Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: timewilltell on December 29, 2025, 04:58:34 pm
-
Yes. Tribunal time?
Unsure on this one. What are my chances? Are they likely to cancel because of the website/discrepancies? I don't want to pay £160 :-\
-
Yes. Tribunal time?
-
For convenience:
(https://i.ibb.co/JRQHNjPY/Lambeth-1-2-Mar2026.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/zV9RPCzQ/Lambeth-2-2-Mar2026.jpg)
No signature or officer's name on page 3.
@Hippocrates were you able to see all the images? The 2 above and the remainder in the folder here:
https://ibb.co/album/0ywr86
Thanks for your help!
-
Much appreciated @John U.K. 👍🏼
-
For convenience:
(https://i.ibb.co/JRQHNjPY/Lambeth-1-2-Mar2026.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/zV9RPCzQ/Lambeth-2-2-Mar2026.jpg)
No signature or officer's name on page 3.
-
I know I use The Invisible Man image as a logo but even I cannot see their NOR. ;D
;D @Hippocrates
For some reason, the images aren't embedding. I'm doing exactly the same as I always do so will keep trying...
@Hippocrates embedding isn't working at all so I've added a link to an album of 7 images. Click on 'oldest' and you'll see the pages in the correct order. Hope that works for you!
https://ibb.co/album/0ywr86
-
I know I use The Invisible Man image as a logo but even I cannot see their NOR. ;D
;D @Hippocrates
For some reason, the images aren't embedding. I'm doing exactly the same as I always do so will keep trying...
-
I know I use The Invisible Man image as a logo but even I cannot see their NOR. ;D
I hazard a guess that they have not even considered the point? "We have carefully considered...." "Yours sincerely, Barbour Logic" ?
-
Thanks to @Hippocrates, I challenged the PCN as follows:
"I make this formal representation against the PCN:
There was no contravention because 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."
However, it's been refused and today (3 March 2026) I've received this from Lambeth:
https://ibb.co/album/0ywr86
What are your thoughts on appealing this?
-
Yes. Have you any points re the actual contravention signage?
When I looked at this thread in late December, I got the route wrong. Then when the OP confirmed his route, it became clear that there was an advance sign and the restriction signs, so they looked "adequate", see here: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/72UKGDT54JQU2xFZ8
I suppose one could argue about the adequacy of just putting up a Left Turn arrow; better to have a larger sign with the layout ahead indicating where to go.
Thanks @Incandescent. Any suggestions from you or @Hippocrates on how best to word this for the representation please? Or anything else that I can add. Thanks
-
Yes. Have you any points re the actual contravention signage?
When I looked at this thread in late December, I got the route wrong. Then when the OP confirmed his route, it became clear that there was an advance sign and the restriction signs, so they looked "adequate", see here: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/72UKGDT54JQU2xFZ8
I suppose one could argue about the adequacy of just putting up a Left Turn arrow; better to have a larger sign with the layout ahead indicating where to go.
-
Yes. Have you any points re the actual contravention signage?
No, I haven't
-
Yes. Have you any points re the actual contravention signage?
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lambeth-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-p/msg105113/#msg105113
Point 2.
Thanks @Hippocrates
Do I select "I wish to make representations about this PCN for other reasons"?
Here's my draft:
"I make this formal representation against the PCN:
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."
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/lambeth-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehicles-entering-a-p/msg105113/#msg105113
Point 2.
-
Exactly which is why we win on their website. It gets worse further down the line actually. Prod me for a draft
Good to hear, thank you. A draft would be amazing :)
Hello @Hippocrates, just giving you a gentle prod for a draft as you suggested. Many thanks
-
Exactly which is why we win on their website. It gets worse further down the line actually. Prod me for a draft
Good to hear, thank you. A draft would be amazing :)
-
Exactly which is why we win on their website. It gets worse further down the line actually. Prod me for a draft
-
Please check the increase date with the PCN.
Thanks for the quick reply @Hippocrates
The online date is longer than shown on the PCN itself. I wondered if they added extra days on to allow for Christmas and new year - or is it an error? It's very confusing :/
Online: 17.12.25 to 6.1.26 = 20 days
PCN: 17.12.25 to 31.12.25 = 14 days
The PCN states:
"The amount of penalty charge which is payable is £160. The penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.
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."
-
Please check the increase date with the PCN.
-
Back to the website: what are the dates re increase? Please screenshot.
Thanks Hippocrates. Is this what you're referring to?
(https://i.ibb.co/C5VpFfr6/PCN-LJ35496430-Increase-Date.jpg)
@Hippocrates
Firstly, Happy New Year to you!
My PCN is still at discount stage but increases to £160 tomorrow (6 Jan).
I'd appreciate guidance on whether I can appeal this or need to pay (presumably by the end of today before it increases).
If you need further screenshots or information, please let me know.
Thanks for your help!
-
Back to the website: what are the dates re increase? Please screenshot.
Thanks Hippocrates. Is this what you're referring to?
(https://i.ibb.co/C5VpFfr6/PCN-LJ35496430-Increase-Date.jpg)
-
Back to the website: what are the dates re increase? Please screenshot.
-
Problem with giving advice is we rely on OPs giving a route. In your case you implied you drove up Clayton St, although clearly I shouldn't have read that into your text.
So, please tell us your route. We also have to rely on GSV, which while useful can be very out-of-date at many locations. However, if your satnav directed you round the Oval in a clockwise direction, GSV shows a mandatory turn left sign as you approach Clayton Street:-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/72UKGDT54JQU2xFZ8
You can also see the 'Flying Motorbike' signs on the Oval in the distance. So you should have turned left into Clayton Street.
-
Thanks for replying and sharing those GSVs @Incandescent.
If you drove up Clayton St and turned left, you would have passed these No Entry signs:-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/d1Mv4qopFjGqK4hB8
GSV view is dated August 2025; are they still there ? One can see the Flying Motorbike signs to the left, but you shouldn't have even started the turn assuming the No Entry signs are still there. In addition, as you turn in to CLayton St from Kennington Road, there are cul-de-sac signs each side of the street:-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rr2m2hA3XY2cQmwx8
Looking again, I definitely didn't pass no entry signs and don't think I drove along Clayton St and turned left. I was coming from SW11 and remember coming round the oval itself so I think I must have gone past Clayton St (to my left) and carried on going.
So, all in all, you can now see how use of a satnav in London is fraught with risk, being never up-to-date. When was the last time yours was updated ?
Fraught with risk indeed! I know the traffic was very heavy that day and my satnav thought it was helping by taking me on a "better" route :/ Clearly, it's not as up-to-date as it needs to be!
I see no credible appeal argument for the contravention itself, but appeals have been won in recent times based on council mismanagement of the enforcement process, so wait a bit to see what may be suggested. Councils have recently set-up some appalling websites for submitting representations, and wins have been just on this.
Ok thank you, I have a couple of days before the deadline so I'll see if anything's suggested.
-
If you drove up Clayton St and turned left, you would have passed these No Entry signs:-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/d1Mv4qopFjGqK4hB8
GSV view is dated August 2025; are they still there ? One can see the Flying Motorbike signs to the left, but you shouldn't have even started the turn assuming the No Entry signs are still there. In addition, as you turn in to CLayton St from Kennington Road, there are cul-de-sac signs each side of the street:-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/rr2m2hA3XY2cQmwx8
So, all in all, you can now see how use of a satnav in London is fraught with risk, being never up-to-date. When was the last time yours was updated ?
I see no credible appeal argument for the contravention itself, but appeals have been won in recent times based on council mismanagement of the enforcement process, so wait a bit to see what may be suggested. Councils have recently set-up some appalling websites for submitting representations, and wins have been just on this.
-
I’ve received a PCN from Lambeth (code 52, no motor vehicles) at Kennington Oval.
I’m unfamiliar with the area and this is my first PCN from Lambeth. There was no intention to disregard any restriction.
The council’s photos and video show “No Motor Vehicles” signs positioned on both the left and right at the entry point. I've matched the buildings and trees in the PCN stills to Clayton Street on Google Street View so I think the contravention occurred on Clayton Street, although the PCN lists the location as “Kennington Oval”.
I couldn’t see any advance warning signage on street view and I think the restriction only becomes apparent at the point of entry itself. I'm not 100% sure on this but by the time the signs were visible, I was already committed to the turn and stopping or reversing would have been unsafe and impractical.
I appreciate that satnav routing is not a defence and I’m not relying on that as a ground of appeal but it explains why I was routed there as an unfamiliar driver.
Having seen the wording on Lambeth’s website trying to put drivers off appealing, I’m expecting them to reject any informal challenge and understand this would likely need to go to tribunal. My question is whether there are realistic grounds to contest this on signage adequacy/point-of-no-return grounds at this location or whether it would be wiser to pay at the discount stage.
Any guidance appreciated. Thanks!
(https://i.ibb.co/jkHJBPgC/PCN-LJ35496430-1.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Nd5bHZxg/PCN-LJ35496430-2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/qFss33Sp/PCN-LJ35496430-3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/9kr13bJJ/PCN-LJ35496430-4.jpg)