Free Traffic Legal Advice

8)A penalty charge notice under this section must—

(a)state—

(i)the grounds on which the council or, as the case may be, Transport for London believe that the penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle;

(ii)the amount of the penalty charge which is payable;

(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;

(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;

(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

(vi)the amount of the increased charge;

(vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent; and

(viii)that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act; and

(b)specify the form in which any such representations are to be made.

I'm going to send this for my appeal. From what I'm gathering the council will reject the appeal and once It goes to online tribunal do I submit the same thing or shall I come back for advice on how to proceed?

I make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice on the following grounds:

1. Procedural Impropriety – Defective Wording
Section 4(8) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 requires that a Penalty Charge Notice must state, among other things:

“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice”; and

“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.”

The PCN served in this case fails to include the first requirement in the prescribed form. Instead, it uses wording that conflates the 28-day payment period with the 28-day period for making representations. This omission of mandatory statutory wording renders the PCN defective and invalid.

2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided shows only my vehicle within the alleged restricted area. It does not show the vehicle passing or failing to comply with any prescribed restriction signs.

As the alleged contravention relies entirely upon the presence and visibility of such signage, the Authority is required to prove that compliant signs were in place and that the vehicle failed to comply with them. In the absence of such evidence, the alleged contravention is not made out.

Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, the PCN is invalid and unenforceable. I therefore respectfully request that it be cancelled.

Sorry to be a pain here, just need a bit of advice how to proceed here. I don't wanna send anything yet until I know what I've written is ok . All help has been much appreciated. Thank you.

Would this be ok to send when appealing?

1. The PCN is Missing Mandatory Information
Under London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, Section 4((v), a PCN must state:

“that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable”
and
“that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice.”

This PCN fails to include the second requirement in full and instead uses wording that conflates payment and appeal timeframes, rendering the notice unclear. As the PCN omits mandatory statutory wording, it is invalid and must be cancelled.

2. Lack of Evidence of the Alleged Contravention
The CCTV evidence provided by the authority does not show my vehicle passing the relevant restriction signs. It merely shows the vehicle already inside the alleged restricted area.
Since the PCN is based upon a breach of a prohibition conveyed by prescribed signs, the absence of these signs in the evidence means the contravention has not been proven.

I put the authority to strict proof of:

The presence, condition, and visibility of the signs on 13 July 2025; and

That my vehicle passed them.

Library images or generic stock photographs would not suffice because they do not address the condition and visibility of the signs on the actual date and time in question.

3. Inadequate and Ambiguous Signage
There was no clear advance warning before entering the restricted zone.
Furthermore, diversions in Romford around the date of the contravention may have contributed to driver confusion and reduced sign visibility. I request disclosure of any temporary traffic orders or diversion records for this area at that time.

4. Request for Disclosure
Please provide:

The full Traffic Management Order for this restriction.

All CCTV footage showing my approach to the restriction and any signs passed.

Proof of posting and date of service of the PCN.

Conclusion
Given the PCN’s legal defects, lack of conclusive evidence, and inadequate signage, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled. If the representation is rejected, I will pursue the matter with the independent adjudicator.

Really appreciate the help and responses.

So all I would need to do is quote the 2 paragraphs and attach the screenshot when appealing?

Would I need to mention that there isn't any signage in their photo or video evidence that shows any motor contravention?

If this is the same road, it says no vehicles except for access? 

https://maps.app.goo.gl/dzmtjV5X7AV4eybN6

Here, I think: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TRweEmtRL7UBZDsP8
However, GSV is not up-to-date, so the "Flying Motorbike" signs are not there.

Ahh yes that looks like it from the video. Thankyou.