Author Topic: Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?  (Read 463 times)

0 Members and 326 Guests are viewing this topic.

Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?
« on: »
Since procedural impropriety is not a ground afforded in moving traffic or bus lane legislation, we have had much success in  regard of the collateral challenge. But now, things have changed.

First this: Anisha Moosafeer v London Borough of Havering (2240500622, 21 February 2025)

Then this: Mohammed Miah v London Borough of Bromley (2250050555, 16 September 2025) (BTW: the complaint is still live with my MP and beyond)

Leading to this: Maeve McGarrity v Transport for London (2250183490, 30 October 2025)

And finally this: Oishik Banerji v London Borough of Haringey (2250336977, 2 December 2025)

Houston, we have a problem!

It seems that councils can now put whatever they like on their PCNs, NORs and websites as per the two legislations above. And as far as prejudice is irrelevant is concerned, I don't believe this has been tested at the Court of Appeal - yet.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2025, 11:52:35 am by cp8759 »
IF YOU RECEIVE A MOVING TRAFFIC PCN PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE MAKING A REPRESENTATION:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/moving-traffic-pcns-missing-mandatory-information-the-london-local-authorities-a/msg102639/#msg102639


How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

I am not omniscient. cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

My e mail address for councils:

J.BOND007@H.M.S.S.c/oVAUXHALLBRIDGE/LICENSEDTOEXPOSE.SCAMS.CO.UK

Last mission accomplished:

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/southwark-to-r

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Has the collateral challenge met its Cul de Sac?
« Reply #1 on: »
It would seem to me that an argument that the PCN is defective in not giving unambiguously all the information required is not a lawful PCN thus cannot be enforceable would have merit

Arguments re the website giving different information would have to evidence prejudice

At the end of the day the council cannot send a letter saying you owe us so pay up they must comply with the requirements of the regs

On a personal note I have stopped looking at these as they are invariably taken off the forum to be delt with by individuals. The collective mind seems to be no longer wanted