Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 3IJ -Box Jct New Kings Rd - Entering and stopping In a box Junction when prohibited
« on: December 02, 2025, 10:23:44 pm »
Cool, you are a Gladiator, @Hippocrates !
So, what do you think of this for an appeal to adjudicators?
I am appealing the Notice of Rejection (NOR) dated 21/11/2025 on the ground that the contravention did not legally occur, because the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is invalid due to statutory non-compliance, and the Council failed to properly consider or address my representation points.
1. Failure to Consider (Procedural Impropriety)
The NOR entirely fails to address the specific, legal, collateral challenge I raised in my representation. The NOR simply focused on the factual details of the contravention (stopping in the box junction) and the driver’s responsibility, but did not once mention or provide a finding on my core arguments:
The PCN is non-compliant with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (LLATFLA 2003) regarding mandatory information.
The PCN misstates the legal period for payment running from "date of service" instead of the statutory "date of the notice," which I argued is prejudicial.
The PCN contains contradictory instructions on selecting grounds for representation, leading to procedural unfairness.
The Council’s rejection amounts to a Failure to Consider the material points of my representation, which is a procedural impropriety and a separate ground for appeal that renders the NOR fundamentally flawed.
2. PCN is Invalid Due to Statutory Non-Compliance
My underlying legal challenge remains unrefuted and valid:
Misstatement of Statutory Time Limit: The PCN states the increased charge may be payable 28 days from the "date of service." The governing legislation (LLATFLA 2003 s.4(
(iii)) stipulates this period runs from the "date of the notice." This misstatement of the legal position is material and prejudicial, as established in numerous previous Adjudicator rulings.
Contradictory Instructions: I argued the PCN contained contradictory instructions regarding representation grounds (stating "one or more" may apply, then directing to "Please tick one of the set grounds"). This ambiguity prevents proper compliance with statutory rights and constitutes a procedural defect that voids the Notice.
Given the Council's complete failure to engage with these material, legal points in their Notice of Rejection, I request that the Adjudicator allow this appeal on the basis of procedural impropriety and the underlying invalidity of the PCN itself.
So, what do you think of this for an appeal to adjudicators?
I am appealing the Notice of Rejection (NOR) dated 21/11/2025 on the ground that the contravention did not legally occur, because the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is invalid due to statutory non-compliance, and the Council failed to properly consider or address my representation points.
1. Failure to Consider (Procedural Impropriety)
The NOR entirely fails to address the specific, legal, collateral challenge I raised in my representation. The NOR simply focused on the factual details of the contravention (stopping in the box junction) and the driver’s responsibility, but did not once mention or provide a finding on my core arguments:
The PCN is non-compliant with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (LLATFLA 2003) regarding mandatory information.
The PCN misstates the legal period for payment running from "date of service" instead of the statutory "date of the notice," which I argued is prejudicial.
The PCN contains contradictory instructions on selecting grounds for representation, leading to procedural unfairness.
The Council’s rejection amounts to a Failure to Consider the material points of my representation, which is a procedural impropriety and a separate ground for appeal that renders the NOR fundamentally flawed.
2. PCN is Invalid Due to Statutory Non-Compliance
My underlying legal challenge remains unrefuted and valid:
Misstatement of Statutory Time Limit: The PCN states the increased charge may be payable 28 days from the "date of service." The governing legislation (LLATFLA 2003 s.4(
(iii)) stipulates this period runs from the "date of the notice." This misstatement of the legal position is material and prejudicial, as established in numerous previous Adjudicator rulings.Contradictory Instructions: I argued the PCN contained contradictory instructions regarding representation grounds (stating "one or more" may apply, then directing to "Please tick one of the set grounds"). This ambiguity prevents proper compliance with statutory rights and constitutes a procedural defect that voids the Notice.
Given the Council's complete failure to engage with these material, legal points in their Notice of Rejection, I request that the Adjudicator allow this appeal on the basis of procedural impropriety and the underlying invalidity of the PCN itself.
