Free Traffic Legal Advice

There are no statuory grounds of "procedural impropriety' in the LLA & TfL Act 2003 under which your PCN was served. You need to reword the text. The alternative is "the penalty exceeded the amount.....in the circumstances of the case"

Formal Representation – The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case  – PCN [Insert Number]
Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
PCN Number: [Insert PCN Number]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert Registration Number]
Date of Contravention: 11 December 2025
Date of Notice: 15 January 2026

I make this formal representation against the above PCN on the ground of The penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances pursuant to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

1. The PCN was served out of time

Section 4 of the 2003 Act requires that a PCN be served before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the alleged contravention.

The alleged contravention occurred on 11 December 2025.

The 28-day period therefore expired on 8 January 2026.

The PCN is dated 15 January 2026. Even allowing for deemed service (two working days after posting), service would have occurred on 19 January 2026.

Accordingly, the PCN was served well outside the statutory 28-day limit.

In the absence of any stated statutory exception (such as delay in obtaining keeper details), the enforcement authority has acted outside the prescribed time limit. A penalty charge demanded pursuant to a notice served out of time is not lawfully due.

2. Incorrect and conflicting statutory payment periods

The PCN states:
•   The amount of penalty charge which is payable is £160.00. The penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.
•   If the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the charge is reduced by 50% to £80.00.
•   Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before end of the relevant period, London Borough of Lambeth may serve on that person a charge certificate to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50% to £240.00.

However, when accessing the Lambeth payment portal, the following statements were displayed:
•   “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 on Wed, 4 Feb 2026. Please pay £80.00 now.”
•   “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £240.00 on Sun, 22 Feb 2026. Please pay £160.00 now.”
These dates do not correspond with the statutory periods.

The 14-day period beginning with 15 January 2026 expired on 28 January 2026.

The  relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served (19 January 2026) expires on 15 February 2026.

The dates presented on your website (4 February 2026 and 22 February 2026) therefore conflict with the statutory deadlines prescribed by legislation and stated on the PCN itself.
It is well established that enforcement authorities must strictly comply with the statutory scheme. The provision of conflicting and misleading information regarding payment deadlines amounts to a procedural impropriety, as it misstates the recipient’s legal position and potentially prejudices their ability to make informed decisions regarding payment or representations.

In particular:
1.   The online system purported to extend the discounted period beyond the statutory 14-day period.
2.   The stated Charge Certificate escalation date did not correspond with the expiry of the relevant period.
3.   The inconsistency between the PCN and the online portal creates uncertainty as to which dates the authority intends to rely upon for enforcement.
Such discrepancies undermine the certainty required by the statutory regime and render the enforcement process defective.

3. Restriction to a single ground of representation – ambiguity and fettering

The 2003 Act provides that representations may be made on “one or other of the statutory grounds”.

Your online portal requires the recipient to select only a single ground when making representations.

The statutory wording is ambiguous as to whether multiple grounds may be advanced. That ambiguity must be resolved in favour of the motorist. There is nothing within the Act that expressly prohibits reliance on more than one ground, nor does it require an owner to limit themselves to a single basis of challenge.

By restricting the online system to one selectable ground only, the authority risks unlawfully fettering the right to make representations and misdirecting recipients as to the scope of their statutory rights.

Such procedural restriction further undermines the validity of the enforcement process.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above:
•   The PCN was served outside the statutory 28-day period;
•   The enforcement authority has provided incorrect and conflicting statutory deadlines; and
•   The representations process unlawfully restricts the statutory right to make representations.
Accordingly, the penalty demanded exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case and must be cancelled.

If you do not agree to cancel the PCN, please provide:
•   A full explanation of why the PCN was served outside the 28-day statutory period and the statutory basis relied upon;
•   A full explanation of how the website dates were calculated;
•   Confirmation of the exact statutory provisions relied upon for those dates;
•   Clarification of the legal basis upon which the online system restricts representations to a single ground;
•   Evidence that the enforcement process complies fully with the 2003 Act.
I look forward to your confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Details]

Please screenshot the payments/representations page and report back. Then I will draft for you.

Informal challenges are only submitted against a PCN served at the roadside, i.e a paper PCN served by a patrolling CEO, so are for parking contraventions.
Formal challenges are submitted by owners of the vehicle on receipt of a Notice to Owner, or a PCN sent by post.
Only when a formal challenge has been refused can one register an appeal at London Tribunals.

Please screenshot the payments/representations page and report back. Then I will draft for you.

That is a win. However, please do send the DVLA complaint. WE need to Mae sure that these rogue companies are investigated and that these complaints are logged with the DVLA for future reference.

You will likely receive a Step 1 response to the c complaint which will essentially be a fob-ff by the DVLA. However, let us know and we can advise on bow to escalate it to eh Head of Complaints at the DVLA in a Step to application.

Here’s how to make a DVLA complaint:

[INSERT A SHORT SUMMARY OF THE BREACH(ES), e.g. failure to follow grace periods, misleading notices, refusal to engage with a complaint, pursuing a charge despite having evidence of disability or mitigation, etc.]