IMO, the NTO  is defective.

OP, the NTO must state:

3) A notice to owner must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it under regulation 3(2) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations, state—

.........

(f)that the penalty charge, if not already paid, must be paid within “the payment period” as defined by regulation 3(2)(a) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations,

[ii)....the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the notice is served (“the payment period”) may be disregarded]

(g)that if, after the payment period has expired, no representations have been made under regulation 5 of the 2022 Appeals Regulations and the penalty charge has not been paid, the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the applicable surcharge,


The NTO states:
'If by 9/10/2026 you do not pay the penalty charge or make representations before the end of the period specified above ['these representations should be made not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning on the date on which this Notice is served]..the council may increase the original penalty charge by 50% to £105..'


NTO posted Wed. 9 Sept. therefore presumed served on Fri. 11th, which is day 1. Day 28 is therefore 8 Oct. 

The language is clear: if by 9 Oct. you do not pay. Which is wrong, it must be 8 Oct.   If they'd said 'if by 9th you have not paid, then they might have wangled it, but they haven't. The para. is totally misleading. Why they've given a date rather than rely upon the language of the regs, I don't know. Whether the 'or' is seen as being conjunctive or disjunctive doesn't help them IMO.

They have wrongly offered you an extra day to pay. Whether they would increase the charge is neither here nor there, they are required to state what's required in the regs. They do not have go use the exact words, but must convey the meaning and not mislead.

Wait for others. 

IMO, the relevant(assuming there's a corresponding reference in a Schedule) section is (d), not (e):

(d) Prohibition of Vehicles/Motor Vehicles - No person shall allow a vehicle
to proceed in any road or part of a road indicated as being prohibited to
motor vehicles, or any vehicle within the schedule to this Order

And as we can't see what traffic sign is present......

Hopefully with something which shows you have authority to make these reps..for the reasons set out earlier you, as the driver, are not the addressee and cannot make reps in your own name.

..but whether TfL twig is another matter!

Pl check what you've posted, I think you've omitted a page and duplicated another.

IMO, there is a major defect in the PCN, our member Hippocrates is the guru with these.

All pages of the PCN, pl.

IMO, that you then reversed goes to mitigation only and would therefore be disregarded by an adjudicator. Therefore, you're looking for technical/procedural arguments assuming that the NE signs are clearly visible. At present the council is demanding money for driving along a road. Why they can't include a photo of the actual signs in the PCN baffles me.

When we see the full PCN we can begin to assess its statutory compliance.

Can we  forget about turning right into Lingham, IMO it is not central to your argument.

You were driving along an unrestricted road and then WITHOUT WARNING faced with a No Motor Vehicles prohibition without any means of avoiding.

Yes, there's a background to the unrestricted road and the misleading nature of its proximity to the NMV prohibition - we're not talking about  miles, you're looking at 100m or so. Yes, there's a bespoke sign in Southwark Gardens whose writing is unreadable(I had to zoom in to your photo) but this would be taken to apply to the right turn, not the next-but-one restriction.

The sign isn't actually needed because it states that the restriction applies 24/7 which is the same meaning conveyed by the markings themselves because  absent a sign they mean 24/7.

I think you would not succeed with your argument at adjudication, but you'll probably get 2 bites at the cherry with the council with nothing more than the discounted penalty being at risk before this.

In a nutshell.

And talking of nuts, don't think that your reps would provide a damascene conversion within the authority. I suspect this would need either a heavy hammer or the adjudicator. Or both.

You'll succeed in the end, it's simply a matter of how many hoops these ignoramuses force you to jump through.