Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: NTIAEP on October 22, 2025, 03:23:29 pm
-
....but don't forget that costs can be awarded to either side....
My counterargument would be that I wasn't the one that incorrectly issued the PCN and then completely ignore perfectly valid representations as to why the alleged contravention hadn't occurred, in the hope that I'd cave in and not take it to LT, at the 'fear' of having to pay the full penalty amount.
As I said, you can always test the matter by making a costs application to London Tribunals.
-
....but don't forget that costs can be awarded to either side....
My counterargument would be that I wasn't the one that incorrectly issued the PCN and then completely ignore perfectly valid representations as to why the alleged contravention hadn't occurred, in the hope that I'd cave in and not take it to LT, at the 'fear' of having to pay the full penalty amount.
-
The awarding of costs was deliberately made difficult, but don't forget that costs can be awarded to either side, so I have to say, I support the present system, but think it does need serious reform, but not on the costs side.
The test I showed, is the one applied by an adjudicator when a cost application has been made against a council; i.e. Were the actions of the council in enforcing the PCN "wholly unreasonable" ? Note that this is subjective, and an adjudicator has to decide using that test and your submission of why it was..
The only way to test the matter is to submit a costs application,but you have to show how the council acted "wholly unreasonably" in rejecting your representations right through the process and up to adjudication.
-
The costs test is "wholly unreasonable". Frankly I don't think that test has been met, but no harm in trying.
What if I am self-employed and time spent in researching, drafting reps, collating evidence (photographs etc), submitting reps and the appeal, attending the appeal itself, all has an 'opportunity cost'?
When I've received a PCN and am 'guilty' of the contravention (only happened 3 times in 20years), I've taken it on the chin, paid up and learnt the lesson. However, I'm sick & tired of CCTV operators chancing it (most likely not knowing the rules/regs themselves), issuing PCNs willy-nilly, and then to add insult to injury, completely rejecting bona-fide reps. Of the numerous (personal) appeals I've submitted to LT over the years, only one has been refused.
-
The costs test is "wholly unreasonable". Frankly I don't think that test has been met, but no harm in trying.
-
Appeal allowed 8)
Case reference: 2250625668
I'd like to make a request for costs (of which I'd already forewarned Redbridge in my initial reps). Anybody advise me best way of approaching LT with this?
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/costs (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/costs)
-
I would shoot the arrow now. NOT later.
-
Shouldn't need to rely upon the missing mandatory language as mentioned by @Hippocrates in the post above. Will leave that arrow in our quiver for another Redbridge PCN (School Streets) that I've received and will start a new thread accordingly.
From the council's own CCTV footage, at the point of entry the car ahead was here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/dyotsdelv5cilftey7xor/PCN_AF20933413_YBJ-entry.JPG?rlkey=6f7gxfwlh1gdkkcu377xx1fq2&st=zdltjsxk&dl=0) with the feasible assumption that its rear was where there is a change in texture/colour of the road surface (you can see a line in the image). FYI - there's also a white arrow marking spray-painted on the kerb.
....and so I plodded off to the site of the alleged contravention and took the following pics:
picture of full measuring tape (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/595c5l707ywqq5ljwi46u/PCN_AF20933413_full-measure-tape.jpg?rlkey=h6r6zaf7qme7a8ukrmeo45q7d&st=9l5f7mb4&dl=0) ,
surface change at 353cm (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/nept30x06j3ntcf2p08mb/PCN_AF20933413_surface-change-at-353cm.jpg?rlkey=mbq8h2dyof3m6mjljo21yagtr&st=m40aez2u&dl=0) and
white arrow at 369cm (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/a5vlk96fqlvgitlqcsaqg/PCN_AF20933413_white-arrow-at-369cm.jpg?rlkey=hp5hgbs2reztw56r5899q6dzh&st=kltu241e&dl=0)
The official measurements from Toyota for this vehicle (see page 18) (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/gpddx03u14clliwpyuurh/Gen3-Yaris-2nd-MC-archive-press-pack.pdf?rlkey=rd4rmmglrxptayvs8map6mfvm&st=wxmo6qpl&dl=0) shows a wheelbase of 251cm with a front overhang of 81cm. A combined total of 332cm and more than enough space to have cleared the other side of the YJB.
Why oh why oh why? !!!!
-
I am happy to do this one.
No contravention plus:
I had success yesterday re the wording of the PCN which affects most, if not all, 34 authorities' PCNs.
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lb-havering-code-31j-entering-and-stopping-in-a-box-junction/msg97394/#msg97394
“The PCN - This fails to contain mandatory information at Part 2 Para. 4(8 )(v) provided at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable This in turn refers to (iii)
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
The following statement does not clarify this: If after the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which this PCN is served we may increase the penalty charge by 50% to Ł195.00 and may take steps to enforce payment of the increased charge.”
The difference between date of the notice and the date of service is not necessarily the same. That could lead to miscalculation of the relevant period that the recipient has in which to make payment or submit representations, which could be crucial. The collateral challenge on this point succeeds and so I allow the appeal.
********************
This is a resurrection of the old so-called "conflation argument"; But, because there is missing information, there is no possible conflation because the "or" cannot possibly be interpreted as conjunctive or disjunctive. Ms Kaler was with me on that.
****************
https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg86653/#msg86653
-
Don,t send the same Though the reason for appeal will remain the same it needs beefing up with examples also you might as well throw in the NOR not mentioning the adjudicators power to extend the appeal period and a failure to consider
-
@MrChips If I may borrow your measure tape please. :)
Redbridge (as expected) have rejected my reps (click here (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/c7rnn20sap6oajhi8hjx8/20251106_SAF17A_PCN_AF20933413_NoR-redacted.pdf?rlkey=8hvjsvh1lu2621zvam4r8u3rx&st=a3jgc766&dl=0))
Off to tribunal again.....shall I just submit the same reps (see initial post) or anybody suggest amendments/additions?
-
Currently travelling so measuring tape has to remain unfurled for now ;)
Redbridge are sure to reject so we can leave that for tribunal.
-
It fails the test of "has to stop due to stationary vehicles", so "contravention did not occur".
-
Looks good.
Mr Chips may get his measuring tape out but looks clear that you could have exited.
(https://i.ibb.co/KxRB4gZN/PCN-AF20933413-Video1-ezgif-com-video-to-gif-converter.gif)
-
Afternoon All
Nothing against you folks, but I'm frequenting this forum more than I'd like to and find myself here again >:(
The below should be self-explanatory.....
Redacted PCN (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/7d3p8kfqd8oa3kw9v7tl3/20251013_SAF17A_PCN_AF20933413_20251006_redacted.pdf?rlkey=rm4jelo6s6z2j9h7gyx5y50zj&st=3sa8hd2p&dl=0)
CCTV Footage (https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/8o5rdj1f1uq6k5suhgl6t/PCN_AF20933413_Video1.mp4?rlkey=goan269ve7v2971cna8s3jk5u&st=evap3soc&dl=0)
GSV Link (https://maps.app.goo.gl/1e2czZYjJjyp253q7)
....and shall be submitting the following reps via email as the Redbridge website isn't working properly:
////////////////
Received the attached PCN.
Tried to submit representations online but unable to do so due to technical issues with the LBR website, i.e. the “Enter Representation Details” button doesn’t work. Hence, this email…..acknowledge receipt.
The representations are as follows:
- The CCTV footage shows that the exit of the yellow junction box (YJB) was clear when the vehicle entered it, i.e. the vehicle was NOT forced to stop in the YJB because of stationary traffic;
- furthermore, it also shows that the vehicle stopped only briefly in the YJB when there was sufficient space to move forward and clear it, should the driver have wished to do so;
- the alleged contravention of ‘31j – Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited’ did NOT occur;
- cancel the PCN;
- be forewarned that should you not cancel this PCN, I will be taking this matter to tribunal and making a request for costs.
////////////////
Any feedback/advice before I press the 'Send' button?
Thanks in advance.
Regards - NTIAEP