Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: Havering PCN, 52M: Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle, South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
« on: February 05, 2026, 10:29:03 pm »
Considering submitting the following London Tribunals Appeal. Appreciate any advice, as I know sometimes ChatGPT can get things horrendously wrong...
London Tribunals Appeal – Full Draft
Ground of Appeal: The alleged contravention did not occur and there has been a procedural impropriety
1. The Penalty Charge Notice fails to particularise the alleged contravention
The Penalty Charge Notice alleges contravention code 52M – “Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.”
This description is generic and does not specify which class of vehicle was prohibited. A recipient of a PCN is entitled to know, from the face of the notice itself, the nature of the allegation they are required to answer.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority now states for the first time that the location is:
“a road restricted to motor vehicles (except buses)”.
This information does not appear on the PCN. The enforcement authority cannot retrospectively clarify or redefine the allegation during correspondence. The PCN must contain sufficient particulars at the time it is served.
The failure to specify the prohibited vehicle class renders the PCN vague and prejudicial. I was not properly informed of the case I had to meet.
2. The authority relies on CCTV evidence which does not show the restriction relied upon
The PCN is issued on the basis of CCTV enforcement.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority expressly states:
“Due to the positioning of the CCTV camera the signs are not seen in the CCTV footage.”
The authority therefore accepts that:
• the signage relied upon is not visible in the enforcement footage; and
• the restriction itself is not evidenced in the CCTV record.
While signage does not need to appear in every frame, where CCTV is the sole evidence relied upon, the authority must still demonstrate—by clear evidence—that the restriction was adequately signed and applicable at the material time.
In this case, the authority has provided no still images, diagrams, or other evidence showing:
• the position of the signs relative to the vehicle’s approach,
• their visibility at 01:07 hours, or
• how the restriction applied to my vehicle.
The Tribunal is being asked to accept compliance with signage requirements purely on assertion. That is insufficient.
3. Failure to properly consider representations
In my formal representations, I raised specific points regarding:
• the lack of particularisation of the alleged contravention,
• defects in the statutory grounds stated on the PCN, and
• the inclusion of non-statutory grounds elsewhere by the authority.
The Notice of Rejection does not meaningfully address these points. Instead, it contains a blanket assertion that:
“There has been no procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority.”
A mere assertion is not evidence of proper consideration. The authority is under a duty to genuinely consider representations made. That duty has not been discharged.
4. Prejudice caused by the authority’s approach
The cumulative effect of the above is prejudicial:
• The PCN did not tell me what vehicle class was prohibited.
• The CCTV evidence does not show the restriction.
• The authority clarified the alleged restriction only after the event.
• My representations were not substantively addressed.
This is not a case where the allegation was clear and the evidence compelling. The enforcement process has failed to meet the standard required by law.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully submit that:
• the alleged contravention has not been proved, and
• the Penalty Charge Notice is unenforceable.
I therefore ask the Adjudicator to allow the appeal and direct cancellation of the Penalty Charge Notice.
⸻
London Tribunals Appeal – Full Draft
Ground of Appeal: The alleged contravention did not occur and there has been a procedural impropriety
1. The Penalty Charge Notice fails to particularise the alleged contravention
The Penalty Charge Notice alleges contravention code 52M – “Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle.”
This description is generic and does not specify which class of vehicle was prohibited. A recipient of a PCN is entitled to know, from the face of the notice itself, the nature of the allegation they are required to answer.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority now states for the first time that the location is:
“a road restricted to motor vehicles (except buses)”.
This information does not appear on the PCN. The enforcement authority cannot retrospectively clarify or redefine the allegation during correspondence. The PCN must contain sufficient particulars at the time it is served.
The failure to specify the prohibited vehicle class renders the PCN vague and prejudicial. I was not properly informed of the case I had to meet.
2. The authority relies on CCTV evidence which does not show the restriction relied upon
The PCN is issued on the basis of CCTV enforcement.
In the Notice of Rejection, the authority expressly states:
“Due to the positioning of the CCTV camera the signs are not seen in the CCTV footage.”
The authority therefore accepts that:
• the signage relied upon is not visible in the enforcement footage; and
• the restriction itself is not evidenced in the CCTV record.
While signage does not need to appear in every frame, where CCTV is the sole evidence relied upon, the authority must still demonstrate—by clear evidence—that the restriction was adequately signed and applicable at the material time.
In this case, the authority has provided no still images, diagrams, or other evidence showing:
• the position of the signs relative to the vehicle’s approach,
• their visibility at 01:07 hours, or
• how the restriction applied to my vehicle.
The Tribunal is being asked to accept compliance with signage requirements purely on assertion. That is insufficient.
3. Failure to properly consider representations
In my formal representations, I raised specific points regarding:
• the lack of particularisation of the alleged contravention,
• defects in the statutory grounds stated on the PCN, and
• the inclusion of non-statutory grounds elsewhere by the authority.
The Notice of Rejection does not meaningfully address these points. Instead, it contains a blanket assertion that:
“There has been no procedural impropriety by the Enforcement Authority.”
A mere assertion is not evidence of proper consideration. The authority is under a duty to genuinely consider representations made. That duty has not been discharged.
4. Prejudice caused by the authority’s approach
The cumulative effect of the above is prejudicial:
• The PCN did not tell me what vehicle class was prohibited.
• The CCTV evidence does not show the restriction.
• The authority clarified the alleged restriction only after the event.
• My representations were not substantively addressed.
This is not a case where the allegation was clear and the evidence compelling. The enforcement process has failed to meet the standard required by law.
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully submit that:
• the alleged contravention has not been proved, and
• the Penalty Charge Notice is unenforceable.
I therefore ask the Adjudicator to allow the appeal and direct cancellation of the Penalty Charge Notice.
⸻
