Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Liffey on September 09, 2025, 09:14:16 pm
-
I'll sort this tomorrow once I receive the formal representations.
-
Will do via PM.
-
Thank you. I would need to double check the roundabout point with the driver.
If you are willing to represent me I will go to tribunal. Please let me know the next steps. Thanks again
-
This is just after a roundabout yes? I assume you are going to the Tribunal? If so, I am happy to represent you.
-
The notice of rejection was only sent by email today but it's dated 10 November. Is it worth raising this? They also sent the original PCN late
-
I have now received the notice of rejection. Please could someone advise if this is worth taking to tribunal?
(https://i.ibb.co/848CM2Sx/Screenshot-20251124-141247-Drive.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fG0gMtPN)
-
I was there today.
-
Thanks very much. I'll continue to wait for another month in that case.
-
There is no limit under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, under which your PCN was served. The 56 days applies to reps against a Notice to Owner, or to a postal PCN under the Transport Management Act 2004. So why no limit on one of the Acts ? Because the people who prepare these Acts are thick and stupid is my opinion.
There is, of course, the common law duty on councils to act fairly. London Tribunal adjudicators generally take anything over 3 months as unfair and potentially prejudicial.
-
I submitted the reps online on 17 September, which is now over 56 days ago. I have not heard anything. I checked the PCN online and it was still showing as £80 owed.
Can anyone please tell me whether Havering do in fact have longer then 56 days to respond as they claim on their website?
-
Footage? I posted the video.
Apart from the website issue a basic fact if playing dumb is in the appeal below - if you came in the other end you would have breached a no entry but not a blue arrow.
Case reference 2230158559
Appellant xxxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Havering
VRM OV64 DVB
PCN Details
PCN HG49158232
Contravention date 30 Nov 2022
Contravention time 10:54:00
Contravention location Angel Way
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Failing to comply with a one-way restriction
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Apr 2023
Adjudicator Jack Walsh
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons This is an allegation of failing to comply with a one-way restriction. As with any restriction, it is incumbent on the enforcement authority (EA) to provide signage of the prescribed kind that is adequate to inform road users of the restriction.
In this case, there is evidence of 'one way' signage on the street in question, in one of the photographs provided by the EA. The 'one way' signage faces motorists proceeding in the correct direction on the street. There is also, it would appear from the marked map, 'no entry' signage preventing motorists from entering the street in the wrong direction. It is possible that the appellant's motor vehicle passed that signage. However, not only is there no direct evidence that the 'no entry' signage was present and that the appellant's vehicle passed it, the PCN was not issued for failing to comply with a 'no entry' sign.
The CCTV footage shows the appellant's vehicle pulling off from the kerb and driving in the wrong direction on the street specified in the PCN. There is no evidence at all, however, that it ever passed, in the correct direction, any 'one way' signage. Rather, precisely because it was driving in the wrong direction, there is no evidence that the driver saw anything other than the backs of the 'one way signs'. There is no evidence that there was signage of the prescribed kind that was available for this motorist to see.
I am afraid that the wrong contravention was alleged here, with the wrong evidence. If there had been evidence that the vehicle drove, in the correct direction, past the 'one way' signage and then turned to drive in the opposite direction, the contravention would have been capable of proof. Alternatively, if there had been evidence that the vehicle drove past 'no entry' signs then the PCN could have been issued for that contravention.
On the evidence I am unable to find the contravention that was actually alleged, proved.
It is with considerable regret that I have to allow this appeal because the representations and the notice of appeal are of a type upon which I commented in 2220387017 Uddin v. LB Redbridge. Both documents appear to have been written in the same hand but, quite remarkably, have totally different content and even use different names. I have no doubt whatsoever that they are both generic works of fiction written by the same prolific but careless author. These 'Uddin' type representations and appeals are a scourge and a waste of public money.
-
I requested the footage a week ago but there has been no reply. Can I do anything about this/does it help with challenging the PCN?
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-london-borough-of-havering-29j-wrong-way-on-a-one-way-street/msg89241/#msg89241
Their website is pants.
-
I requested the footage a week ago but there has been no reply. Can I do anything about this/does it help with challenging the PCN?
-
Apologies for not providing the right GSV and thanks for correcting.
The road was blocked by construction work. There was a lorry blocking the road and it wasn't possible to get past it
-
Appears your GSV link is not quite in the right place - it appears to be here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/pAi7MLfgEUpTUu9m6 at the back of the car park.
Street view shows that you can drive all the way around the back of the car park (coming out on the left in your original GSV location) so it's not a dead end - although there may have been some parking on the day that prevented the car driving through? There's the blue arrow at the entrance, and then another 2 further down. No idea where that leaves you with the contravention, however, leave that to others to advise!
-
Does that mean there are grounds to challenge the PCN?
-
The video doesn't show you failing to comply with a sign as it's facing in the other direction.
(https://i.ibb.co/pBP0hcpF/Media2-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter-1.gif)
-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/enFxWN1dAf9NWeZv6
The driver approached the road and turned right, meaning there was no sign on that side. The road is a dead end. They had to turn around to exit the road
-
The driver was forced to turn around in Angel Way, which is a one-way street, when the road they were trying to go down was blocked. Also there are only signs on one side.
Please also post a GSV link to the location, and give some more detail surrounding the being forced to turn around and the nature of the blockage.
-
The driver was forced to turn around in Angel Way, which is a one-way street, when the road they were trying to go down was blocked. Also there are only signs on one side.
(https://iili.io/KzFYKMv.md.jpg) (https://freeimage.host/i/KzFYKMv)
image hosting (https://freeimage.host/)
(https://iili.io/KzFcnTX.md.jpg) (https://freeimage.host/i/KzFcnTX)
(https://iili.io/KzFa6hu.md.jpg) (https://freeimage.host/i/KzFa6hu)
(https://iili.io/KzFcdCJ.md.jpg) (https://freeimage.host/i/KzFcdCJ)