as y ou come up to the give-way line on approach from Winston Way: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/db2tcycCLZ8r9rtu8
The signs are clear enough, but would be obscured by passing buses, and there is no advance warning sign that there is at the other end of this street.
So if you're up for a punt, submit reps pointing out the frequent bus traffic as seen in the videoobscured your view of the signs, and unlike the other end of Clements St, there is no advance warning on Handforth Road.
-
The PCN (whose image I included) is in my name. I was the leaseholder until 20 June 2025 when my 3-year lease with VWFS ended.
I purchased the vehicle from my lease company on 20 June 2025, and they issued me a "V5C2 Receipt Letter" on 16 June 2025, asking me to pay the road tax, which I did on 25 June 2025. I still haven't received the new V5 with me as registered keeper from DVA (which VWFS told me on 16 June 2025 will take DVA 4-6 weeks).
The original PCN was issued to the registered keeper VWFS on 26 June 2025 and VWFS sent a representation dated 7 July 2025 to the council giving my details as the leaseholder and asking them to correspond with me.
This may have been an error by VWFS as I was not the leaseholder on 26 June 2025, and the letter VWFS sent the council is attached, which says I had a lease with a contract start and end date of 22 June 2025 with VWFS (so a 1-day lease).
(https://i.ibb.co/RpDttdkt/8203594a-aa3b-4f41-9a6b-736edcfbf1e5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fYxZZLzZ)
-
Forget the contravention for the moment, focus on procedure.
Prima facie the PCN is void because the authority has a 28-day limit to serve a PCN and this is dated 8 Aug. for a contravention on 22 June.
The only way that the PCN is legitimate is if a prior PCN has been cancelled by the authority in which case they may serve another PCN no later than 28 days 'from the date of cancellation of the penalty charge'.
To whom is the PCN addressed?
Are you the registered keeper?
-
Received the attached PCN
Seems like I made a clear mistake here (the sign is after a curve with some trees on my side and opposing side's sign was blocked by buses as can be seen in the video) - any tips on how i can challenge / anything wrong that you see?
The lease company (from whom I purchased the vehicle on 20 June 2025) received the original PCN dated 26 June 2025 and sent a representation to the council to communicate with me on 7 July 20225. Perhaps the DVA records were not updated showing me as the registered keeper and hence the council sent the initial PCN to the lease company.
google location here https://www.google.com/maps/place/Clements+Rd,+Ilford/@51.5587234,0.0760158,3a,75y,207.51h,66.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sy-cR7GAUMmp_sk3kUOczOg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D23.425769950951263%26panoid%3Dy-cR7GAUMmp_sk3kUOczOg%26yaw%3D207.51312701517526!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x47d8a68a673fcb91:0xb06d02493bfe0aeb!8m2!3d51.5581539!4d0.0745545!16s%2Fg%2F1tpc76y9?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDgxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
(https://i.ibb.co/xKwgD6rM/c4e37f1d-869a-4089-88c2-af7cba418db3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6cGtmFq4)
(https://i.ibb.co/rRTbWj6P/dd7eb101-15df-4a9a-ac75-cb67ef14c255.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7d8g9fWc)To visit
(https://i.ibb.co/Z6Mvv7pv/8203594a-aa3b-4f41-9a6b-736edcfbf1e5.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fYxZZLzZ)
video evidence from council here https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ivvs7gczjqeh1tzy99g0g/SUdPZlcwUzVEN3g3MDhDUWtSRFRUNHU3dHIrSnh0Qm0vTFVXa0Nodkh4cHkwU2ZFcWYyczcwdVJ6akJvTW05RDJscDdvV0hQVXB2NHZrUFI0M0lnTVE9PQ.mp4?rlkey=jp3b96nwqq1fh124nahowee7k&st=o8ym9bq8&dl=0