Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: imnotpaying on November 02, 2025, 12:22:01 pm
-
Done. Please wait.
-
I did and will reply.
-
You have my e mail address?
yes. I've emailed the video, NTK and NOR to you.
@Hippocrates, hope you're doing well. Did you have a chance to look at my email? please let me know the grounds I should write the Tribunal appeal on?
Looking forward to your advice.
-
You have my e mail address?
yes. I've emailed the video, NTK and NOR to you.
-
You have my e mail address?
-
If you want us to comment on the video evidence, we'll need to see it (or have access to it).
The video is not available on Redbridge PCN site as it says 28 days have passed.
I do have a copy of it but no idea how to share it on here - I can email to you if you like.
-
They have missed the point and they have misstated what the PCN says on page two. I cannot find any reference to chapter three.
Indeed, they completely missed the point. Can we bring the same argument to the Tribunal?
-
If you want us to comment on the video evidence, we'll need to see it (or have access to it).
-
They have missed the point and they have misstated what the PCN says on page two. I cannot find any reference to chapter three.
-
Yes. Let's see how they respond.
Hi @Hippocrates,
I have received an NOR from Redbridge. Their argument is that their wording for Charge Certificate is correct and there NTK is correct. See the full response below:
(https://i.ibb.co/Xr19gdBY/Notice-of-Rejection-24-Nov-2025-REDACTED.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Rkf1mMnj)
Have a read through and let me know your thoughts please.
-
Yes. Let's see how they respond.
Thank you Phil, I've sent the below representation to Redbridge:
I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8) (v) of Section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (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.
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8) (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;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable” adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.
Additionally, the locus as stated on the PCN is inexact.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
-
Yes. Let's see how they respond.
-
Locus and PCN missing information. re the latter, see my recent posts and/or Flame Pit thread.
Hi @Hippocrates, I've read your input in the Flame Pit thread. Is the below applicable in my appeal:
I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of
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.
Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (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;
Therefore, it follows that the statement: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable” adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information. So, it follows that it cannot possibly be interpreted disjunctively.
-
Not that it helps much but location is junction of High Rd and Eastwood Rd (IG3)
-
Can you confirm the PCN number and car registration? That will enable us to view the evidence and comment on any viable defence based on n the circumstances of the stop.
Alternatively upload it yourself and provide a link.
-
Locus and PCN missing information. re the latter, see my recent posts and/or Flame Pit thread.
-
I just recently received this PCN from Redbridge Council.
Photo evidence shows the car in the Yellow Box and video evidence shows the car stopped fully for about 10-12 seconds.
The road mentioned in the PCN is High Road, Goodmayes which is quite a long road.
Is there any possibility of challenging this PCN? If so, on what grounds or technicalities?
(https://i.ibb.co/356RjhTz/20251101-132500-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/BHWnQsfN)
(https://i.ibb.co/c7gp5hR/20251101-132509.jpg) (https://ibb.co/b8Wyh5Y)