Free Traffic Legal Advice

Letter-Of-Claim has arrived.








Should the RK be responding with the same response as last time? : 
https://www.ftla.uk/private-parking-tickets/dcbl-notice-of-debt-recovery-6523/msg78036/#msg78036

Did you know that if you make representations into the Hounslow.gov.uk website, you cannot go back later and look at want was submitted.


Luckily there was an acknowledgement email buried in the spam folder, that contains the submitted text:

---

I can confirm that we have received your challenge, which will be attached onto the case.
Please find below the information you submitted online.
Submission Date/Time: 23/04/2026 22:46:19


Reference:
Submission Reference:
Title:
Forename:
Surname:
Organisation:
House Number:
Address 1:
Address 2:
Address 3:
Address 4:
Postcode:
Tel. No:
Email:
Notes:

Your Notes: I challenge PCN xxxxxxxxxx due to procedural impropriety on the part of London Borough of Hounslow (LBoH) enforcement authorities. LBoH PCNs have been adjudicated to be non-compliant with "London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003". One such adjudication decision has been attached for your reference "Eleanor Macwhinnie v London Borough of Hounslow (2250221909, 21 July 2025).pdf". The decision explains that a PCN; "...must explain that, if no representations are made and, ifpayment of the penalty charge has not been made, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, then an increased charge may be payable. The PCN in this case states that the increased charge may be payable and a Charge Certificate served if the PCN has not been paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice. It is, therefore, not clear to the motorist that there will be no liability to an increased charge and a Charge Certificate if representations against the PCN are made within the 28 day period. This is a material defect as it may influence or even determine the motorist's decision as to whether to challenge the PCN. I find that the PCN in this case is not valid."
Uploaded Evidence:
Eleanor Macwhinnie v London Borough of Hounslow (2250221909, 21 July 2025).docx

---

Now I will try and concoct an appeal to enter into the londontribunals.gov.uk website.

I suggested representations based on the "Eleanor Macwhinnie vs London Borough of Hounslow" decision.



RK has received a postal reply already "Rejection of Representation".



The representations submitted simply stated that as a Hounslow PCN had been adjudicated to be non compliant with LLA&TfL Act 2003 it should be cancelled, with an excerpt from the Macwhinnie decision on why the PCN was not compliant, and that RK's PCN had the same text.



Their rejection : because the Macwhinnie decision referred to involved a larger box junction they believe on the evidence that the signage satisfy the description in the regulations and therefore that the contravention occurred. After carefully considering your Representation... blah blah blah!!!



I.e. they have messed up quite comprehensively I think, seeing as this alleged contravention does not involve a box junction at all!!



What are the next steps with this?

Anyway : Here for your entertainment...

Yeah I know. I don't miss living in the London boroughs. Whenever I have to go that way, apart from my normal commute into New Malden from the south of Greater London, it feels worse every time.



Anyway, I have been going through the London Tribunal decision linked by Hippocrates.


Do we know if there was any more to the original appeal, because that looks like a decision that could have been a throw away decision, made simply because Hounslow representation did not show up.




Or is the decision really that strong?


I cannot for example find where in LLA&Tfl Act 2003 it says that a PCN must "...explain that, if no representations are made and, if payment of the penalty charge has not been made, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, then an increased charge may be payable."


The text in bold only appears in the Act in Schedule 1, 5(2)(a) which covers charge certificates. PART 2 4( 8 ), does not appear to require any statements in the PCN regarding what happens if representations are not made. It only requires in (v) that it state that if not paid, then an increased charge may be payable, which I think it does.


If I can find any holes I would point out that (viii) requires that the PCN state that person on whom a notice is served may be entitled to make representations under Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act. The PCN does not mention any part of the Act, other than to include the title of the Act under the heading of the PCN. I do not think this is strong.


I am happy to suggest making representations on the basis of the decision as published, if nothing else it delays things a bit. Wondering if something more concrete can be included though.

Thanks Hippocrates.
I'll take a look at that later and see what I can come up with.

Apparently a letter arrived today from "QDR Solicitors".

They are asking for payment within 14 days of an outstanding balance of £170.

Failure to pay or contact them, and they will recommend their client to allow them to pass the matter to their "Litigation Department".


I guess we will be simply waiting for something... more 'interesting' then.

I'll post an image later if I manage to get one.

Thanks, I'll get RK to notify me when/if anything further arrives.