Free Traffic Legal Advice

es I would suggest it might help to tell them you're In Portsmouth and  do not visit London regularly. and as you mentioned earlier, you were aware of the ulez zone and it's charge but not the conditions of 24hr period.

I have now included that in my appeal and sent it off. Will update this thread once I hear back from them. Fingers crossed. Thanks the advice everyone.

How does this look for my appeal? I took inspiration from this. I will also attach the screenshot of my payment alongside the following:

To: Transport for London Appeals Department

Subject: Representation Against ULEZ PCN XJ41658941

Dear TFL Appeals Department,

I am writing in response to the PCN issued to me following my visit to London on 11/10/2024. Upon entering the ULEZ, I made the required payment in good faith and have attached a screenshot of the payment confirmation (reference number: W033281901) as proof of my intent to comply with ULEZ requirements.

At the time, I mistakenly believed the charge covered a full 24-hour period from entry rather than expiring at midnight. I was exiting the zone later that evening to go back home, unaware that the charge duration was fixed to the calendar day. Unfortunately, this led to the unintended issuance of the PCN, as the exit timestamp is 20 minutes after midnight.

I sincerely apologise for this oversight, which was an honest misunderstanding rather than an attempt to avoid the charge. I acted under the assumption that my payment would fully cover my time in the zone and only became aware of the reset policy upon receiving this PCN. I fully understand that it is my responsibility to be informed of such regulations, and this experience has been an important lesson for future visits.

Given the circumstances, I respectfully request that you exercise discretion and consider cancelling the PCN. I am grateful for any understanding you may extend.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
Kind regards,

Done, thanks for the guidance throughout. I shall now close this thread.

Meanwhile for the other PCN, they rejected it. So different responses for the different PCNs with the same appeal?

Also got more paperwork about my right to appeal further and how to do it, but seems generic.

What now?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I have now done that thank you. I shall update this thread when anything else arrives from them.

The one that was posted on the Facebook group, same formatting as this PCN I believe but from the day before.

Here is what I have:

Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,

Having received your PCN, I would like to make a representation as the penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of this case, based on the following provision within the relevant legislation and the resulting contradiction regarding the 28-day periods as follows.

Section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides, insofar as is relevant, that:
A penalty charge notice under this section must –
(a) state–
…
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
…
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

However, it has come to my attention that the PCN I received fails to comply with the statutory requirements. The PCN provides two different 28-day periods, one starting from the “date of notice” and the other one from the “date of service of notice”, which occurs two days later. Therefore, as this terminology is not interchangeable, this inconsistency raises further doubt about the validity of the PCN and the associated financial liability. While it might be thought that this error on the PCN is in the recipient’s favour as prejudice is not established, I refer you to London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) where the High Court ruled as follows:

40. Let me now turn to the present case. The two PCNs issued by the parking attendant in Barnet on 31st March 2005 both showed the date of the contravention. Neither PCN showed the date of the notice. The date on which the notice was issued ought to have been shown as a separate entry on the notice. On this ground alone, I hold that neither PCN achieved substantial compliance with section 66 of the 1991 Act.

41. Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.

42. In the present case, the two PCNs issued by Barnet on 31st March 2005 did not comply with section 66(3)(с),(d) and (e) of the 1991 Act. Accordingly, the requirements of section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the notice to owner.

In this case, the PCN has been served under the 2003 Act, but the principle is the same: the PCN is not substantially compliant with the requirements of the statutory scheme because it does not state what the Act requires it to state, and it follows that no liability to pay the penalty charge can arise. It is imperative that the PCN adheres to the clear and unambiguous requirements outlined in the legislation to ensure fair enforcement of penalty charges.

Considering the above, the only penalty that may be demanded is nil and the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,
Name