Show Posts - msym

Quote from: Hippocrates on 08 Jan, 2026 18:58I make these formal representations against PCN1. There was no contravention of a prescribed order because the signage in situ and accompanying plate a place directly after the turn on Rosendale Road, there is no advance signage to warn that this restriction is upcoming and by the time one is in a position to see the signs it is too late. Indeed, reading the exemption plate placed as it is impossible from a moving vehicle and to stop at the location in question would be inherently dangerous as would attempting to reverse back.For these reasons the signage fails in its requirement under LATOR 1996 s18 to adequately inform the motorist. 2. A motorist must be given wholly correct information when to pay the reduced or full amounts sought. However, there is a clear disconnect between the law and what is stated on your website.In light of the above, please cancel the PCNThank you. I have sumbbitted the representation as you stated. Once i receive a response i will reply back.thank you for the support. (lets hope for the best). 

Quote from: Hippocrates on 07 Jan, 2026 22:30Good stuff. If you don't mind, it needs slight tweaking. I'll gate back tomorrow. No warning signs are necessary.If you can point me to the changes I can try and do them myself. I am worried as the discount will disappear. Its already past the 14days but they havent yet increased it.thank you

Quote from: Hippocrates on 07 Jan, 2026 22:30Good stuff. If you don't mind, it needs slight tweaking. I'll gate back tomorrow. No warning signs are necessary.Many thanks

Hi Hippocrates and al,I would greatly appreciate some advice on the bellow representation response and whether you think its adequate. Its an amalgamation of past letters and information i could gather from past posts.@Hippocrates, I have tried to capture your point on the dates but please correct me if i misunderstood. thank you--------------To Whom It May Concern,I make representations against PCN number: LJ35493793Contravention: 53jVRN: BC23KSE Location: Rosendale Road (H)The first ground by way of collateral challenge: There was no contravention of a prescribed order.The signage in situ and accompanying plate a place directly after the turn on Rosendale Road, there is no advance signage to warn that this restriction is upcoming and by the time one is in a position to see the signs it is too late. Indeed, reading the exemption plate placed as it is impossible from a moving vehicle and to stop at the location in question would be inherently dangerous as would attempting to reverse back.For these reasons the signage fails in its requirement under LATOR 1996 s18 to adequately inform the motorist. No contravention can occur in these circumstances and the PCN should be cancelledThe second ground by way of collateral challenge: Dates between PCN and Council’s website are misleading.I am making a collateral challenge on the grounds that the penalty charge discount amount date as published on Lambeth’s website does not coincide with the 14 day period on the PCN itself. The PCN states:“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 50% to £80.” The end of the 14 day period would thus be 30 December 2025.Yet on your website [extract taken today 7 January 2025] it states:“The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 very soon. Please pay £80.00 now.”Moreover, the website gives the date of issue as 5 Dec (which is when the CCTV was recorded) while the PCN itself bears the date 17 Dec. Taken together this is all clearly misleading. I refer you to a recent case decided at the London Tribunal [224036272 decided 15 October 2024] on similar grounds i.e. where Lambeth’s website was inconsistent with the information given on the PCN. The adjudicator Mr Houghton said:“In bare summary the Appellant submits that the Council’s website was giving incorrect and/or confusing information regarding payment dates……The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from a Council as to what is required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious enough for the Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge.”In light of the aforementioned collateral challenges, the PCN should be cancelled. It is incumbent upon an authority to have clear road signs and give clear and precise states re payments etc and these must be according to the statutory process.--------------- 

Hello. cf just means compare in this context. I am starting to draft a response for my case.That I noticed is that the date on the website says 5dec while the paper PCN states 14 Dec. I believe this discrepancy counts as misleading/misinformation and as such the PCN should be invalid(My assumption for now)

Quote from: Hippocrates on 06 Jan, 2026 19:23Ticket ReferenceLJ35493793Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process informationVehicle Registration NumberBC23KSEColourGREYMakeNISSANContravention53j - Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone (camera enforcement) LocationRosendale Road (H) First seen atFri, 5 Dec 2025 8:52Issued atFri, 5 Dec 2025 8:52Served byPostThe amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £160.00 very soon. Please pay £80.00 now.Is the challenge that the website does not contain enough information on when it needs to be paid by? I assumed this would not be an issue as it's written on the PCN. If so, is there a set paragraph that I could use in this circumstance?Thank you

Not that I can be of help but I have exactly the same issue a day after you at the same spot. I have raised another request in the forum. It is really odd as to when this came in force and also once you realise the restriction there is very little you can do to correct your course of action.

Quote from: Hippocrates on 26 Dec, 2025 18:20Quote from: msym on 26 Dec, 2025 11:42Quote from: Hippocrates on 24 Dec, 2025 12:41The website payments page is a serious issue.Thank you for the response. What do you mean? Is this something that I can use against them?Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (soon)Yes. Check the dates re payments.Hi Hippocrates, Happy new year.I feel a bit daft as I am not sure what i am checking. I looked into the payments webpage and shows the photos, the date of contravention and amount. What is the basis of me challenging this PCN?Following link of website.https://imgpile.com/p/avYqDXsApart from the payment website is there any other argument that i could use in my challenge?thank you for the support

Quote from: Hippocrates on 24 Dec, 2025 12:41The website payments page is a serious issue.Thank you for the response. What do you mean? Is this something that I can use against them?Merry Christmas and Happy New Year (soon)

Quote from: Incandescent on 24 Dec, 2025 00:44Make sure that they do not pay the PCN, or it's game over. It's too late today to look at the details of the contravention.Yes thank you. I have emailed them saying as such. Actually i had a similar issue in the past where they paid and i complained that i was stripped from my right to challenge and then they waived the fee. 

Thank you for your prompt response. Yes the leasing company has transferred the responsibility to me. Please see references below:https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#ZU8Tw0Khttps://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#kpoxG5Fhttps://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#obvmRFKUnfortunately they usually charge me £10 for every such instance.Kind regards,Marios

PCN: LJ35493793On Friday 5th December I was returning home from school drop by car. Due to traffic, I took a road that I usually take. As I turned to Rosendale road (from Lovelace rd) I realised there was a sign for a time-based restriction that the road is for cyclists and pedestrians only between b:15-9:15. I passed this road at 8:52 (as per the PCN).I don’t really know when this sign was there and if they changed the time window but I only noticed it with the blink of my eye after I have turned.For transparency, I looked into google maps and there was a sign in Lovelace road on the restriction but I did not see when I was driving past it.I would like to ask if I have any real basis of challenging this. Following are my arguments.The photo/video evidence shows that after I turned left at the junction I entered the restricted area and there was a sign there. The sign was after I had turned with no way of changing direction. As such I proceeded. Although I did spot a sign, I was not able to read it properly as I had already started to turn left.Sign is incorrectly positioned. While driving, its not possible to read the time window without impairing my drive ability. If the sign was placed before the turn when I had stopped to check for traffic then I would have been able to read and interpret the sign.Although not a resident of the specific area, this is a road that I typically commute to go home. It is not fair for only the residents of this road to be exempt but not others in the vicinity. Doing so it means that I need to elongate my driving significantly to be able to park close to home.For further context. The car is leased and I received this PCN via the leasing company.https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#kAA3c10https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#N3cJyzChttps://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#xSZZVk7https://imgpile.com/p/x0vt3dO#5DJPac6Thank you in advance for your support,Marios

Hi all,I got the 3rd PCN response now and its the same as the first.in short:1st: they offer the original discounted price of £802nd: they will waive3rd: they offer the original discounted price of £80Not sure i have many options but to pay at this stage.thank you for your support.

Hi all,I got the response on the second pcn. A bit surprised as its different to the first one. It just shows how there is no standard decision/ responses. I am now waiting for the third to see what it will be.‐----------Thank you for your explanation regarding Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) JK17011213, issued under the TrafficManagement Act 2004 on Monday, 18 August 2025 at 13:28 to vehicle Grey Nissan BC23KSE, for contravention 12s– Parked in a residents’ or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying avalid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or withoutpayment of the parking charge, at Croxted Road. This PCN was issued by a Civil Enforcement Officer whoobserved the vehicle for 4 minutes and 47 seconds and recorded in the notebook: “TIME PLATE: MON–FRI NOON–2PMPERMIT HOLDERS HH HR OR PAY BY PHONE 020 7005 0055 QUOTING LOCATION 84785. NO VP NO DISREGARDAND NO PAYMENT BY PHONE FOUND. DRIVER NOT SEEN.”We have considered your challenge carefully and note your explanation that your resident permit had expired while you wereout of the country and that it was renewed immediately upon your return. You highlighted your continued history of paying fora resident permit and outlined the difficulties caused by ongoing Thames Water works in the area, and the inconvenience thishas posed while caring for a young child.We appreciate the context you provided and on this occasion, as a gesture of goodwill, we have decided to cancel PCNJK17011213. However, we must advise you that PCNs JK16922827 and JK17011031 were correctly issued for thesame contravention and remain valid and payable.Payment of the penalty charges for PCNs JK16922827 and JK17011031 can still be made at the discounted rateof £80 each if received within 14 days from the date of this letter.Yours sincerely---------

Quote from: Hippocrates on 04 Oct, 2025 21:01Has the author of this thread followed my advice re screenshots? Their website is a huge issue - soon to be exposed.Hello. Thank you for the response. I did provide the screenshots previously in this thread but didn't understand whether i needed to do something with them. What is the issue with the portal? I assume i cannot challenge further now? The letters says that i can issue a Notice to Owner but not sure if this applies to me as i am the one.Quote from: H C Andersen on 04 Oct, 2025 15:02Are visitor's/traders etc. permits virtual? Thank you for your response.  Yes primarily but i have seen a couple of cars with a paper one.Quote from: stamfordman on 04 Oct, 2025 13:13So they could cancel the other two.Surely this is not on:"While you reference Code 19 in your letter, which relates to an expired permit being displayed, please note that contravention code 12s was correctly issued in this case as the vehicle had no valid virtual permit at the time, and nothing was displayed to suggest an expired permit was being relied upon."Aren't the permits virtual? In which case an expired e-permit is the same in principle. Thank you for the response. Why do you say they will cancel the other 2? I have not yet received any response and they did say that they treat them separately. Regarding your comment that  epermit is the same in principle can i challenge it back further? On their response they seem to treat the paper and the virtual differently.Thank you all for your support