Lewisham PCN: Failing to obey a no entry sign Options

[malandm]

Hi all,

I just received a PCN recently for failing to obey a no entry sign. This is my first PCN so I have no idea what to do or how to handle it best or if I have any chance of making a succcessful appeal, so that's why I came here to ask for advice and help!

These are the photos of the PCN: https://imgur.com/a/93b311i (couldn't figure out how to compress the files enough to upload them as attachments here)

So the reason why I went through the no entry sign was because there was massive traffic on new cross road due to constructions late at night (where a 2 minute journey became 40 minutes on the way there) so on the way back I tried to go through the neighbourhoods to find a shorter route but accidentally went through the Pepys Road no entry after seeing an ambulance and a car also go the same way. (It was 1:30am and I was really tired)

I'm not sure how much ground I have to appeal, if any? Should I just pay the subsidised fee of £65 or try to appeal? And if so on what grounds?

Thanks!

[Advertisement]

[Incandescent]

Traffic congestion is not a valid reason for cancellation, I'm afraid, so if you submit reps it would be to ask for them to use discretion on a mitigation basis. Signs seem clear enough on the PCN photos. The only other aspect is fatal errors of content in the PCN itself. Experts here will run their beady eyes over it and tell you, but if you use a technical argument, you'll inevitably end up at London Tribunals with the full £130 in play.

[malandm]

Traffic congestion is not a valid reason for cancellation, I'm afraid, so if you submit reps it would be to ask for them to use discretion on a mitigation basis. Signs seem clear enough on the PCN photos. The only other aspect is fatal errors of content in the PCN itself. Experts here will run their beady eyes over it and tell you, but if you use a technical argument, you'll inevitably end up at London Tribunals with the full £130 in play.

Just as I expected. So would it be safer just to pay the £65 now in your opinion?

[cp8759]

The PCN is flawed, it mis-states the date when the council is entitled to serve a charge certificate.

[malandm]

The PCN is flawed, it mis-states the date when the council is entitled to serve a charge certificate.

Sorry - how do you mean exactly?

[PASTMYBEST]

The PCN is flawed, it mis-states the date when the council is entitled to serve a charge certificate.

From what I can see they do not mention CC, rather they may take steps to enforce. The bit re the increased charge is correct

(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

so the first argument to win is that the wording can only relate to service of a CC

[cp8759]

The PCN is flawed, it mis-states the date when the council is entitled to serve a charge certificate.

From what I can see they do not mention CC, rather they may take steps to enforce. The bit re the increased charge is correct

(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

so the first argument to win is that the wording can only relate to service of a CC

However you read it, the authority cannot threaten to premature increase the charge. Even if they don't serve a CC for another couple of days, anyone trying to pay online would be faced with an unlawfully increased penalty.

[malandm]

The PCN is flawed, it mis-states the date when the council is entitled to serve a charge certificate.

From what I can see they do not mention CC, rather they may take steps to enforce. The bit re the increased charge is correct

(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;

so the first argument to win is that the wording can only relate to service of a CC

However you read it, the authority cannot threaten to premature increase the charge. Even if they don't serve a CC for another couple of days, anyone trying to pay online would be faced with an unlawfully increased penalty.

I'm confused because there's a lot of terminology here that I'm unfamiliar with unfortunately. I've googled what CC means but I'm still confused.

What exactly is the best course of action for me to take here if I don't want to risk losing and having to pay the full £130?

[Neil B]

I'm confused because there's a lot of terminology here that I'm unfamiliar with unfortunately. I've googled what CC means but I'm still confused.

What exactly is the best course of action for me to take here if I don't want to risk losing and having to pay the full £130?

Understandable.
They're just discussing among themselves and will explain further later.
You're not expected to grasp legal points straight away.

Put simply, the PCN is required to give you certain mandatory info and accurately so.
They are debating whether yours does and if it can be defeated on a point that has previously
both won and lost ---- but should win if properly presented.

--
On your last para; wait, see what they say and conclude.
But yes, you would ultimately have to fight this at full penalty level.
If you're adamant you won't, after they suggest what to do, then say so.

[malandm]

I'm confused because there's a lot of terminology here that I'm unfamiliar with unfortunately. I've googled what CC means but I'm still confused.

What exactly is the best course of action for me to take here if I don't want to risk losing and having to pay the full £130?

Understandable.
They're just discussing among themselves and will explain further later.
You're not expected to grasp legal points straight away.

Put simply, the PCN is required to give you certain mandatory info and accurately so.
They are debating whether yours does and if it can be defeated on a point that has previously
both won and lost ---- but should win if properly presented.

--
On your last para; wait, see what they say and conclude.
But yes, you would ultimately have to fight this at full penalty level.
If you're adamant you won't, after they suggest what to do, then say so.

Thank you very much! I appreciate the explanation and understand much better now.

[hcandersen]

Don't blame the authority, blame the cock-eyed wording of the Act:

The Act as regards the PCN, excluding the appeals procedure states:

iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; stated correctly

(iv)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
stated correctly
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
stated correctly

(vi)the amount of the increased charge;
stated correctly

(vii)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent;
stated correctly


There's no requirement to mention 'charge certificate' which is only a document and which frankly could carry any title, the important matter is that the charge increases. In fact the Act refers to this first as 'the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement'.

So where's the error?
That the referring paragraph includes reference to 'representations', apparently as a legal precedent condition to demanding an increased charge?

IMO, the mistake being made is to confuse the duty as it applies to the authority regarding what must be stated in a PCN with the powers of the authority as regards dealing with reps, which are stated correctly on the reverse of the PCN. In fact the Act introduces this conflict because on the one hand it specifies the wording above as regards increased charge AND THEN contradicts itself by telling authorities that they are prevented from issuing a CC until the appeals period has lapsed!

Is it unlawful for an authority to demand an increased charge once the 28-day period in respect of payment has lapsed?

It depends. But in any event the Act does not require the authority to declare this in the PCN, c'est la vie.

But the recipient may make reps for a further 2-4 days potentially. Doesn't this mean the authority's use of 28-day payment period is wrong?
No it doesn't, because this is what's prescribed by the Act.

Would it be foolish of them to issue an increased charge until the appeal period has lapsed?
Yes. But if they did and the recipient had made reps as required, then the recipient would simply wait for the OfR and win at appeal based on not receiving a NOR and/or penalty exceeded the amount ....circumstances of the case.

Or is there more to this?

[cp8759]

AIUI the answer is found in paragraph 5 of Schedule 1:

Charge certificates
5 (1) Where a penalty charge notice is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the enforcing authority may serve on that person a statement (in this paragraph referred to as a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

(2) The relevant period, in relation to a penalty charge notice is the period of 28 days beginning—

(a) where no representations are made under paragraph 1 above, with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served;