Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: godders2025 on August 15, 2025, 07:27:09 pm
-
Thanks for updating and making larger, I am struggling with the image uploading for some reason.
on ibb, sctoll down and under the image you will find among the selection of codes
Full image (linked)
HTML
BBCode
Hover over the link against BBCode and you will see a copy button at the r-h end. Click that to transfer to clipboard and paste in yr post.
(I think when you did your post, you selected the Thumbnail image rather than Full image.)
-
For convenience:
[img width=450.0000305175781 height=640]https://i.ibb.co/6Rpyb8Sm/20251210-103658.jpg[/img] (https://ibb.co/pvs1ZQTx)
Thanks for updating and making larger, I am struggling with the image uploading for some reason.
-
For convenience:
(https://i.ibb.co/6Rpyb8Sm/20251210-103658.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pvs1ZQTx)
-
Here is the Case summary letter that was in the plethora of paperwork.
Some of the paragraphs seem contradictory to me, such as "There is no requirements for any signs and the vehicle need not be causing an obstruction", yet in the following paragraph "Drivers are expected to comply with all signs and markings relating to traffic restrictions and directions".
(https://i.ibb.co/pvs1ZQTx/20251210-103658.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pvs1ZQTx)
-
I have received an adjudication date of 15th December and received the councils evidence pack which contains( . . . ) as well as a letter asking the adjudicator to deny my appeal.
. . .
Please post up this letter. The experts here may well ask to see other docs before giving advice.
-
I have received an adjudication date of 15th December and received the councils evidence pack, which contains 4 evidential picures, two traffic orders which mean nothing to me, as well as a letter asking the adjudicator to deny my appeal.
Before I upload my appeal draft based upon the Notice to owner being defective due to it not showing an evidential picture, which made us suspect it was a fake document, can anybody else suggest any other angle we can use in addition to this?
-
No. Your PCN was issued under different legislation with different regulatory requirements.
Anyway, register the appeal, I suggest grounds of contravention did not occur and procedural impropriety.
At this stage, there's no need to go into detail, simply register. Appeals are being scheduled for 2026, so no rush to finalise your appeal, the meat can be added later.
And as regards...
Thank you for the suggestion, however, there was only one alleged contravention taking place from your list, which was the first one as he has permission to park from the owner of the property for which the dropped footway has been provided..
Then, in the context of...
My father received a Notice to Owner out of the blue yesterday from Havering Council for Contravention code 62 (Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway). He doesn't even remember parking on the road in question[/i]
..it must follow that he has a 24/7 continuous authority from the occupier to park there and knows when he does.
But this is not germane to your appeal thankfully.
OK, I have lodged an appeal through the London tribunals website on the grounds of contravention did not occur and procedural impropriety and they are due to get in touch with a hearing date within the next 7 days.
With regards to my original comment of "He doesn't even remember parking on the road in question", I failed to elaborate in as much detail as perhaps I should have, it should have read "He doesn't even remember parking on the road in question at this particular time" as he does indeed have 24/7 continuous authority from the occupier to park there. At the time the PCN was issued, his electronic parking brake had failed and therefore the car could not not be parked on the drive due to it being a steep slope and parking there and leaving the car in "park" would have put undue stress on the gearbox.
-
No. Your PCN was issued under different legislation with different regulatory requirements.
Anyway, register the appeal, I suggest grounds of contravention did not occur and procedural impropriety.
At this stage, there's no need to go into detail, simply register. Appeals are being scheduled for 2026, so no rush to finalise your appeal, the meat can be added later.
And as regards...
Thank you for the suggestion, however, there was only one alleged contravention taking place from your list, which was the first one as he has permission to park from the owner of the property for which the dropped footway has been provided..
Then, in the context of...
My father received a Notice to Owner out of the blue yesterday from Havering Council for Contravention code 62 (Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway). He doesn't even remember parking on the road in question[/i]
..it must follow that he has a 24/7 continuous authority from the occupier to park there and knows when he does.
But this is not germane to your appeal thankfully.
-
Ok so I sent a representation on the grounds that the Notice to owner was the first we knew of the alleged contravention and as the Notice to owner is a legal document, it is defective as the evidence box is blank. The council on its website also instructs you to visit the website to view evidence if the PCN was not attached to the vehicle. Upon going onto the website initially, there was no evidence showing, so again, the alleged contravention did not occur. Why should people have to continually visit their website in the hope that hey will eventually upload it!
Anyways, as expected, they have rejected the formal reps and also are not re-offering the discount so naturally, we are going to take it to adjudication.
Here are both pages of the rejection of representations:
[img width=640 height=904.0000610351562]https://i.ibb.co/6c4DyLTt/Havering-PCN-Rejection-P1.jpg[/img] (https://ibb.co/JWzrcgGp)
[img width=640 height=904.0000610351562]https://i.ibb.co/9HbrSN5f/Havering-PCN-Rejection-P2.jpg[/img] (https://ibb.co/Xx7CMbRd)
@Hippocrates: I note that you said on another post today that you have had recent success regarding a flaw with the wording:
"I had success yesterday re the wording of the PCN which affects most, if not all, 34 authorities' PCNs."
Would this be relevant to this Havering PCN?
Redbridge PCN (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge31jentering-and-stopping-in-a-box-junction-when-prohibitedjct-ilford-la/)
-
While you're doing this and while the authority considers your reps, I suggest your father may use the time wisely for some introspection.
My father received a Notice to Owner out of the blue yesterday from Havering Council for Contravention code 62 (Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway). He doesn't even remember parking on the road in question
The photo shows two and possibly three separate contraventions:
Parking on the footway;
Parking adjacent to a dropped footway;
Parking in a restricted street(the yellow line).
Thank you for the suggestion, however, there was only one alleged contravention taking place from your list, which was the first one as he has permission to park from the owner of the property for which the dropped footway has been provided. The yellow line is only in effect from 10.30am-11.30am so was not in force at the time of the alleged contravention so not too much introspection was required luckily! Common sense should prevail regarding not parking as to block the flow of traffic in the street, but ultimately revenue streams take priority over this.
-
While you're doing this and while the authority considers your reps, I suggest your father may use the time wisely for some introspection.
My father received a Notice to Owner out of the blue yesterday from Havering Council for Contravention code 62 (Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway). He doesn't even remember parking on the road in question
The photo shows two and possibly three separate contraventions:
Parking on the footway;
Parking adjacent to a dropped footway;
Parking in a restricted street(the yellow line).
-
Ok thanks for your assistance on the matter. We will draft our appeal based on the fact that the windscreen PCN wasn't anywhere to be seen and its only fair that they re-offer the discount as a goodwill gesture. The blanket no footway parking restriction inside the M25 seems pretty concrete on their part so hopefully they re-offer the discount.
-
I say never ignore a Notice to Owner.
A TMA 2004 PCN served to car or driver allows 28 days from date of PCN which is essentially the same as the contravention date so nothing particularly wrong there. This is unlike postal PCNs under the TMA 2004, which must state "from date of service", because post at 1st Class assumes 2 days, so you get 2 days plus 28 days from PCN date.
-
You may as well make reps saying the windscreen PCN was missing but sadly Havering has a policy of not offering the discount on rejection so then you can waste some of their money on the tribunal. But no ask no get.
You've removed all the info and I can't remember where this is so we can't help you any further.
-
..can we wait for the charge certificate to come and then have to file a witness statement to say that the original PCN wasn't received and then it gets reset back to the original amount?
No.
The regs state:
a)that P did not receive the enforcement notice;
The NTO is the enforcement notice, and you've received this.
Actual WS tend to build in an explanation in their wording and say NTO/PCN because the same regs apply to PCNs sent by post which are 'enforcement notices'.
Probably better not to try and understand, just accept that this option is not open to you.
-
Apologies for the slow reply, I have been on holiday and this got overlooked upon my return.
I have looked on the Havering website and everything I can see on there indicates that footway parking is a no no, so I dont think the fact that other cars in the picture in the background will hold much weight at appeal.
If we base our formal reps on the fact that we didn't receive the PCN on the car and ask for a discount, if they refuse then do we have to take it to the adjudicator or can we wait for the charge certificate to come and then have to file a witness statement to say that the original PCN wasn't received and then it gets reset back to the original amount?
-
Looks like footway parking is allowed or tolerated there so let's looks into this.
Havering has a policy of not reoffering the discount anyway but may do to settle this one.
(https://i.ibb.co/5xzD8rKC/h2.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/677HtF9b/h4.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/9SrfSWJ/h3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/sdh500Jk/h1.jpg)
-
I have just been back on the havering PCN website and they have put a few pictures of the vehicle, complete with the PCN on the vehicle under the wiper so it would appear that someone had removed it for some reason as I doubt the wind would have been strong enough to allow it to fly away!
My dad is worried that relying on the Notice to Owner wording being incorrect may not be enough to get it cancelled. As part of representations, can we advise that we knew nothing of the PCN until the Notice to Owner and request they re offer the discount?
Yes, of course.
-
I have just been back on the havering PCN website and they have put a few pictures of the vehicle, complete with the PCN on the vehicle under the wiper so it would appear that someone had removed it for some reason as I doubt the wind would have been strong enough to allow it to fly away!
My dad is worried that relying on the Notice to Owner wording being incorrect may not be enough to get it cancelled. As part of representations, can we advise that we knew nothing of the PCN until the Notice to Owner and request they re offer the discount?
-
Give it a few days - trying to view pics usually triggers them to put them up.
There's no rush as NTO date 12 August.
-
The NTO says "The penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this Notice to Owner"
This is a TMA2004 NTO, so in that case the NTO should say "..... period of 28 days beginning with the date this Notice to Owner was served", or very similar? Shouldn't it?
Mandatory information on the NTO is incorrect and misleading. The NTO is therefore defective.
Noted. Thanks for pointing out this anomaly. I will investigate further.
-
Send me the webcode and I'll double check the site for pics.
Sent by PM
-
The NTO says "The penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this Notice to Owner"
This is a TMA2004 NTO, so in that case the NTO should say "..... period of 28 days beginning with the date this Notice to Owner was served", or very similar? Shouldn't it?
Mandatory information on the NTO is incorrect and misleading. The NTO is therefore defective.
-
Send me the webcode and I'll double check the site for pics.
-
I have drafted a formal representation regarding the Notice to Owner based upon there being no evidence of the alleged contravention.
If anyone could advise before I submit, that would be greatly appreciated.
I wish to make representations regarding the Notice to Owner that has been received in relation to PCN HG50125241 on the grounds that the contravention did not occur.
You state that on the 9th July 2025 at 15:15, a penalty charge notice was served by Civil Enforcement Officer HG1440 on vehicle BP13 UCA for allegedly being “Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway”, however, I have no recollection of a PCN being attached to my vehicle, and it was not handed to myself/the person in charge of the vehicle. The receipt of the Notice to Owner relating to this PCN is the first knowledge I have of the matter. Furthermore, the Notice to Owner and your parking website provides no photographic (or any other) evidence of my vehicle committing the alleged contravention. The Notice to Owner simply has a blank box with an icon signifying a broken weblink or image otherwise unavailable and although your parking appeals website has a photographs section, but it is also blank.
Your website: https://www.havering.gov.uk/parking-2/parking-tickets-traffic-fines/2, (Appeal against a parking ticket or traffic fine) has guidance referring to different grounds for challenging a PCN and the section relevant to myself “The PCN wasn't attached to the vehicle” states:
“Please make representation online and you will be able to view photos of the vehicle in contravention and see if the PCN was served to the vehicle.”
Please note that I cannot view any photographs or evidence as this section is blank
“The Traffic Management Act 2004 provides that a Penalty Charge Notice should be handed to the person in charge of the vehicle or fixed to it.”
I suggest that this PCN has not been correctly served in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004 as it was not given to the person in charge of the vehicle, nor is there any evidence of it being fixed to it. Based on the above, I request that the PCN be cancelled.
-
Ah ok, that's fine. There's nothing sensitive so i'm happy to re-post the Notice to Owner, however I would prefer not to give out the web code on the public forum, if necessary I can provide via PM. After going back onto the Havering website and entering the webcode, it simply takes me to a page where I can pay or make formal representations, again however the photographs section is totally blank.
-
Only name and address need redacting. If everyone blanked the car VRM (on show in public right now unless you garage it) and PCN number we could not post videos and pics especially as we can sometimes get them more easily with the right system. If there is a sensitive reason we can take details by private message and blank plates but it's mostly unnecessary.
-
Apologies, when I was a member of Pepipoo and requested assistance, I was always advised to retract any personally identifiable information. Is this not longer the case?
-
You've blanked the PCN number and VRM - what are they. And the webcode.
-
My father received a Notice to Owner out of the blue yesterday from Havering Council for Contravention code 62 (Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway). He doesn't even remember parking on the road in question on the day mentioned on the Notice to owner, however, he is 100% sure that he hasn't received any PCN since owning the vehicle (approximately 12 months) either on the vehicle itself or through the post.
What is even stranger is that the Notice to owner has no evidential photograph of my fathers vehicle committing the alleged contravention. It is a blank box as if there is no photo available.
After typing in the PCN number on the council website, there are no photos or video on there to see what he was supposed to have done wrong.
Where does he stand with this as he is a pensioner and there is no way he will pay the £140 that Havering are asking for when they could simply be trying their luck. In my eyes, the alleged contravention did not occur as there is no evidence or indeed a PCN for the council to rely on.
I have attached photos of the pages of the Notice to Owner.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.