Free Traffic Legal Advice

They have just responded to my appeal and not surprisingly have rejected it with what looks like a standard template letter. It makes no mention of any of my points Hippocrates suggested I use.

Here is the link to the letter

https://pdflink.to/2e0a0375/

Post the PCN pl.

I cannot find AO8DFD or A08DFD on DVLA's database.
[/quote

Registration is AO08DFD

letter O first then numeral 0.

Sorry that was just to show the error. It's not working with the correct reg either.

Here is the PCN. Last day to challenge at the £80 fee. Goes up to £160 tomorrow.

https://ibb.co/x8BXyKyH

Here is my draft appeal.

I am writing to make representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice

The PCN issued on 14 April 2026 states the statutory payment periods:

14 days beginning with the date of the notice for the discounted amount, and 28 days from the date of the notice, for the full amount.

However, when accessing the council’s online payment system, I was informed that the penalty charge would increase to £160 on Sunday, 3 May 2026.

This date is neither 14 days nor 28 days from the date of the notice. It is 19 days after the notice date and does not correspond to any statutory period.

A motorist is entitled to rely on the information provided by the enforcement authority. By presenting contradictory deadlines, the council has failed to convey the correct legal position.

I therefore request that the PCN be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Here are the screenshots that contradict each other regarding the dates.

https://ibb.co/bgNYgdnc

https://ibb.co/bDpPMyc


Will this suffice for the first appeal?

I have to say, looking at the signs and the flower boxes in your way, that I am very surprised you missed these signs. For me, based on what you have told us so far, you have no credible appeal case.

I know. Before the restrictions came in I drove down it every da so I genuinely didn't see the extremely obvious.

Well this is strange. I just went into the website to challenge the PCN and it says this


https://imglink.cc/cdn/IBfT5fracX.png

I've never seen this before? Could I be a mistake or have they realised that the shouldn't be giving these out when the road is completely shut off?

Here is a draft letter. Let me know what you think and thank you for your continued help with this.

Dear Lewisham Council,

I am writing to formally challenge the above-referenced Penalty Charge Notice issued for a perceived yellow box junction contravention at Westwood Hill / Sydenham. I am contesting this PCN on the following grounds:

1. The Contravention Did Not Occur: No Statutory Purpose

At the time of the alleged contravention, the location did not function as a "junction" as defined by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD).

Due to extensive roadworks, the side road and the oncoming traffic lanes were completely obstructed by cones and barriers. As a result:

No vehicles could emerge from the side road.

No vehicles could turn right into the side road.

The box junction markings served no traffic management purpose.

The purpose of a yellow box junction is to prevent the obstruction of a junction to crossing or turning traffic. Where a road is closed, the box junction ceases to serve its statutory purpose. I draw your attention to the London Tribunals Costs Decision 2240295228, where the Adjudicator ruled that enforcing a box junction when roadworks render the junction unusable is "wholly unreasonable."

Furthermore, as the markings extended through a section of road that was effectively sealed off, they were not "at a junction of two or more roads" at the material time, rendering the enforcement invalid (see Case 2090257179).

2. Procedural Impropriety: Defects in the PCN Paperwork

I make a collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN itself. The document is non-compliant with the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

Missing Mandatory Information: The PCN fails to state the mandatory information required under Section 4( 8 ) (a)(v) of the Act, specifically in relation to the statutory timeframes for the service of a Notice to Owner/Enforcement Notice.

Payment Options: The PCN fails to clearly offer a "payment by post" option as required for a valid notice of this type.

Legal Uncertainty: The wording regarding the 28-day period for payment is conflated and fails to provide the clarity required by the High Court (as per the Hackney Drivers ruling). It incorrectly suggests that the period begins from the date of the notice rather than the date of service, which is a significant legal error.


Given that the "junction" was physically non-existent due to the road closures and the paperwork contains significant legal defects, I request that this PCN be cancelled immediately.

Should you choose to reject these representations, I will not hesitate to take this matter to the London Tribunals and will be applying for costs on the basis that enforcement in these circumstances is "wholly unreasonable," as established in previous case law.

Yours faithfully,

Thank you for all these inciteful responses. Shall I draft a challenge using these points? It looks like the main point is the fact it wasn't being used as a junction and the second are the points that Hippocrates mentioned about the letter not being correct?

I have no doubt they will reject the challenge anyway no matter what I write as they always do!