Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: Hippocrates on December 05, 2025, 11:39:57 am
-
It would seem to me that an argument that the PCN is defective in not giving unambiguously all the information required is not a lawful PCN thus cannot be enforceable would have merit
Arguments re the website giving different information would have to evidence prejudice
At the end of the day the council cannot send a letter saying you owe us so pay up they must comply with the requirements of the regs
On a personal note I have stopped looking at these as they are invariably taken off the forum to be delt with by individuals. The collective mind seems to be no longer wanted
-
Since procedural impropriety is not a ground afforded in moving traffic or bus lane legislation, we have had much success in regard of the collateral challenge. But now, things have changed.
First this: Anisha Moosafeer v London Borough of Havering (2240500622, 21 February 2025) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LD63VXTSITbwBjkRvb30J9SMAx0agBjO/view)
Then this: Mohammed Miah v London Borough of Bromley (2250050555, 16 September 2025) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mD7fzOlTpVxcmmYRVONGUwQ-6KvSMid-/view) (BTW: the complaint is still live with my MP and beyond)
Leading to this: Maeve McGarrity v Transport for London (2250183490, 30 October 2025) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YtkanqMXN7366HrAcRInQx7b_Jv69e7N/view)
And finally this: Oishik Banerji v London Borough of Haringey (2250336977, 2 December 2025) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13ixrwv3geZw1aNMuDq986gn8e82r7xCV/view)
Houston, we have a problem!
It seems that councils can now put whatever they like on their PCNs, NORs and websites as per the two legislations above. And as far as prejudice is irrelevant is concerned, I don't believe this has been tested at the Court of Appeal - yet.