Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: msym on December 23, 2025, 04:58:05 pm

Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: Hippocrates on January 09, 2026, 06:07:06 pm
Can't wait.  :o
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on January 09, 2026, 11:27:18 am
I make these formal representations against PCN

1. There was no contravention of a prescribed order because the signage in situ and accompanying plate a place directly after the turn on Rosendale Road, there is no advance signage to warn that this restriction is upcoming and by the time one is in a position to see the signs it is too late. Indeed, reading the exemption plate placed as it is impossible from a moving vehicle and to stop at the location in question would be inherently dangerous as would attempting to reverse back.

For these reasons the signage fails in its requirement under LATOR 1996 s18 to adequately inform the motorist.

2. A motorist must be given wholly correct information when to pay the reduced or full amounts sought. However, there is a clear disconnect between the law and what is stated on your website.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN


Thank you. I have sumbbitted the representation as you stated. Once i receive a response i will reply back.

thank you for the support. (lets hope for the best).

 
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: Hippocrates on January 08, 2026, 06:58:15 pm
I make these formal representations against PCN

1. There was no contravention of a prescribed order because the signage in situ and accompanying plate a place directly after the turn on Rosendale Road, there is no advance signage to warn that this restriction is upcoming and by the time one is in a position to see the signs it is too late. Indeed, reading the exemption plate placed as it is impossible from a moving vehicle and to stop at the location in question would be inherently dangerous as would attempting to reverse back.

For these reasons the signage fails in its requirement under LATOR 1996 s18 to adequately inform the motorist.

2. A motorist must be given wholly correct information when to pay the reduced or full amounts sought. However, there is a clear disconnect between the law and what is stated on your website.

In light of the above, please cancel the PCN



Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on January 08, 2026, 06:17:59 pm
Good stuff. If you don't mind, it needs slight tweaking. I'll gate back tomorrow. No warning signs are necessary.

If you can point me to the changes I can try and do them myself. I am worried as the discount will disappear. Its already past the 14days but they havent yet increased it.


thank you
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on January 07, 2026, 11:19:35 pm
Good stuff. If you don't mind, it needs slight tweaking. I'll gate back tomorrow. No warning signs are necessary.

Many thanks
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: Hippocrates on January 07, 2026, 10:30:15 pm
Good stuff. If you don't mind, it needs slight tweaking. I'll gate back tomorrow. No warning signs are necessary.
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on January 07, 2026, 09:34:23 pm
Hi Hippocrates and al,


I would greatly appreciate some advice on the bellow representation response and whether you think its adequate. Its an amalgamation of past letters and information i could gather from past posts.

@Hippocrates, I have tried to capture your point on the dates but please correct me if i misunderstood. thank you

--------------
To Whom It May Concern,

I make representations against
PCN number: LJ35493793
Contravention: 53j
VRN: BC23KSE
Location: Rosendale Road (H)

The first ground by way of collateral challenge: There was no contravention of a prescribed order.
The signage in situ and accompanying plate a place directly after the turn on Rosendale Road, there is no advance signage to warn that this restriction is upcoming and by the time one is in a position to see the signs it is too late. Indeed, reading the exemption plate placed as it is impossible from a moving vehicle and to stop at the location in question would be inherently dangerous as would attempting to reverse back.

For these reasons the signage fails in its requirement under LATOR 1996 s18 to adequately inform the motorist. No contravention can occur in these circumstances and the PCN should be cancelled


The second ground by way of collateral challenge: Dates between PCN and Council’s website are misleading.
I am making a collateral challenge on the grounds that the penalty charge discount amount date as published on Lambeth’s website does not coincide with the 14 day period on the PCN itself.
The PCN states:
“If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by 50% to £80.”
The end of the 14 day period would thus be 30 December 2025.
Yet on your website [extract taken today 7 January 2025] it states:
“The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 very soon. Please pay £80.00 now.”

Moreover, the website gives the date of issue as 5 Dec (which is when the CCTV was recorded) while the PCN itself bears the date 17 Dec. Taken together this is all clearly misleading. I refer you to a recent case decided at the London Tribunal [224036272 decided 15 October 2024] on similar grounds i.e. where Lambeth’s website was inconsistent with the information given on the PCN. The adjudicator Mr Houghton said:
“In bare summary the Appellant submits that the Council’s website was giving incorrect and/or confusing information regarding payment dates……The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from a Council as to what is required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious enough for the Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge.”

In light of the aforementioned collateral challenges, the PCN should be cancelled. It is incumbent upon an authority to have clear road signs and give clear and precise states re payments etc and these must be according to the statutory process.

---------------



 
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on January 07, 2026, 07:52:29 am
Ticket ReferenceLJ35493793
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberBC23KSE
ColourGREY
MakeNISSAN
Contravention53j - Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (camera enforcement)
LocationRosendale Road (H)
First seen atFri, 5 Dec 2025 8:52
Issued atFri, 5 Dec 2025 8:52
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 very soon. Please pay £80.00 now.



Is the challenge that the website does not contain enough information on when it needs to be paid by? I assumed this would not be an issue as it's written on the PCN. If so, is there a set paragraph that I could use in this circumstance?

Thank you
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: Hippocrates on January 06, 2026, 07:23:51 pm
Ticket ReferenceLJ35493793
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberBC23KSE
ColourGREY
MakeNISSAN
Contravention53j - Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (camera enforcement)
LocationRosendale Road (H)
First seen atFri, 5 Dec 2025 8:52
Issued atFri, 5 Dec 2025 8:52
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 very soon. Please pay £80.00 now.
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on January 06, 2026, 06:30:06 pm
The website payments page is a serious issue.

Thank you for the response. What do you mean? Is this something that I can use against them?


Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (soon)

Yes. Check the dates re payments.

Hi Hippocrates, Happy new year.


I feel a bit daft as I am not sure what i am checking. I looked into the payments webpage and shows the photos, the date of contravention and amount. What is the basis of me challenging this PCN?


Following link of website.
https://imgpile.com/p/avYqDXs


Apart from the payment website is there any other argument that i could use in my challenge?



thank you for the support



Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: Hippocrates on December 26, 2025, 06:20:47 pm
The website payments page is a serious issue.

Thank you for the response. What do you mean? Is this something that I can use against them?



Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (soon)

Yes. Check the dates re payments.
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on December 26, 2025, 11:42:33 am
The website payments page is a serious issue.

Thank you for the response. What do you mean? Is this something that I can use against them?



Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (soon)
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on December 26, 2025, 11:41:22 am
Make sure that they do not pay the PCN, or it's game over. It's too late today to look at the details of the contravention.

Yes thank you. I have emailed them saying as such. Actually i had a similar issue in the past where they paid and i complained that i was stripped from my right to challenge and then they waived the fee.

 
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: Hippocrates on December 24, 2025, 12:41:06 pm
The website payments page is a serious issue.
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: Incandescent on December 24, 2025, 12:44:26 am
Make sure that they do not pay the PCN, or it's game over. It's too late today to look at the details of the contravention.
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on December 23, 2025, 11:00:37 pm
Thank you for your prompt response. Yes the leasing company has transferred the responsibility to me. Please see references below:

https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#ZU8Tw0K
https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#kpoxG5F
https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#obvmRFK

Unfortunately they usually charge me £10 for every such instance.

Kind regards,
Marios
Title: Re: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: Incandescent on December 23, 2025, 10:08:47 pm
Well, before it is even worth glancing at the circumstances and the PCN, you must first tell us what the lease company's conditions and proactices are for dealing with PCNs and Notices to Owner.

Reason is that under the decriminalised legislation for parking and traffic offences, the owner has legal responsibility for them not you. They will probably give you a load of tosh about them allowing you to appeal whilst meanwhile just paying it and adding an admin fee on top.

So unless they give you a letter of authority to act on their behalf to submit representations, or they submit reps to the council giving your name and address as the hiring party on the day of the alleged contravention, and you thne get a PCN with your name and address on it, you can do nothing.
Title: Lambeth, code 53j, failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a p
Post by: msym on December 23, 2025, 04:58:05 pm
PCN: LJ35493793



On Friday 5th December I was returning home from school drop by car. Due to traffic, I took a road that I usually take. As I turned to Rosendale road (from Lovelace rd) I realised there was a sign for a time-based restriction that the road is for cyclists and pedestrians only between b:15-9:15. I passed this road at 8:52 (as per the PCN).



I don’t really know when this sign was there and if they changed the time window but I only noticed it with the blink of my eye after I have turned.



For transparency, I looked into google maps and there was a sign in Lovelace road on the restriction but I did not see when I was driving past it.





I would like to ask if I have any real basis of challenging this. Following are my arguments.



The photo/video evidence shows that after I turned left at the junction I entered the restricted area and there was a sign there. The sign was after I had turned with no way of changing direction. As such I proceeded. Although I did spot a sign, I was not able to read it properly as I had already started to turn left.
Sign is incorrectly positioned. While driving, its not possible to read the time window without impairing my drive ability. If the sign was placed before the turn when I had stopped to check for traffic then I would have been able to read and interpret the sign.
Although not a resident of the specific area, this is a road that I typically commute to go home. It is not fair for only the residents of this road to be exempt but not others in the vicinity. Doing so it means that I need to elongate my driving significantly to be able to park close to home.



For further context. The car is leased and I received this PCN via the leasing company.

https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#kAA3c10

https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#N3cJyzC

https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#xSZZVk7

https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#5DJPac6


Thank you in advance for your support,
Marios