Show Posts - dingus

Thank you a great deal for raising valid points and providing template's.  Something which i found strange as the registered keeper. Galleria mentioned the driver parked in a contractors area.  The bay the driver parked in was a disabled bay. Will get this sent to both companies

A family parked at the Galleria Hatfield with a disabled badge displayed. They got a PCN for non payment. I raised with the shopping centre and showing proof.  They gave the following response:"As our Car park is now being managed by Horizon Parking who have installed new machines and Signage across the site.All blue badge holders will be required to scan their blue badges at the pay machines at the end of each stay to ensure the discount is applied of 3hrs free parking.You can leave the clock on display and keep your badge with you, then once you have finished shopping scan the badge at the machine.You can park in our plaza car park which is opposite pure gym as the car park you parked in is for contractors only as per the signs."Any grounds to appeal?

A family parked in the industrial estate attending a bar called the big penny social and got a pcn.

A family member got a PCN parked on a Sunday. I assume the area is a business park with a bar near by. Any grounds for appeal?

A very good afternoon allI overstayed in the enfiled retail parking while visiting Krispy Kreme and was working from there from my laptop. I ordered a doughnut and a coffee. I lost track of time. I spoke to KK and they said they cant do anything and speak to Mets.  Here is the PCN. Any grounds to appeal?

The video is working. I am not able to upload the video hereYeah not sure why he did.  Should know better

My dad entered the yellow box junction and i think he bang to rights. I wanted to double check if there is any appeal possible?

I have uploaded the PDF here I dont think i can attach files I have attached the we transfer link to the pdf scan of the lettershttps://we.tl/t-nlXrnTedj2

I submitted the above and i got it rejected. I guess i need to pay and no other grounds to appeal.

Quote from: stamfordman on 24 Aug, 2025 23:31You need to post the front of the charge certificate, blanking only name and address.Are the name and address correct on the charge certificate.Updated - seems i uploaded the same file by mistake. The address is correct as well as the name

A family member has recently got a charge certificate last month. They did not get the original PCN or have a PCN attached to there car. They picking a family member up on a loading bay which is a no no. Here is the full pcn back and front.  What are the next steps.

Quote from: H C Andersen on 18 Aug, 2025 15:18The contravention description is:'Failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign..'It is not proceeding in the wrong direction along Shaftesbury, this is simply the concomitant of failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow.IMO, your reps should be along the lines of:On *** I was driving south along Hawthorne Avenue and turned left at its junction with Shaftesbury Road. This is confirmed by the authority's CCTV. I was not aware at the time that I had done anything wrong and therefore was surprised to receive the PCN. On viewing the authority's CCTV I was still none the wiser as with which blue direction sign I am supposed to have failed to comply . For obvious reasons it cannot be the 'one-way' arrow in the CCTV because this is not visible to drivers travelling in my direction. I then looked at Google Street View which shows a single blue sign with a white arrow on a lamp post on the opposite side of the road at the junction of Hawthorne Avenue and Shaftesbury. I presume this is the 'arrow on a blue sign' referred to in the contravention description as there is no other regulatory sign in the vicinity.I am therefore making representations on the grounds that the contravention did not occur because the council has failed to sign the restriction to the standard required. Specifically, according to the Traffic Signs Manual (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf) the council should erect a 'Right turn' sign with the supplementary plate 'One way' in combination with a sign to diagram 609 'to be sited approx. 50m from the junction'. The road marking Right Turn is an optional addition. By placing only a single sign which sits within an environment of blue signs with white writing (MOT TEST CENTRE, the MOT symbol, AUTOTEKS) the council has done its best to obscure the sign rather than bring it to a driver's attention. As if this wasn't bad enough, the sign is placed immediately to the right of an entrance to properties which would be visited by high-sided commercial vehicles which would have to turn across the line of sight of any driver at the junction. The authority is required to explain why it has departed from the TSM recommendation and instead chosen to place only one of the two recommended signs and none of the road markings. Absent cogent reasons, excluding lack of knowledge and for financial purposes, the PCN must be cancelled.Thank you H C Anderson! I run the above through chatgpt:I wish to make formal representations against the above PCN on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.On 01/08/2025 at 10:57, I was driving south along Hawthorne Avenue and turned left at its junction with Shaftesbury Road. This is confirmed by the authority's CCTV. At the time, I was not aware that I had committed any contravention, and I was therefore surprised to receive this PCN.Upon viewing the CCTV evidence provided by the authority, I was still unclear as to which blue directional sign I was alleged to have failed to comply with. The ‘one-way’ arrow in the footage cannot be the relevant sign, as it is not visible to drivers travelling in my direction.I subsequently consulted Google Street View and observed a single blue sign with a white arrow mounted on a lamp post on the opposite side of the road at the junction of Hawthorne Avenue and Shaftesbury Road. I can only assume this is the sign in question, as no other regulatory blue direction signs are present nearby.The contravention description is “failing to proceed in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign.” However, the Council has not signed the restriction in accordance with the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM), Chapter 3. Specifically:Section 4 of the TSM requires that a “Right Turn” sign, with a supplementary “One Way” plate, should be erected in combination with a diagram 609 sign, to be sited approximately 50 metres before the junction.The optional “Right Turn” road marking could also have been used to provide clarity.By placing only a single diagram 609 sign in a visually cluttered environment—surrounded by blue commercial signs such as “MOT TEST CENTRE,” the MOT symbol, and “AUTOTEKS”—the Council has obscured rather than highlighted the restriction.Additionally, the sign is placed immediately beside an entrance used by high-sided vehicles, which regularly obstruct the line of sight for drivers approaching the junction. This renders the sign ineffective at conveying the restriction.The Council is required to explain why it has departed from the TSM recommendations by providing only one of the two prescribed signs and omitting advance signage or road markings. Unless the Council can provide cogent reasons for this deviation, other than lack of resources or financial motives, the restriction cannot be considered adequately signed and the contravention cannot be enforced.For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the alleged contravention did not occur and request that the PCN be cancelled.Yours faithfully,[Your Name]

Thank you Mr Chips and super helpful. I use chatgpt to draft an appeal letter:-----------Dear Sir/Madam,I make these formal representations against Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) number EF99174738, issued on 13/08/2025, concerning vehicle registration PJ60VYC.Grounds of Representation – Procedural ImproprietyThis PCN has not been issued in accordance with the requirements of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (“the Act”).Section 4((a)(viii) of the Act requires that a penalty charge notice must state that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act.Paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 provides:“The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served.”However, this PCN instead states:“We may disregard any representations received after the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice of this Penalty Charge Notice.”This is a material misstatement of the law. The “date of the notice” is not the same as the “date of service.” The law deems service to occur two working days after posting if sent by first-class post. The PCN therefore unlawfully shortens the statutory representation period by at least two days.1. Prejudice and ConfusionThis defect is not trivial. It materially prejudices my legal rights by misinforming me of the correct time limit for making representations. A motorist relying on the PCN wording could wrongly believe they are out of time when, in law, they are not. The PCN therefore fails in its purpose of properly conveying statutory rights.2. Mandatory RequirementThe requirements of section 4( are mandatory, not optional. Case law such as Camden LBC v The Parking Adjudicator & BHS [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) confirms that statutory wording must be followed precisely. A PCN that misstates mandatory information is invalid and cannot be enforced.3. Inconsistency of InformationThe PCN refers to deadlines being calculated from the date of service for payment, but from the date of the notice for representations. This inconsistency is confusing, contradictory, and contrary to the requirement that a PCN must be clear, accurate, and consistent in setting out the recipient’s rights.4. Enfield’s Statutory DutyAs the enforcing authority, the London Borough of Enfield has a statutory duty to issue PCNs that comply with the Act. A PCN that misstates statutory rights is null and void ab initio, and cannot lawfully be pursued.ConclusionFor the above reasons, the PCN is invalid due to procedural impropriety. I respectfully request that it be cancelled forthwith. Should you nevertheless reject these representations, I will appeal to the independent adjudicator at London Tribunals, where I will rely on the statutory wording and case law cited above.Yours faithfully,-------Quote from: MrChips on 18 Aug, 2025 09:11PCN is issued under LLA 2003.https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/contents/enactedSection 4(8 )(a)(viii) states:A penalty charge notice under this section must state that the person on whom the notice is served may be entitled to make representations under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act.Within paragraph 1 of Schedule 1, it states "The enforcing authority may disregard any such representations which are received by them after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice in question was served."Your PCN does not state this - it states the similar but critically different "We may disregard any representations received after the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice of this Penalty Charge Notice."Date of service is taken to be two business days after posting (first class) so that law gives you additional time to make representations than is set out in the PCN.As it is a requirement of the LLA 2003 that Enfield MUST state that you may be entitled to make representations under the terms set out in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 of the Act, and Enfield have not correctly done this, then I can't see how the PCN can stand as it includes information that is different and contrary to the wording that must be included.

Just to clarify i checked the road and seem to got things mixed up. I took a left at the of the first picture which is Hawnthorn Rd and turned left down Shaftesbury Road

Quote from: H C Andersen on 17 Aug, 2025 12:04Where's the PCN?I have attached is a pdf to my original post.  Resharing here as images