Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: poklepi on December 08, 2025, 10:57:34 am
-
Hi,
Thanks for your help. I managed to get the Charge Certificate cancelled and the Penalty Charge reduced back to £80 after explaining the misunderstanding as you advised.
Very well done !
-
Hi,
Thanks for your help. I managed to get the Charge Certificate cancelled and the Penalty Charge reduced back to £80 after explaining the misunderstanding as you advised.
-
The Notice of Rejection states your options clearly enough, in my opinion, so I'm not clear how you could have misunderstood. A Notice to Owner is only sent out when no response is received, (payment or representations), for a PCN served at the roadside to the car or the driver.
The only thing I can suggest is to contact the council and ask them to cancel the Charge Certificate on the basis that you were expecting a Notice to Owner. Are you new to the UK or do not have a full knowledge of English ? This could help them give way and accept just the PCN penalty.
-
Hi Incandescent,
Thanks.
I've now uploaded:
Original PCN that has been rejected https://imgpile.com/p/qiywYYn
Notice of Rejection: https://imgpile.com/p/AvGexzE
Charge Certificate https://imgpile.com/p/YsFbxsY
Cancellation letter for the other PCN: https://imgpile.com/p/qLIiXKG
As I mentioned earlier, I misunderstood the Notice of Rejection and incorrectly thought a Notice to Owner would follow, so I did not appeal to London Tribunals within the 28-day period.
Since receiving the Charge Certificate, I have spoken to London Tribunals and TEC.
I'd appreciate any advice on what my next step should be.
-
Best if you read this and update your thread accordingly: -
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
I'm assuming you submitted reps against the PCN, and then got a Notice of Rejection. This would have told you what you had to do (apart from paying), to take matters forward to the adjudicators.
So, as per above, you need to post the documents.
-
Unfortunately, I misunderstood the Notice of Rejection process. I incorrectly assumed that a Notice to Owner would follow, so I did not appeal to London Tribunals within the 28-day period.
I have now received a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty to £240.
I contacted London Tribunals, who advised that because a Charge Certificate has been issued they can no longer accept an appeal unless the process is reset. They suggested contacting the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC).
I have since spoken to TEC and understand there may be a route to have the process reset, which would potentially allow me to appeal to London Tribunals.
Given the circumstances, and the fact that the council cancelled the second PCN arising from the same journey, would you pursue the TEC route and seek to restore appeal rights, or would you simply pay the £240?
-
Appear to have considered as continuous contravention so cancelled the second. Did they re offer the discount? Double or quits time at the tribunal if so, if not tribunal is no brainer!
-
Hi Hippocrates,
Quick update on my case.
I challenged both PCNs using the arguments discussed here and using the wording you suggested.
Outcome:
PCN HZ95339273 (10:24) → Cancelled (discretion)
PCN HZ95348988 (10:23) → Rejected
It seems inconsistent to cancel one PCN but enforce the other when both arise from the same continuous sequence of events.
Any advice?
-
OK.
-
Hi all,
Just checking to see if you think I can proceed on this basis. Thanks!
-
Hey Hippocrates
So to confirm: I should challenge both PCNs by simply including the arguments you shared below. I do not need to instruct the Council to “cancel one automatically”, as the point is already made by explaining that the two PCNs arise from the same continuous sequence of events only one minute apart. Likewise, I do not need to separately state that the Fulham 10k road closures made it impossible to use alternative routes?
To whom it may concern,
The PCN fails to include mandatory information required by para. 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
The Act requires the PCN to state:
at 4(8)(iii): that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; and
at 4(8)(v): that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of that 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.
Your PCN instead states:
“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.”
This wording is defective because:
It substitutes the statutory definition (“date of notice”) with an entirely different one (“date of service”).
The mandatory statutory wording is omitted from the PCN. Your substituted wording only adds to the lack of clarity caused by this omission. Even taken on its own terms, the statement is defective because it conflates two separate statutory periods by using the word “or”, which many would interpret conjunctively. Even if interpreted disjunctively, the statement still fails to provide clarity because the required statutory information is missing. It follows that the notice cannot possibly be interpreted correctly and therefore does not comply with Section 4(8) of the 2003 Act.
-
Please see 1st link in my profile re the PCN.
-
Do you still think I have a case though?
-
I need new specs ! Sorry everybody.
-
I checked again too.. unfortunately both the CCTV images and PCN's display the correct date 16 November
-
Looks like the date of the allegation is 16 November not 26?
+1
-
And they're very interesting too, because the date of the notice is 25th November, whereas they say the date of th e alleged contravention is 26th November. Clearly H & F have some formidable CCTV equipment that can foresee the future !!
I would have thought this error makes the PCN unenforceable, but wait a bit to see what others say.
Looks like the date of the allegation is 16 November not 26?
-
Hi Incandescent,
Thanks for the reply. The image of the front of the two PCN's can be viewed here: https://imgpile.com/p/2AXB113
And they're very interesting too, because the date of the notice is 25th November, whereas they say the date of th e alleged contravention is 26th November. Clearly H & F have some formidable CCTV equipment that can foresee the future !!
I would have thought this error makes the PCN unenforceable, but wait a bit to see what others say.
-
Hi Incandescent,
Thanks for the reply. The image of the front of the two PCN's can be viewed here: https://imgpile.com/p/2AXB113
-
Please post the front of the PCNs, and only redact name and address.
-
I received two PCNs from Hammersmith & Fulham Council for the same alleged contravention (52M – failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles) on Sunday 16 November 2025, at 10:23 and 10:24, on CANW Peterborough Rd S/B, and CANW Clancarty Rd N/B. These locations are about one minute apart.
This was the morning of the Fulham 10k, a large road-closure event. While driving, I became trapped inside the closure area and was trying to exit. Various roads were unexpectedly blocked. I did not intend to enter any restricted streets, I was simply trying to escape the event closures.
Both PCNs appear to arise from the same continuous situation, just a minute apart.
Any help would be very much appreciated.
PCN: HZ95348988 & HZ95339273
The link to the images:
https://imgpile.com/p/2AXB113