Show Posts
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: London Borough of Redbridge PCN
« on: January 06, 2026, 12:49:07 am »
Thank you. My initial challenge was rejected.
Page 1 https://ibb.co/XfpfpBQx
Page 2 https://ibb.co/JRRnT3ks
I am planning to take this to tribunal and send a response later today. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Grounds for Appeal
I am appealing against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the London Borough of Redbridge on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate and Obscured Signage
The advance warning sign may have been obscured by a high-sided vehicle at the time of approach, making it impossible for the driver to see and comply with the restriction.
The actual restriction signs are positioned too high and are side-on to a motorist approaching to turn left. This positioning does not provide adequate visibility or clarity for drivers, contrary to the principles of fair notice under traffic regulations.
2. Technical Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements
The PCN fails to comply with mandatory requirements under Section 4(
(v) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, which states:
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.
This must be read in conjunction with Section 4((iii):
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.
Issues with the PCN Wording
The PCN states:
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 of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable.
This wording is defective because:
It omits the mandatory information required by Section 4((v).
It conflates two separate periods (payment and representation) using the word or, which creates ambiguity. Many would interpret or as conjunctive, meaning both conditions must be met, which is misleading.
Even if interpreted disjunctively, the statement lacks clarity and fails to specify the correct statutory period for payment, rendering the PCN non-compliant.
3. Lack of Clarity
The omission and conflation of statutory periods create confusion for motorists regarding their rights and obligations. This lack of clarity is a procedural impropriety and undermines the validity of the PCN.
Conclusion
Given the above:
The signage was inadequate and potentially obscured.
The PCN fails to meet statutory requirements under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
The wording is misleading and prejudicial.
I respectfully request that the adjudicator allows this appeal and cancels the PCN.
Page 1 https://ibb.co/XfpfpBQx
Page 2 https://ibb.co/JRRnT3ks
I am planning to take this to tribunal and send a response later today. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
Grounds for Appeal
I am appealing against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued by the London Borough of Redbridge on the following grounds:
1. Inadequate and Obscured Signage
The advance warning sign may have been obscured by a high-sided vehicle at the time of approach, making it impossible for the driver to see and comply with the restriction.
The actual restriction signs are positioned too high and are side-on to a motorist approaching to turn left. This positioning does not provide adequate visibility or clarity for drivers, contrary to the principles of fair notice under traffic regulations.
2. Technical Non-Compliance with Statutory Requirements
The PCN fails to comply with mandatory requirements under Section 4(
(v) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, which states:(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.
This must be read in conjunction with Section 4(
(iii):(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.
Issues with the PCN Wording
The PCN states:
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 of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable.
This wording is defective because:
It omits the mandatory information required by Section 4(
(v).It conflates two separate periods (payment and representation) using the word or, which creates ambiguity. Many would interpret or as conjunctive, meaning both conditions must be met, which is misleading.
Even if interpreted disjunctively, the statement lacks clarity and fails to specify the correct statutory period for payment, rendering the PCN non-compliant.
3. Lack of Clarity
The omission and conflation of statutory periods create confusion for motorists regarding their rights and obligations. This lack of clarity is a procedural impropriety and undermines the validity of the PCN.
Conclusion
Given the above:
The signage was inadequate and potentially obscured.
The PCN fails to meet statutory requirements under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
The wording is misleading and prejudicial.
I respectfully request that the adjudicator allows this appeal and cancels the PCN.
