Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Dholi93 on January 08, 2026, 03:03:11 pm
-
Considering submitting the following London Tribunals Appeal. Appreciate any advice, as I know sometimes ChatGPT can get things horrendously wrong...
London Tribunals Appeal – Full Draft
Ground of Appeal: The alleged contravention did not occur and there has been a procedural impropriety
1. The Penalty Charge Notice fails to particularise the alleged contravention
The Penalty Charge Notice alleges contravention code 52M – “Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.”
This description is generic and does not specify which class of vehicle was prohibited. A recipient of a PCN is entitled to know, from the face of the notice itself, the nature of the allegation they are required to answer.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority now states for the first time that the location is:
“a road restricted to motor vehicles (except buses)”.
This information does not appear on the PCN. The enforcement authority cannot retrospectively clarify or redefine the allegation during correspondence. The PCN must contain sufficient particulars at the time it is served.
The failure to specify the prohibited vehicle class renders the PCN vague and prejudicial. I was not properly informed of the case I had to meet.
2. The authority relies on CCTV evidence which does not show the restriction relied upon
The PCN is issued on the basis of CCTV enforcement.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority expressly states:
“Due to the positioning of the CCTV camera the signs are not seen in the CCTV footage.”
The authority therefore accepts that:
• the signage relied upon is not visible in the enforcement footage; and
• the restriction itself is not evidenced in the CCTV record.
While signage does not need to appear in every frame, where CCTV is the sole evidence relied upon, the authority must still demonstrate—by clear evidence—that the restriction was adequately signed and applicable at the material time.
In this case, the authority has provided no still images, diagrams, or other evidence showing:
• the position of the signs relative to the vehicle’s approach,
• their visibility at 01:07 hours, or
• how the restriction applied to my vehicle.
The Tribunal is being asked to accept compliance with signage requirements purely on assertion. That is insufficient.
3. Failure to properly consider representations
In my formal representations, I raised specific points regarding:
• the lack of particularisation of the alleged contravention,
• defects in the statutory grounds stated on the PCN, and
• the inclusion of non-statutory grounds elsewhere by the authority.
The Notice of Rejection does not meaningfully address these points. Instead, it contains a blanket assertion that:
“There has been no procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority.”
A mere assertion is not evidence of proper consideration. The authority is under a duty to genuinely consider representations made. That duty has not been discharged.
4. Prejudice caused by the authority’s approach
The cumulative effect of the above is prejudicial:
• The PCN did not tell me what vehicle class was prohibited.
• The CCTV evidence does not show the restriction.
• The authority clarified the alleged restriction only after the event.
• My representations were not substantively addressed.
This is not a case where the allegation was clear and the evidence compelling. The enforcement process has failed to meet the standard required by law.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully submit that:
• the alleged contravention has not been proved, and
• the Penalty Charge Notice is unenforceable.
I therefore ask the Adjudicator to allow the appeal and direct cancellation of the Penalty Charge Notice.
⸻
-
For convenience (you have been using the HTML link rather than the BBCode):
Thanks for your help with this, I didn't realise I was using the wrong URL link, will ensure I use BBCode in the future so it embeds properly.
You mentioned procedural impropriety? Failure to consider.
I did, I mentioned everything from your previous message (below)
Before you do anything please screenshot their website.
1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles.
2. Similarly, neither do the images nor the video provided.
3. The PCN is invalid 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;
4. The PCN contains one invalid ground re the Traffic Order being invalid.
5. Your website contains 3 invalid grounds.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
I am supposed to be retiring. I will PM you.
Thanks, appreciate any help with this.
-
I have the same code PCN, from exactly the same location with Havering. I also appealed and it was rejected, missed the first reduced rate date as we have been dealing with a family bereavement however would still like to go to tribunal - just unsure on the best argument? Lack of signage, incorrect road name, video does not show my vehicle passing any signage?
I think you'll need to create your own post as the rules don't allow "hijacking" another thread
Yes. If you need advice on going to London Tribunals we need all the documents etc. So please start a new thread.
-
I have the same code PCN, from exactly the same location with Havering. I also appealed and it was rejected, missed the first reduced rate date as we have been dealing with a family bereavement however would still like to go to tribunal - just unsure on the best argument? Lack of signage, incorrect road name, video does not show my vehicle passing any signage?
I think you'll need to create your own post as the rules don't allow "hijacking" another thread
-
I am supposed to be retiring. I will PM you.
-
I have the same code PCN, from exactly the same location with Havering. I also appealed and it was rejected, missed the first reduced rate date as we have been dealing with a family bereavement however would still like to go to tribunal - just unsure on the best argument? Lack of signage, incorrect road name, video does not show my vehicle passing any signage?
-
You mentioned procedural impropriety? Failure to consider.
-
For convenience (you have been using the HTML link rather than the BBCode):
(https://i.ibb.co/Z6JKMzPj/Appeal-rejection.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/zWYwwwTB/Appeal-rejection-2.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Response received 26/01/2026
NOTICE OF REJECTION OF FORMAL REPRESENTATIONS
<a href="https://ibb.co/ns0fLMvG"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/Z6JKMzPj/Appeal-rejection.jpg" alt="Appeal rejection" border="0"></a>
<a href="https://ibb.co/BHxRRR5Q"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/zWYwwwTB/Appeal-rejection-2.jpg" alt="Appeal rejection 2" border="0"></a>
A bit annoying but looks like they want to drag it out, do I have a case to appeal to London Tribunals here?
-
Thanks for your help. Appeal submitted today, will keep you all updated...
-
No worries keep for yourself later. I have it all anyway.
-
Image embedding does not seem to work at the moment.
<a href="https://ibb.co/DPnYJsVR"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/5XVk0tMR/Screenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-30-45.png" alt="Screenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-30-45" border="0"></a>
<a href="https://ibb.co/xt3vMtJf"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/mVSsHV6X/Screenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-30-53.png" alt="Screenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-30-53" border="0"></a>
<a href="https://ibb.co/HkxW44x"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/M3GYSSG/Screenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-31-02.png" alt="Screenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-31-02" border="0"></a>
I believe I have everything required now before proceeding with the appeal.
-
The page with the list of grounds listed alphabetically.
-
If relevant, these are screenshots of options when appealing PCN online.
(https://www.ftla.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%26lt%3Ba+href%3D%26quot%3Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fibb.co%2FDHK3BXyB%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3Bimg+src%3D%26quot%3Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fi.ibb.co%2FtTCy0ft0%2FScreenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-30-45.png%26quot%3B+alt%3D%26quot%3BScreenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-30-45%26quot%3B+border%3D%26quot%3B0%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3B%2Fa%26gt%3B&hash=c765d4f96aee02c1aef92d7d7e991207083cf5a0)
(https://www.ftla.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%26lt%3Ba+href%3D%26quot%3Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fibb.co%2F0RtXn6rg%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3Bimg+src%3D%26quot%3Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fi.ibb.co%2FzTJ5mBZy%2FScreenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-31-02.png%26quot%3B+alt%3D%26quot%3BScreenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-31-02%26quot%3B+border%3D%26quot%3B0%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3B%2Fa%26gt%3B&hash=87c332e6d68afe5d38ffa7ce490534218aa06206)
(https://www.ftla.uk/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F%26lt%3Ba+href%3D%26quot%3Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fibb.co%2FW4v8d75Y%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3Bimg+src%3D%26quot%3Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fi.ibb.co%2FDHfc6mWS%2FScreenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-30-53.png%26quot%3B+alt%3D%26quot%3BScreenshot-2026-01-11-at-21-30-53%26quot%3B+border%3D%26quot%3B0%26quot%3B%26gt%3B%26lt%3B%2Fa%26gt%3B&hash=d18b2b18fe17a0f4d0e5fd87b1cbb5b73dc48bee)
-
Before you do anything please screenshot their website.
1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles.
2. Similarly, neither do the images nor the video provided.
4. The PCN contains one invalid ground re the Traffic Order being invalid.
5. Your website contains 3 invalid grounds.
Thanks for the advice above, just to be clear, what part of the website am I screenshotting? The details of the PCN or a separate area of the Havering website covering details on this traffic order?
-
Before you do anything please screenshot their website.
1. The PCN does not particularise which vehicles.
2. Similarly, neither do the images nor the video provided.
3. The PCN is invalid 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;
4. The PCN contains one invalid ground re the Traffic Order being invalid.
5. Your website contains 3 invalid grounds.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
-
Car is leased
So I assume from this is that you do not hold the V5C Registration Certificate. If this is the case, the first postal PCN would have been sent to the lease company, who would seem to have submitted representations that they were a lease company, and provided your name and address as the lessee on the contravention date. The PCN is therefore likely to have been served with the 28 days allowed from the date the first PCN was cancelled by the council.
So if you want to fight it, I suggest you use the same argument presented in the case you refer to. This is a well known location and I think we've seen it on this forum a few time, and on Pepipoo before that forum closed. The signs are set well back from the camera: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/86YwqwBxtnLyBCJt5
and of course are ambiguous because of the sub-sign "Except for Access"
I see from the London Tribunals case that Hippocrates represented the appellant, so hopefully he'll post soon.
-
Car is leased
-
Served way out of time
Contravention 08/11/2025 Day 1
Date of Notice 18/12/2025
Date Served 22/12/2025 Day 45
So it seems, but is the car leased or hired ?
-
Served way out of time
Contravention 08/11/2025 Day 1
Date of Notice 18/12/2025
Date Served 22/12/2025 Day 45
-
I have one too. Do not pay. Back later with a draft.
-
Just got back from being away during the holidays to find this lovely late xmas present in the post.
<a href="https://ibb.co/zHj2McPC"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/R4Z6FnQt/PCN-Havering.jpg" alt="PCN Havering" border="0"></a>
I'm a little bit short on time with the response as I only just opened the letter today, but doing a quick search on this forum revealed there was an identical contravention on the same street just over a year ago that went to appeal and was overturned.
<a href="https://ibb.co/zT3XxZLf"><img src="https://i.ibb.co/pBHfwdsX/Media.jpg" alt="Media" border="0"></a>
Video shows little more that can be seen in this picture, a vehicle being driven down this road with no clear signage indicating that it shouldn't be there.
Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/2gti94Upp7ymq8Bz9
The other post I'm referencing is https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/havering-council-no-evidence-of-pcn-contravention-shown-in-video-footage/
Wondering if there's anything in particular that makes my case different to that one and I'm actually just in the wrong here and need to pay up.
Appreciate any advice on this.