Free Traffic Legal Advice

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!

The video shows what would normally be a clear contravention, no doubt on that at all, but the situation was not normal, because the opposite lane was closed, and with it, the side road that allows vehicles to join the main road.

So basically this is a typical money-grubbing PCN and it has to be doubted if the video has been viewed before the PCN was sent out; I suspect not.

The law is that a YBJ must be at the junction of two or more roads, and with the closures that no longer applies, so I would submit representations on that basis and question why enforcement is being undertaken during the road works, because the YBJ has no purpose while they are in progress. One could say that the YBJ is not valid during the works because it is not at the junction of two or more roads. However, wait a bit a see what the others say.

Thank you for your thoughts. It seems there is mixed messaging from doing some research online. I have seen quite a lot saying it does not matter how many roadworks are up, even if the entire other side of the road is sealed off including the right turn, the box junction and the 31J PCN would still be valid.

Then there are some who say it could be argued that the roadworks mean that this is no longer a junction of any kind so should not function as one.

The yellow box junction at the bottom of Westwood Hill coming into Sydenham, London SE26 has just got a camera having not ever had one before.


I got a PCN last week having not noticed it had gone up. On the face of it it looks like i'm bang to rights but does the fact that there are roadworks completely blocking the right turn and oncoming traffic make any difference to the issuing of this PCN?

The box junction cannot be used as nobody can turn right or come out of that road onto the junction so it is not currently a junction.


I would be really grateful if the experts can cast their gaze over the paperwork and see if anything is untoward (as it usually is) and whether the roadworks make any difference, before I pay it.


Thank you as always for your amazing help. Please let me know if I need to post any other information.

https://freeimage.host/i/qrB8DTx


https://streamable.com/74vm5c?src=player-page-share - Video take from Lewisham PCN website



https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdLHg


https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdPl1


https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdriB


https://freeimage.host/i/qUZdgVV

I am hoping that Southwark council might let me off this one out of the kindness of their heart (then I remember who I am dealing with).

I parked in a bay outside a friends house on Croxted Road in Herne Hill, London. I did everything as I should have done and paid for the time but when I returned I had a ticket. Unfortunately PayByPhone has two cars registered for me and it had (or I had) selected the wrong registration.

As I can prove I have paid albeit with another registration and as I can prove both cars belong to me do you think they will accept that? I am interested in seeing if anyone has had this experience before. They have been paid after all for the initial time.

I am definitely going to question it just wanted advice on how to go about it please?

https://i.ibb.co/wFqjffcm/PXL-20260107-155425133.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/ycdvHY7R/PXL-20260107-155433655.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/ZRS7ngh3/PXL-20260107-155441972-MP.jpg

Thank you for your consideration.