Free Traffic Legal Advice

I agree, stepping through the video frame by frame shows the car did not stop, and when it was going slowly the brake lights were off.

Also, I'd argue the location isn't clear - the video shows a nondescript bit of tarmac captioned "LOC6991" which is no help, and the PCN states "High Street (WD)" which is both vague and meaningless.

If this was my PCN I'd play it dumb and challenge on the grounds that you have no idea what you're supposed to have done, and include a Subject Access Request (SAR) for any evidence that they might have that shows you actually stopped in a box junction (including precise frame numbers) and for the location they believe you were at at that time. Wrap up the challenge by pointing out that any stop was de minimis (not so much because they might accept it, more that if you sneak it in to something that gets handed off to the SAR team, they might well hand you a win by failing to consider). If nothing else this will cause them a bit of work and make someone actually look closely at the video.

I recommend you post a draft of what you intend to send to them here, so we can polish it up if needed.

Streetview proves it was there on the day the streetview car drove past, the council needs to prove it was there on the day you drove past.

Sadly, I can't see any way of fighting this that stands a realistic chance of winning, and you're in a 'double or quits' situation where it's going to cost you £130 if you appeal and lose.

I'd pay at the discount rate and make sure not to do it again if I were you.

"So you need to post all pages of the PCN so we can check it for fatal errors."

i posted the pages except for last one that had effectively nothing on it. do the not show up
thanx

I can see page 1 three time and page 2 once, but there's no sign of pages 3 and 4. Please post both the missing pages (even if you think they have 'effectively nothing' on them!) so we can check all the statutory information is present. You'd be surprised how many cases are won on a technicality because something the law requires is missing from the PCN.

Unfortunately not. If you scroll up from 6, you'll see that4, 5 and 6 are all parts of chapter 2, which applies...

"...where a person—

(a)is served with a notice to owner, or

(b)is served with a regulation 10 penalty charge notice and the penalty charge to which it relates has not been paid."

To find the definition of a "regulation 10 penalty charge notice", you need to go to regulation 10 here: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71 where you'll find a cryptic phrase saying the regulation only applies to moving traffic conventions if they are "OGL moving traffic contraventions". If you then go up to the definitions you'll learn that OGL means "Outside Greater London". As Havering is part of Greater London, your PCN is under a different set of regulations.

Perhaps a speculative appeal for costs might be in order? I'm thinking along the lines of 'I know that doing this once probably isn't 'frivolous and vexatious', but could the adjudicator perhaps provide guidance to the Council on how many times they can repeat this pattern of making unlawful demands for money before facing any consequences?'.

Take a screenshot of that message, it might prove useful later.