Free Traffic Legal Advice

Well this cloak and dagger approach has hardly helped others, has it?

Couple things... First off - Given firms (public and private) are upskilling and leveraging data, I do genuinely question how long it'll be until councils are scouring forums such as these to try and get ahead of the community. If I were working on the other side, I'd be checking these spaces regularly and running a few AI Agents through new posts to train the systems to be smarter and tight up any loopholes, which is partially why I held off publishing the official docs. I'd really like to see a portal that's somewhat locked down or restricted in access that people can upload their docs to without it being so easily available on the clearnet.

Secondly, Whilst drip-feeding info to you isnt the most helpful, pls know I'm hugely grateful for all of your help.

Have written up an events-based timeline below. Hope this helps others. Anything else of interest just let me know.

The main points listed below:

Contravention: 53C - Driving down a School Street during restricted hours. Council: Sutton
1) PCN: Received PCN 7 days after contravention.

2) PCN Appeal: Made representation to council 3 days later. Requested PCN be cancelled as contravention was a first-time mistake.

3) NoR: Received NoR 1 day later. Noticed NoR incorrectly referenced pre-April full charge/uplift amount (£130 -> £195) instead of £160 -> £240 when describing effects of no action/response to NoR. Researched using GPT-o3, Claude, Perplexity. Created appeal to be filed later to Lon.Trib

4) NoR Appeal: Waited 24 days to respond to the NoR. My understanding of the rule is council must issue one valid NoR within 56 days. If I say the NoR is invalid, and the council agree, they could then technically argue a valid NoR has yet to be issued, and may be within their rights to issue another NoR (this time without a mistake in it). There's nothing in the 2003 Act that says only one NoR may be issued. The wording is that only one valid NoR may be issued. Key word here valid. I'm aware this is contrary to some views in this thread. I couldn't confirm for sure on the stance here so decided to at least draw out the process for 24 days which would have given them a little less of the 56 days to respond, if indeed that was an option available to them. I think the 2004 Act tightens things up a bit.

Filed to London Tribunals the following.

The NoR must warn that a charge certificate will be served unless you pay or appeal within 28 days, and it must describe the effect of that certificate - i.e. the penalty increases by 50% of the full charge.

1. Wrong financial uplift: Schedule 1, (5)(1) states that a charge certificate increases the penalty by 50% (one-half). Sutton’s full penalty for this contravention is £160, so the Charge Certificate amount specified in the NoR should be £240. The NoR instead warns of an increase from £130 to £195. It therefore mis-states a mandatory statutory consequence.

2. Wrong timing statement: Schedule 1, (3)(a) requires the NoR to say that a charge certificate may be served unless, before the end of 28 days, I pay or appeal. The NoR received says the a Charge Certificate may be sent before 28 days, implying it can act during that 28-day window. This reverses the statutory sequence and is potentially misleading.

Because the NoR fails on both the amount and the timing required by Schedule 1, it is invalid. That is a clear procedural impropriety and the penalty charge exceeds the amount permitted by law. I ask the adjudicator to allow the appeal and cancel the PCN.

5) DnC: Council filed a Do not contest 1 week later.

Left this a couple of days ago as OP had not posted any documents, despite requests and promises.

Now just daft questions.

Shouldn't have bothered looking again!

Haven't managed to scan it as of yet. I'll ensure to do it this evening or by tomorrow at the latest.

There's me thinking I was asking a smart question  . Just trying to understand the legislative application to the PCN.

Out of curiosity, the PCN says that the contravention falls under the LLA & TfL Act 2003.

I noticed this is slightly different to the TMA 2004 legislation when it comes to detailing what a NoR must state. The 2004 Act is clearer, the 2003 Act seems a little more vague and generalised.

Can arguments that lean towards the 2004 act be made, e.g. the NoR states the incorrect Charge Certificate amount and misleads regarding the financial impact of the charge.

Does the fact the PCN falls under the 2003 Act disadvantage this arguement?

For clarity:
- The PCN was for £80 discounted, £160 after discounted, and £240 in the event of no action via a Charge Certificate

- The NoR is for £80 discounted, £160 after discount, and increases from £130 to £195 in the event of no action via a Charge Certificate

The £130 to £195 figure is wrong, and should say £160 to £240 instead.

53C - buses/cycles only moving traffic contravention.

53C: Failing to comply with restrictions on vehicles entering a pedestrian and cycle zone

It was a school street with restricted access at pick up time

I'll get it uploaded shortly when back home.

It'd be London Tribunals, as it's a London Borough.

I'd read that the EA has 56 days in which to issue a compliant NoR. If they realise their mistake, they could withdraw the NoR, fix it and re-issue it within 56-days of my representation being made.

Intentionally leaving details of the EA out of my post as I intend to follow it up myself if experts consider it worthy

Received a PCN last week for a 53C. The PCN states the charge is £80 discounted, £160 after discount period, and £240 in the event payment isn't made or a representation isn't submitted. I submitted a rep.

Timelines as follows:

12/06/25: Alleged contravention
19/06/25: PCN issued
20/06/25: PCN served
24/06/25: Representation submitted
24/06/25: NoR dated and posted
25/06/25: NoR served

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

On the NoR, under the heading "If you do nothing", it's written “If you have taken no action, before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this Notice of Rejection, we may serve a Charge Certificate increasing the charge from £130 to £195.”

That appears wrong for 2 reasons:
1. Overlapping timelines: By using the words "before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this Notice of Rejection", the notice implies the council can send a Charge Certificate during the 28-day window, i.e. on day 1–28. That contradicts the statute, which requires them to wait until the 28-day period has expired

2. Mis-stating the charge amount: I've done some research and can see London’s higher-band PCNs went up on 7 April 2025, so the correct wording should be **£160 increasing to £240**.  It seems they’re still using the pre-April 2025 template (£130 → £195).


Questions
1. Should the NoR not have made use of the word "before the end of 28 days..."
2. Is it correct to think the NoR figure should match the £160 → £240 band? 
3. Has anyone here succeeded on a similar “wrong amount” argument recently? 
4. Would you appeal now or wait to see if they serve a CC, or try and run down as much of the 56-day clock as possible before putting in the appeal to reduce the chances of the EA withdrawing their NoR and reissuing a corrected NoR which I can't appeal.

Thanks in advanced.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Quote from: GRYOUT on July 25, 2024, 09:25:10 am

Quote from: John U.K. on July 25, 2024, 09:18:17 am

For meaningful advice please to have a read of
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/

and post up all sides of the PCN, redacting only name and address, with a GSV link to the location.

What time did you park the car?

Just updated my post for you. I was there from about 9:35am - 10:05am. Was parked outside my house as driveway wasn't accessible at the time and I knew I'd be using the car at 10:05am.

still missing required info eg council photos, images of PCN all sides etc.

Have just uploaded all the requested info, linked in my previous post. I'm wondering if they have any grounds to win if I appeal as they don't actually have a photo of the vehicle and the enforced times in the same shot.

The car was parked at 9:30am and moved at 10:05am

As can be seen in the photo, there's multiple vehicles parked on the line, blocking access to the driveway. It looks wider than it is in reality and it was awkward at the time. Not making excuses; just explaining why the car ended up on the yellow lines.

Evidence on file shows the car parked on the SYL, a post on the grass very but only the back of the post/signpost. The times on the post are not shown in the image due to the angle of the photo being from the back. There are no other photos showing that a sign is clearly fixed to the post, that it was visible on the day, or what the restriction of that specific location's board shows. There's also no photo if the vehicle and the restriction framed in the same shot.
Evidence parked on SYL.

This is the image of the restriction they've uploaded. It was taken at the start of the road, well out of view of the vehicle on the SYL. GSV of where the restriction board picture on file was taken

Signboard in different location.

Thanks for coming back.

I don't know if others received PCNs but I remember their cars still being parked there when our car was moved 2mins after the PCN was supposedly issued. I would have spotted a ticket on their screens too. I can see them from a mile off when I walk out there and they're bright yellow.. hard to miss.

I'll upload the requested info in my next post, but here's a brief update of what's happened to date.

Since posting here,

1) Sent rep back on 25/07/2024. Requested it be cancelled.

2) Received NoR today, 02/08/2024 via email. They've offered me the reduced fee of £35 and 14 days in which to pay it.

Bit surprised to see the NoR isn't just a generic blanket response, but actually feels considered, which was unexpected.