Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: davem66 on September 20, 2025, 11:30:05 am

Title: Re: PCN - contravention 52m - Demody Rd, Lewisham
Post by: davem66 on September 25, 2025, 08:29:15 am

Hippocrates

Shall I go ahead and pay the PCN? Or do you think the missing mandatory information angle is worth me pursuing?

Thanks!

Title: Re: PCN - contravention 52m - Demody Rd, Lewisham
Post by: davem66 on September 23, 2025, 08:45:14 am

Here are more details from the PCN:
https://imgur.com/a/67FlMHX (4 pages)

Video from Lewisham Council:
https://strnpsprodcctv.blob.core.windows.net/caseattachments/10/case/zy20368753/ALERT_EN0151_DT20250910171119621_CN000_AE0000000527_9b790406-ba26-4cfb-afb2-b07cf395ae10.mp4?sv=2021-10-04&st=2025-09-23T11%3A13%3A36Z&se=2025-09-23T12%3A13%3A36Z&sr=b&sp=r&sig=FVg0HQzwl4bCUseuKKLvYFC%2BBGCn%2FVZwGUsLQSZCgiE%3D

Photos from Lewisham Council:
https://imgur.com/a/tLGMYFo

Google Street View:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/DbT35bg4sqZqMapb9

(For the reduced £80 the PCN needs to be paid before 29 Sept)

Title: Re: PCN - contravention 52m - Demody Rd, Lewisham
Post by: davem66 on September 22, 2025, 09:10:28 am

Thanks Hippocrates - Thanks very much for your feedback! And sorry for my late reply.

I will contest the PCN. Would you mind please writing a few lines for me, to send to Lewisham, as I will need to be precise with the wording.

Many thanks

Title: Re: PCN - contravention 52m - Demody Rd, Lewisham
Post by: Hippocrates on September 20, 2025, 10:28:24 pm

PCN issue

I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it does not state mandatory information provided at 4(8 )(v) of

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted which in turn refers to 4(8 )(iii).
 Therefore, the PCN is not valid as it is missing mandatory information. And so it follows that the statement beginning with "If you fail................." is not only conflated but also does not even mention the said information thus exacerbating the lack of clarity of this PCN. Whether the "or" is interpreted as conjunctively or disjunctively, is somewhat further complicated  by the missing information.  Therefore, it must be read as to be paid before the end of 28 days from the date of service, which is wrong. The High Court has ruled that there must be such clarity in Hackney Drivers.

Title: PCN - contravention 52m - Demody Rd, Lewisham
Post by: davem66 on September 20, 2025, 11:30:05 am

I received this PCN in the post yesterday.

https://imgur.com/a/JHctPBP (https://imgur.com/a/JHctPBP)

I obviously broke the rules, but really I wasn't aware at the time I had broken any rules. It wasn't obvious to me. The road signs are there - I can see now from the photos - but they didn't register with me at the time. It's not obvious enough. You dont expect a main road to suddenly change from being free flowing to suddenly illegal to drive down ... If they dont want cars there, then why dont they put a gate across the road?

I was following my satnav, driving behind a van, who must have received a PCN also. Also a car came towards me on the same stretch, so must also have received a PCN.

I see this road/ stretch is notorious.

Is it worth me contesting the PCN?

Thanks for any help! Much appreciated