Free Traffic Legal Advice

Depends what you mean by "completely missed". If you never received the notice to owner then you could attempt to submit an out of time statutory declaration.

I've tried to enlarge the photograph in the PCN and it looks like there is an exemption for permit holders.  I think the NoR mentions that you explained you are a permit holder.  Could this case be similar to your own?

Case Details
Case reference   2260386858
Appellant   Safwa Mansour
Authority   London Borough of Haringey
VRM   LD25UMZ
PCN Details
PCN   ZN21374812
Contravention date   -
Contravention time   -
Contravention location   -
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   -
Referral date   -
Decision Date   21 Jul 2026
Adjudicator   Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons   
Mr Mansour was scheduled for a personal hearing today by video link but he has not attended and so the appeal is being decided on the evidence presented.



This is one of six PCNs issued over a 16 day period for the same alleged contravention of failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone. It is not in dispute that Mr Mansour's car was driven through the no entry to motor vehicles signs. Mr Mansour appeals because he is a resident in Tottenham Hale North and says that he has a valid THN resident’s parking permit which started on 26 April 2026. It is not disputed by the Council that there is a valid parking permit.



There is a signed exemption for permit holders. The permit reference SS23 appears on the sign with a black surround after the words "Except permit holders." Mr Mansour says that he believed that his permit was valid for access.



As the Council correctly observes, a resident's permit is for parking and the exemption is for school street permit holders. If, however, a resident permit holder sees a restricted route with a signed exemption for permit holders in an area where they are entitled to park with their permit, there must, in my judgement, be a very real danger that they will assume that the possession of the parking permit allows access. A motorist in transit is unlikely to make the permit distinction denoted by the permit code reference. I am satisfied that Mr Mansour held a reasonable belief that access was permitted with his parking permit until he was disabused of that notion. I allow the appeal for that reason. The Council has produced no evidence of any warning to Mr Mansour that there was a need to apply for a separate permit for access to an LTN restricted route within the THN zone.

The notice of rejection is obliged ("it must") to state that the council may issue a charge certificate after a period of 28 days beginning with the date the notice of rejection was served.  Your NoR is rather vague with the 28 day period and just says "after 28 days". That could be interpreted multiple ways and in my opinion isn't specific enough to be compliant with the legislation.

Haringey will use a standard template so I'll see if I can find other examples of adjudicators deciding in favour of the motorist on this basis.

On the downside, this wording comes straight after a section where the 28 day period is more defined so could be construed to be ok taking the wider context into account. However even that other 28 day period isn't defined exactly in line with the legislation. Does 28 days "from" service include the day of service itself or not?

Haven't there been successful adjudications to the effect that there is no way of distinguishing tfl red routes from Redbridge's?

Looks like a win at the tribunal yesterday!  Paragraph 13 of the decision is factually incorrect however.

I did try to join as an observer using the link @Hippocrates sent me, but after clicking at 10am, I was waiting to be admitted for 30 mins before Teams gave up...

Case reference 2260126427
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Enfield
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date 14 Nov 2025
Contravention time 17:00:00
Contravention location Southbury Road / Eaton Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 19 Aug 2026
Adjudicator Joanne Coombe
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
1. This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN) imposed by the London Borough of Enfield, the Authority.

2. The Authority did not attend the hearing.


The Appellant’s case

3. The Appellant, through their representative (Mr Morgan), says that the PCN and notice of rejection are invalid.

4. Regarding the PCN, the Appellant submits that it contains contradictions and does not comply with the regulations.

5. The Appellant submits that both the PCN and notice of rejection truncate the time for compliance.


The Authority’s Case

6. The Authority relies upon CCTV footage in support of the alleged contravention.

7. The Authority says that the PCN clearly states the statutory period for payment and the making of representations in accordance with the legislative requirements.

8. The Authority states that the notice of rejection clearly explains the options including the time within which an appeal can be made.



Finding of Facts

9. The PCN is dated the 21/11/2025 and says, at paragraph 1, that the charge must be paid within 28 days of the date ‘on this notice’. In paragraph 3, the PCN says: ‘if you fail to pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service.’

10. I am satisfied that the PCN must state that the penalty charge must be paid or representations made within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served. The PCN does provide this information.

11. Whilst there is reference in the PCN to the date of this notice and date of service, the PCN complies with the statutory requirements.

12. The Appellant made representations to the Authority dated the 30/11/2025.

13. The duty of the Authority was to respond within 56 days which it did.

14. A notice of rejection must state that a charge certificate may be served unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service, the PCN is paid or an appeal is lodged.

15. The notice of rejection, dated 26/01/206, says that the Appellant has 28 days from the date of the letter to lodge and appeal to the Tribunal.

16. I find that the notice of rejection was defective. The requirement outlined in paragraph 14 above is mandatory.



Outcome of the Appeal

17. The appeal is allowed.

I think what is being requested, in terms of evidence pack, is what the council submitted to the tribunal as their evidence.

Did you receive the video evidence in the end? Can you share it so we can gauge your chances of success?