Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: dingus on August 16, 2025, 12:43:37 pm
-
I have uploaded the PDF here
I dont think i can attach files
I have attached the we transfer link to the pdf scan of the letters
https://we.tl/t-nlXrnTedj2
-
Did they justify the departure from the correct wording requirements re timescales for appealing to the tribunal?
-
They rejected your reps because they can. They're not objective and fair, they're cynical, narrow-minded, partial and money-grabbing.
The argument is subjective, albeit based upon legal requirements.
The wording of the rejection is important because we need to see how they dealt with the TSM reference.
-
I submitted the above and i got it rejected. I guess i need to pay and no other grounds to appeal.
Please post their letter of rejection.
Why do you think that the council know it all, and you must pay ? The final arbiter of your PCN is London Tribunals. Of course if the council have re-offered the discount, you must decide whether to pay or not, because the full PCN penalty is payable if you lose your case at London Tribunals.
-
I submitted the above and i got it rejected. I guess i need to pay and no other grounds to appeal.
-
The contravention description is:
'Failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign..'
It is not proceeding in the wrong direction along Shaftesbury, this is simply the concomitant of failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow.
IMO, your reps should be along the lines of:
On *** I was driving south along Hawthorne Avenue and turned left at its junction with Shaftesbury Road. This is confirmed by the authority's CCTV. I was not aware at the time that I had done anything wrong and therefore was surprised to receive the PCN.
On viewing the authority's CCTV I was still none the wiser as with which blue direction sign I am supposed to have failed to comply . For obvious reasons it cannot be the 'one-way' arrow in the CCTV because this is not visible to drivers travelling in my direction. I then looked at Google Street View which shows a single blue sign with a white arrow on a lamp post on the opposite side of the road at the junction of Hawthorne Avenue and Shaftesbury. I presume this is the 'arrow on a blue sign' referred to in the contravention description as there is no other regulatory sign in the vicinity.
I am therefore making representations on the grounds that the contravention did not occur because the council has failed to sign the restriction to the standard required. Specifically, according to the Traffic Signs Manual (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf) the council should erect a 'Right turn' sign with the supplementary plate 'One way' in combination with a sign to diagram 609 'to be sited approx. 50m from the junction'. The road marking Right Turn is an optional addition.
By placing only a single sign which sits within an environment of blue signs with white writing (MOT TEST CENTRE, the MOT symbol, AUTOTEKS) the council has done its best to obscure the sign rather than bring it to a driver's attention. As if this wasn't bad enough, the sign is placed immediately to the right of an entrance to properties which would be visited by high-sided commercial vehicles which would have to turn across the line of sight of any driver at the junction.
The authority is required to explain why it has departed from the TSM recommendation and instead chosen to place only one of the two recommended signs and none of the road markings. Absent cogent reasons, excluding lack of knowledge and for financial purposes, the PCN must be cancelled.
Thank you H C Anderson!
I run the above through chatgpt:
I wish to make formal representations against the above PCN on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
On 01/08/2025 at 10:57, I was driving south along Hawthorne Avenue and turned left at its junction with Shaftesbury Road. This is confirmed by the authority's CCTV. At the time, I was not aware that I had committed any contravention, and I was therefore surprised to receive this PCN.
Upon viewing the CCTV evidence provided by the authority, I was still unclear as to which blue directional sign I was alleged to have failed to comply with. The ‘one-way’ arrow in the footage cannot be the relevant sign, as it is not visible to drivers travelling in my direction.
I subsequently consulted Google Street View and observed a single blue sign with a white arrow mounted on a lamp post on the opposite side of the road at the junction of Hawthorne Avenue and Shaftesbury Road. I can only assume this is the sign in question, as no other regulatory blue direction signs are present nearby.
The contravention description is “failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign.” However, the Council has not signed the restriction in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM), Chapter 3. Specifically:
Section 4 of the TSM requires that a “Right Turn” sign, with a supplementary “One Way” plate, should be erected in combination with a diagram 609 sign, to be sited approximately 50 metres before the junction.
The optional “Right Turn” road marking could also have been used to provide clarity.
By placing only a single diagram 609 sign in a visually cluttered environment—surrounded by blue commercial signs such as “MOT TEST CENTRE,” the MOT symbol, and “AUTOTEKS”—the Council has obscured rather than highlighted the restriction.
Additionally, the sign is placed immediately beside an entrance used by high-sided vehicles, which regularly obstruct the line of sight for drivers approaching the junction. This renders the sign ineffective at conveying the restriction.
The Council is required to explain why it has departed from the TSM recommendations by providing only one of the two prescribed signs and omitting advance signage or road markings. Unless the Council can provide cogent reasons for this deviation, other than lack of resources or financial motives, the restriction cannot be considered adequately signed and the contravention cannot be enforced.
For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the alleged contravention did not occur and request that the PCN be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
[Your Name]
-
The contravention description is:
'Failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign..'
It is not proceeding in the wrong direction along Shaftesbury, this is simply the concomitant of failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow.
IMO, your reps should be along the lines of:
On *** I was driving south along Hawthorne Avenue and turned left at its junction with Shaftesbury Road. This is confirmed by the authority's CCTV. I was not aware at the time that I had done anything wrong and therefore was surprised to receive the PCN.
On viewing the authority's CCTV I was still none the wiser as with which blue direction sign I am supposed to have failed to comply . For obvious reasons it cannot be the 'one-way' arrow in the CCTV because this is not visible to drivers travelling in my direction. I then looked at Google Street View which shows a single blue sign with a white arrow on a lamp post on the opposite side of the road at the junction of Hawthorne Avenue and Shaftesbury. I presume this is the 'arrow on a blue sign' referred to in the contravention description as there is no other regulatory sign in the vicinity.
I am therefore making representations on the grounds that the contravention did not occur because the council has failed to sign the restriction to the standard required. Specifically, according to the Traffic Signs Manual (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf) the council should erect a 'Right turn' sign with the supplementary plate 'One way' in combination with a sign to diagram 609 'to be sited approx. 50m from the junction'. The road marking Right Turn is an optional addition.
By placing only a single sign which sits within an environment of blue signs with white writing (MOT TEST CENTRE, the MOT symbol, AUTOTEKS) the council has done its best to obscure the sign rather than bring it to a driver's attention. As if this wasn't bad enough, the sign is placed immediately to the right of an entrance to properties which would be visited by high-sided commercial vehicles which would have to turn across the line of sight of any driver at the junction.
The authority is required to explain why it has departed from the TSM recommendation and instead chosen to place only one of the two recommended signs and none of the road markings. Absent cogent reasons, excluding lack of knowledge and for financial purposes, the PCN must be cancelled.
-
I'm not legally qualified (or even that well informed) so can't comment on your references to legal requirements or that case from 2011 unfortunately. Others may be able to comment here.
One thing I do know, however, is that "Procedural Impropriety" isn't a statutory ground of appeal under LLA 2003 so it would be best not to claim this is the ground you are basing your representations on. Better to state that "the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case" on the basis that with the PCN being defective under the law, the amount which is applicable is zero.
Also, I haven't been following the previous discussion around adequacy of signage etc. If that is a reasonable ground, I'd also include that in your representations to increase credibility in the future just in case you need to rely on this at adjudication (adjudicators aren't always persuaded by 100% technical arguments).
EDIT - point 3 in your draft is incorrect. LLA 2003 does impose different requirements for payment and representations (which is probably due to poor drafting of the Act rather than intention and also likely the source of Enfield's confusion). The Act imposes payment deadlines which are expressed in terms of time commencing from the date of notice, while representations are in terms of time commencing from date of service. So the PCN is generally correctly worded in this regard. It's only Enfield's statement about when they may disregard representations which is incorrect. I'd therefore suggest removing this section from your representations.
-
Thank you Mr Chips and super helpful. I use chatgpt to draft an appeal letter:
-----------
Dear Sir/Madam,
I make these formal representations against Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) number EF99174738, issued on 13/08/2025, concerning vehicle registration PJ60VYC.
Grounds of Representation – Procedural Impropriety
This PCN has not been issued in accordance with the requirements of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the Act”).
Section 4(8)(a)(viii) of the Act requires that a penalty charge notice must state that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act.
Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 provides:
“The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.”
However, this PCN instead states:
“We may disregard any representations received after the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice of this Penalty Charge Notice.”
This is a material misstatement of the law. The “date of the notice” is not the same as the “date of service.” The law deems service to occur two working days after posting if sent by first-class post. The PCN therefore unlawfully shortens the statutory representation period by at least two days.
1. Prejudice and Confusion
This defect is not trivial. It materially prejudices my legal rights by misinforming me of the correct time limit for making representations. A motorist relying on the PCN wording could wrongly believe they are out of time when, in law, they are not. The PCN therefore fails in its purpose of properly conveying statutory rights.
2. Mandatory Requirement
The requirements of section 4(8) are mandatory, not optional. Case law such as Camden LBC v The Parking Adjudicator & BHS [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) confirms that statutory wording must be followed precisely. A PCN that misstates mandatory information is invalid and cannot be enforced.
3. Inconsistency of Information
The PCN refers to deadlines being calculated from the date of service for payment, but from the date of the notice for representations. This inconsistency is confusing, contradictory, and contrary to the requirement that a PCN must be clear, accurate, and consistent in setting out the recipient’s rights.
4. Enfield’s Statutory Duty
As the enforcing authority, the London Borough of Enfield has a statutory duty to issue PCNs that comply with the Act. A PCN that misstates statutory rights is null and void ab initio, and cannot lawfully be pursued.
Conclusion
For the above reasons, the PCN is invalid due to procedural impropriety. I respectfully request that it be cancelled forthwith. Should you nevertheless reject these representations, I will appeal to the independent adjudicator at London Tribunals, where I will rely on the statutory wording and case law cited above.
Yours faithfully,
-------
PCN is issued under LLA 2003.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted
Section 4(8 )(a)(viii) states:
A penalty charge notice under this section must state that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act.
Within paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, it states "The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served."
Your PCN does not state this - it states the similar but critically different "We may disregard any representations received after the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice of this Penalty Charge Notice."
Date of service is taken to be two business days after posting (first class) so that law gives you additional time to make representations than is set out in the PCN.
As it is a requirement of the LLA 2003 that Enfield MUST state that you may be entitled to make representations under the terms set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act, and Enfield have not correctly done this, then I can't see how the PCN can stand as it includes information that is different and contrary to the wording that must be included.
-
PCN is issued under LLA 2003.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enacted
Section 4(8 )(a)(viii) states:
A penalty charge notice under this section must state that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act.
Within paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, it states "The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served."
Your PCN does not state this - it states the similar but critically different "We may disregard any representations received after the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice of this Penalty Charge Notice."
Date of service is taken to be two business days after posting (first class) so that law gives you additional time to make representations than is set out in the PCN.
As it is a requirement of the LLA 2003 that Enfield MUST state that you may be entitled to make representations under the terms set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act, and Enfield have not correctly done this, then I can't see how the PCN can stand as it includes information that is different and contrary to the wording that must be included.
-
Their video shows you turning left there, and then drive all the way down Shaftesbury Road. That is not in dispute, but it is the Right Turn sign that is the problem. It is too easily obscured by vans etc, and also is located within a mass of blue commercial signs so easily missed anyway. The point really, is that their video doesn't show your turning left against a blue Right Turn sign, it only shows you existing Shaftesbury Road, which you drove along the wrong way.
-
Just to clarify i checked the road and seem to got things mixed up. I took a left at the of the first picture which is Hawnthorn Rd and turned left down Shaftesbury Road
-
Grounds to challenge is that the contravention did not occur The signage was not visible so there can be no contravention
-
Where's the PCN?
I have attached is a pdf to my original post. Resharing here as images
-
Where's the PCN?
-
The video shows the vehicle emerging from Hawthorn Road, rather than Parkstone Avenue, as posted earlier
So here,
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NSgD6TRbn9GvocwZ9
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Jtu2HwJzJovGMDndA
and not as posted earlier.
Here the blue one-way sign is heaviliy surrounded by a sea of blue commercial signage, and is still liable to being obscured by parked high-sided vehicles, tho' there is still the turn-right sign painted on the carriageway at the end of Hawthorn Road.
-
The signs as the car exits the street show quite plainly that this is a one-way street, so why are there no 'No Entry' signs at the T-junction where one must turn right, not left ? The signage here is quite laughable in its inadequacy, showing how cavalier the council are in following Regulation 18 of LATOR.
Yes, I know, stupidity and thickness is obviously a qualification for working in a council traffic department.
What are my grounds of appeal here?
-
The signs as the car exits the street show quite plainly that this is a one-way street, so why are there no 'No Entry' signs at the T-junction where one must turn right, not left ? The signage here is quite laughable in its inadequacy, showing how cavalier the council are in following Regulation 18 of LATOR.
Yes, I know, stupidity and thickness is obviously a qualification for working in a council traffic department.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/pv6kqJDK/en2-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif)
-
Thanks for confirming.
I believe the road marking is still there but need to double check
Someone said on FB the following:
"your contraviction only refers to the blue sign. i checked on google street view. If there is no change to the signage since mar 2022, then let them know you entered shaftesbury rd from parkstone ave. you noticed no blue sign. there is a removal company on that location, and there are usually many large vehicles that park in front of the sign making it invisible. If the blue sign is not visible then there is no contraviction."
Attached the council images
You can view the video evidence below
EF99174738
PJ60VYC
https://parkingservices.itsvc.co.uk/enfield/notices/
Someone also mentioned:
"I think there is a technical error on the PCN which could render it void. It says they may disregard any representations received after 28 days from the date of the PCN. The law says they may only do this after 28 days from when the PCN is served. This is probably enough to get the PCN thrown out."
-
So here (2022) demonstrating yr point about vans
https://maps.app.goo.gl/LnW2Mk5HiUnD4P5AA
(2024) and showing the sign
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oR6RfubUeLVeytTg7
But in 2022 there is a clear turn right marking on the carriageway - is it still there?
Is there a video of the contravention or any council photos?
Presumably the camera caught you emerging into Pretoria Rd.North?
-
Hi all,
I’ve received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) from Enfield Council and would like advice before I submit my challenge.
PCN details:
Contravention code: 32J – Failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign (driving wrong way)
Location: Pretoria Road North / Shaftesbury Road N18
Date of alleged contravention: 07/08/2025 at 10:57
Date of Notice: 13/08/2025
What Happened
I turned into Shaftesbury Road from Parkstone Avenue. At the time I did not see any one-way sign.
On inspection, I found the blue arrow sign is positioned directly behind a designated parking bay. This bay is regularly occupied by vans and lorries from nearby businesses. When a tall vehicle is present, the sign is completely hidden from approaching drivers.
I revisited the site and also checked Google Maps – both confirm that the sign is obscured whenever the bay is in use. I have attached photos to illustrate this.
Grounds of Appeal
Inadequate Signage
TSRGD 2016 requires signs to be clear and visible at all times.
Enfield have installed the one-way sign directly behind a parking bay, meaning it is frequently obscured.
A driver turning from Parkstone Avenue cannot reasonably be expected to see the restriction.
Procedural Impropriety – PCN Wording
The PCN states that the council “may disregard any representations received after 28 days from the date of the PCN.”
The law says the period runs from the date of service (when the notice is deemed received).
Next Steps
I’m considering:
Submitting an informal challenge highlighting both signage issues and the PCN defect.
If rejected, pursuing this to formal representation and London Tribunals if needed.
Questions for the forum
Does the PCN wording point give me a solid “procedural impropriety” argument on its own?
Should I rely mainly on the obscured signage, or run both arguments in parallel?
Has anyone here seen Enfield PCNs cancelled on this basis before?
Thanks in advance — photos attached for clarity.