Hello,

Your help would be appreciated as I feel quite cheesed off.

I've received a PCN for Contravention Code 62: "Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway".

I'd parked there [Red Toyota Prius ] with full belief it was perfectly fine to do so ... only to the come back and find a council PCN attached to the windscreen.
The reason I thought it was fine was because there were no time restrictions and a "footway parking" sign.

It seems from checking the council website for the images of my PCN, however, the council is using the image of my car and the footway parking sign as evidence against me.

Can someone help me understand what's going on? I thought the sign indicated I was within my right to park partially on a foot way?
If I am right, how do I phrase a response when they've acknowledged the foot way sign already?

I've also taken snapshots from google images showing other cars parked in the same space, in the same manner.

Thanks in advance for your help.

The ticket was issued because you were the wrong side of the sign, with footway parking having been banned in London since 1974

However, that doesn't necessarily mean there's no hope, as there could be a problem with the PCN.

Whereas the ticket should have been issued because you were parked on the footway where not permitted and where the effect of permissive signs did not apply.

A fine distinction, but possibly your salvation.

How did you get to this location. Did you you drive along the other part of Melville - beyond Lowbrook - or did you turn left or right from Lowbrook or perhaps drive along Melville and do a 180 at this point?

This is very important.

Sign could be seen as applying to one side as no past this point and it's on a lamppost. Resolution may allow it in the entire length. Opposite there is a custom sign further forward.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5499935,0.0...3312!8i6656

OP, just so you understand what the issue is........

Off-carriageway parking has been banned in London since the 70s, but councils can, by resolution, disapply it to nominated streets to facilitate movement of traffic. Having disapplied it, signs must be put in place to indicate footway (aka off-carriageway) parking is permitted, hence the sign in your photos. However the signs may not exactly match what the resolution says. So in your case the resolution might just say "Mayville Road", but their signs indicate less than the whole length of Mayville Road. So you could well be parked lawfully in accordance with the resolution, but you won't know unless you force them to tell you what is in the resolution.

It does look suspiciously as if the sign has just been placed on the street light pole for convenience rather that in the exact place the resolution may state, so it's well worth further investigation.

Our experience so far suggests that, deep down in the council archives, there probably is a resolution and it probably does say that the sign should be exactly where it is, however the council's parking enforcement team is too incompetent to appreciate the significance of the resolution, and there is virtually no chance that the resolution will be produced at any stage, including at the tribunal.

The tribunal has repeatedly allowed appeals where the resolution has been requested and not provided, see for example Daniel Gentry v London Borough of Redbridge (2160356237, 21 September 2016):

It is apparent that the review proposed the erection of signs which were in
fact in place at the location when the PCN was issued, but what is
conspicuously lacking in the evidence before me is any resolution by the
Authority which puts those changes (between existing and proposed
exemptions) into effect.

Without that evidence, which Mr Gentry has clearly and repeatedly
requested, I cannot be satisfied that the point in Fairway Gardens where he
parked was not in fact, despite the positioning of the signs, still not subject to
a footway parking exemption. Consequently I cannot be satisfied that the
contravention alleged occurred.

I must therefore allow this appeal.

In Daniel Jordanou v London Borough of Havering (2190249269, 21 August 2019) the tribunal said that:

Having heard the Appellant in person I entirely accept his evidence that his
vehicle had broken down. He pushed it off the carriageway in the dark and
as a result of the worn state of the bay markings did not realise that
approximately a quarter of his vehicle was outside them. Having given the
matter some thought I am unable to go so far as to say that the principle of
de minimis applies here; and the Council is correct in that the legislation
contains no exemption for broken down vehicles.

Nevertheless the combination of the circumstances clearly amounts to very
strong mitigation and I am therefore adjourning this case in the hope that
the Council will consider it appropriate to exercise its discretion. If it is not
prepared to do so it should produce a copy of the Council resolution under
s15 (4) Greater London Council (General Powers ) Act 1974 showing the
extent of the footway parking exemptions applicable in Ashton Rd in order
to demonstrate that the bay markings correctly show the exempted area.
No further evidence or communication has been received from the Council.

In the circumstances I am unable to be satisfied that the vehicle was not
parked within an exempted area and the Appeal is therefore allowed.

In Aliecee Cummings v London Borough of Lewisham (219023696A, 18 July 2019) the tribunal said:

The Council accepts that there is no signage for footway parking in Sangley Road so that there is nothing to explain to
motorists that it is permitted only in marked bays. In a road where footway parking is permitted, there must be a Council
resolution. If footway parking is permitted in marked bays only, then there needs to be a sign explaining to motorists that this is
the case. In my judgement, it was not unreasonable, in the absence of signage, for Miss Cummings to conclude that, when
parking on the single yellow line, she should align her car with the vehicles parked in the bays. The Council has not
responded to Miss Cummings’ request to produce a copy of the resolution for footway parking.

On that basis, I would send a very simple challenge:

------------------------

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

While my vehicle does appear to be in contravention based on your photographs, this was solely due to my misunderstanding of the sign, as i had not realised footway parking is only permitted to the right of the sign. In light of this, I would invite the council to exercise discretion on this occasion and I will of course ensure this mistake is not repeated.

However, should the council decline to cancel the penalty, I cannot help but wonder whether the placement of the sign is driven by the exact extent of the exempted area, or whether the sign has been placed on the street lighting column as a matter of mere convenience. In light of this, should the council seek to enforce the penalty, please would you provide a copy of the footway parking resolution for Mayville Road, including any maps or diagrams that indicate the exact extent of the footway parking area. As I am sure the council will appreciate that I cannot make an informed decision as to whether I should pay the penalty or appeal further without first knowing whether the area where my vehicle was parked is in fact exempt.

We have to be aware of the flawed (IMO) reasoning in 2200187842. It is important that we stress the difference between a TMO and a s15 resolution

For the OP a resolution disapplies an act of parliament whereas a TMO is effectively a bylaw that creates parking places or restrictions on a road The resolution my well just say xxxxxx st is disapplied from the statutory ban on footway parking whereas a THO creates parking spaces within an area.

You can have a resolution without a TMO and parking would be unrestricted and may by on the footpath But within that disapplied area a TMO may require parking within bays or may provide for yellow lines. But failing to comply with those restrictions would be different contraventions

@PMB that issue doesn't arise where there are no bays or other restrictions, as there won't be a TMO. Experience suggests a s15 resolution will exist, it's just that the parking department doesn't know where it is or why it's important to produce it.

Agreed but in that situation it would be an unrestricted street where the resolution disapplied the act of parliament . A TMO cannot do this

IMO, the issue here is not about this sign as such. It's contextual because the sign sits in an area replete with signs.

Still waiting for the OP's reply.

I don't really want to air my concerns regarding the status of this sign lest the OP be tempted to revise history.

To respond to 'hcandersen' - I can give the long story:

I was there to take a stroll down Ilford Lane (A123) and pop into a few shops. I don't live anywhere near East London so thought I'd pop into a few shops whilst in the area.

I'd been driving down Lowbrook Rd in search of parking and had seen a space further down the road. Stupidly asking the passenger, "Should I park there?", the passenger suggests looking down Mayville which was on our left. Parking at the end of Mayville Rd closest to Ilford lane is closer to the shops, less walk hence more convenient. Taking the left from Lowbrook Rd onto Mayville, I drove down the road looking for a space. As I drove down I'd noticed the road was littered with the footway parking sign, no time restrictions and every car on the road had parked with two wheels on the curb.

There was no space - so I did a u-turn and drove back down Melville towards Lowbrook with the intention of taking that empty space I'd seen before. As I turned left back onto Lowbrook from Mayville, another car had stopped and decided to reverse park into the space. The guy behind him had no choice but to reverse to give him room as he'd driven past the space and so I also had to reverse as I was 2nd down the line. I'm now on the corner between Lowbrook and Melville.

Frustrated the space had been taken and now reversing back - I see out of the corner of my eye the corner space (where I decided to park) on the road I'd just driven down (Mayville). So I just popped the car there - having seen the lamppost right in front of where I'd parked with the footway parking sign (the same sign I'd seen along that entire stretch of road as I'd driven down first time to find parking) and having already noticed every single car on the road was parked in the same manner.

Thinking everything was fine, I walked down Mayville, onto Ilford Lane, did my shopping - only to return and find that my car was the only car with a PCN.
The drive back home was in silence - not sure if that helps, but that's the story.

I'll work my way through this.

The issue is not what sign you were near as such because this only creates a presumption that what lies to the left was not within the permitted area because we presume the sign indicates the start of the permitted area.

But permission is indicated by signs, none of which as far as I can see signal the end of the area, all they have is signs with arrows liberally scattered around. But if there's a start there must be an end.

Using your route I'll now see when you first entered the permitted area and whether, based on the requirement to place 'end' signs, you were still within the area, notwithstanding the sign just ahead of you.

You turned into Mayville from Lowbroke.

You drove along Mayville and performed a U-turn.

You returned along Mayville, turned left into Lowbroke, stopped, reversed past the junction then did the same left turn you'd done before.

Correct?


Context:
Mayville is in 2 sections: Pretoria to Lowbroke; Lowbroke to Iflford.

The 'Pretoria' section displays a footway parking sign and arrow in your direction of travel situated on the first available lamp column, no. 12.

There is a repeater sign on the nearest lamp column to Lowbroke.

Crossing Lowbroke, there is a fooyway parking sign with an arrow situated on the first available lamp column.

There is a repeater sign on lamp column no. 4.

There is a sign with an arrow to the left situated on a purpose-built pole near Ilford Road.

This combination is not in accordance with requirements.

If permission in the first section of Mayville ends at Lowbroke, then that sign is incorrect as it conveys the meaning that the permitted area extends beyond the sign...continuing into Mayville where you were parked. Therefore you were parked in a permitted area by virtue of the sign behind you, not prohibited by the sign in front!

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made

Item 12 plus arrow is not synonymous with item 16.

From the array of signs, I do not know where the permitted area(s) starts and finishes, therefore they are not clear. Clarity is a condition which signs must satisfy.

In your reps, simply bring the above to the authority's attention and state that although they presumably think that the permitted area in that part of Mayville starts at the sign, this is not clear from the distribution of signs in the full length of Mayville.

I would further add that it is clear that the council's practice is generally to place signs on the nearest available street lighting column whose positions may or may not indicate the precise limits of the permitted area. In any event, they must provide the resolution made by the council under the Act to satisfy themselves that the location of the signs, even though at least two are incorrect, shows that you were parked outwith the permitted area.

It is not necessary to explain why you came to be parked where you were because this doesn't alter whether in its entirety the type and location of signs correctly indicate the limits of an area which may or may not have been created under a resolution.

We know Redbridge will reject no matter what. You must ask for a copy of the resolution at each stage of the process, while PMB and I try and get Archana Menon v London Borough of Redbridge (2200187842, 14 July 2020) overturned. Post a draft of your representation on here before sending it off.

I have since put in a first appeal as follows:

Dear London Borough of Redbridge, While my vehicle does appear to be in contravention based on your photographs, this was solely due to my misunderstanding of the sign, as i had not realised footway parking is only permitted to the right of the sign. .

In light of this, I would invite the council to exercise discretion on this occasion and I will of course ensure this mistake is not repeated. However, should the council decline to cancel the penalty, I cannot help but wonder whether the placement of the sign is driven by the exact extent of the exempted area, or whether the sign has been placed on the street lighting column as a matter of mere convenience. In light of this, should the council seek to enforce the penalty, please would you provide a copy of the footway parking resolution for Mayville Road, including any maps or diagrams that indicate the exact extent of the footway parking area.

As I am sure the council will appreciate that I cannot make an informed decision as to whether I should pay the penalty or appeal further without first knowing whether the area where my vehicle was parked is in fact exempt. Moreover, allow me to contextualise my argument - Mayville road is in 2 sections: Pretoria to Lowbroke; Lowbroke to Ilford Lane. The 'Pretoria' section displays a footway parking sign and an arrow in the direction of my travel situated on the first available lamp column, no. 12. There is a repeater sign on the nearest lamp column to Lowbroke. Crossing Lowbroke, there is a footway parking sign with an arrow situated on the first available lamp column. There is a repeater sign on lamp column no. 4. There is a sign with an arrow to the left situated on a purpose-built pole near Ilford Lane. This combination is not in accordance with requirements. If permission in the first section of Mayville ends at Lowbroke, then that sign is incorrect as it conveys the meaning that the permitted area extends beyond the sign...continuing into Mayville where I parked. Therefore I had parked in a permitted area by virtue of the sign behind me, not prohibited by the sign in front!

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made [ see link or attachment : Item 12 plus arrow is not synonymous with item 16].

From the array of signs, I do not know where the permitted area(s) starts and finishes, therefore they are not clear. Clarity is a condition which signs must satisfy. Therefore, although the civil enforcement officer presumably thinks that the permitted area in that part of Mayville starts at the sign, this is not clear from the distribution of signs along the full length of Mayville as has been mentioned. In light of this, should the council seek to enforce the penalty, please would you provide a copy of the footway parking resolution for Mayville Road, including any maps or diagrams that indicate the exact extent of the footway parking area.

As I am sure the council will appreciate that I cannot make an informed decision as to whether I should pay the penalty or appeal further without first knowing whether the area where my vehicle was parked is in fact exempt

Evidence attached: Item12andItem16.JPG

Redbridge council have rejected this but have made clear that there are no diagrams of enforcement for the said location, with the below letter:



I've chosen to wait the 28 days so that I can appeal, and want to submit it now. Any advice in terms of what best to say - they've admitted they don't have diagrams of enforcement.

There has to be an underlying definition of where the easement to the ban on off-carriageway parking applies. However, when you get to Notice to Owner stage and submit formal reps, this might miraculously appear !

I don't think they'll appear, the parking enforcement team doesn't know where they are kept (though funnily enough the FOI team does). The rejection letter is utter drivel.

You must wait for the NTO do not send anything to the council before running it by us first.

Which of the following do I appeal with, reason for submitting your representation:

The alleged contravention did not occur.
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
The traffic order which is alleged to have been contravened was invalid.
Other grounds

I'm guessing its quite important and I'm not sure - I'd default go with 'Other grounds' to be safe (?)

I have received my NTO (Notice to Owner)

This is a draft of my reply:

Dear London Borough of Redbridge,

Your rejection letter dated 11/08/2020 (attached) makes mention “May I advise that there are no diagrams of enforcement for the said location”. May I then ask the council, with what evidence provided have they rejected my initial appeal – given I have neither been provided with a copy of the resolution and it has been stated there are no diagrams of enforcement for the said area?

Furthermore, the rejection letter makes mention “The vehicle was parked on the other side of that sign. This constitutes parking on a footway. Therefore, the PCN was appropriately issued”. As there are no diagrams of enforcement for the said location and given the council has not provided me with a copy of the resolution – there is no evidence that has been provided to clarify the boundaries of enforcement and/or exempted areas. This rejection is therefore baseless and devoid of evidence and cannot be accepted.

It is clear that the council's practice is generally to place signs on the nearest available street lighting column whose positions may or may not indicate the precise limits of the permitted area.

As such, please would you provide a copy of the footway parking resolution for Mayville Road, including any maps or diagrams that indicate the exact extent of the footway parking area.

In absence of the evidence requested, I believe my challenge still stands and should not have been rejected based on the position of the signage without provision of a copy of the resolution in light of the clarification that there are no diagrams of enforcement for the said location.

Don't send that, bump tomorrow and I'll draft something for you.

I think I’ll have to send something off tonight.. Today is day 27 of 28 days since NTO and I’d rather not risk sending something tomorrow should they find some slick reason to say it’s out-of-time. Any help in drafting a response, I’m guessing my current isn’t very good ?

post the NTO so we can check dates urgent

You have til Tuesday to submit

Try this

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AtBHPhdJdppV1XgwWPm..._1cMNQ?e=b49Igh

Send what PMB drafted for you.

So I submitted what was mentioned and the council never got back to me. They neither sent me any email or letter.
Now they have sent a Charge Certificate through the post. THIS IS A JOKE.
I was never sent a letter for 'Notice of Rejection'.

There's no email or phone to contact them on. What the hell.

How do I resolve this? They're trying to take the mick - they honestly never sent a 'Notice of Rejection'.

All of my correspondence with them has been online via their website - and I receive a confirmation email for it.
Their correspondence is always through letters -- I don't know what their plan is, but perhaps they don't need to provide proof of postage and can just lie their way through.

It is not unusual for rejections to go missing or maybe they didn't send one. You have an automatic way to reset this but it means waiting for the order for recovery. See process:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/unde...rcement-process

Did you send the formal reps in the way they ask for on the NTO?

I submitted representation as they asked and within time - using their online portal. I received a copy and confirmation from them via email. I've attached a copy of confirmation for my representation against NTO, including my response.







I'm considering giving in and paying the fine but this is corruption - it's not fair. I received every letter of theirs except their rejection - how convenient.

My fine is now £165! I would want to get a copy of their 'Notice of Rejection' but there is no contact. Absolute Fraud

Don't give up so easily!

If you hold fire, you will be sent an Order for Recovery and will be able to make a witness statement to the effect that you made formal representations but did not receive a Notice of Rejection of those representations from the authority.

Once accepted by TEC (usually a formality provided timeframes are adhered to) the order will be revoked and the charge certificate cancelled. The matter will be returned to the authority who must decide whether they wish to cancel or proceed to enforce. If they decide to continue with enforcement, they must refer the matter to the independent adjudicator who will decide what happens next.

Once it reaches the adjudicator, they may ask to see a copy of your representations to satisfy themselves they were made and in time. If you provide these or the adjudicator does not ask at all, they will in all likelihood schedule an appeal on the matter.

Once scheduled, the full penalty charge will be in play and not the surcharged amount on the charge certificate.

Stick the money in a savings account at the generous rates of interest currently provided by our banks (!) and if you do lose at adjudication the money is there.

And if you win, happy dayz!

Did you read the full process earlier ? There is absolutely no point in paying the CC, because in order to collect this money, they need to register the debt at the TEC, (doing this adds another £8 to the amount). When they have registered the debt, they send you an Order for Recovery, at which point you can submit a Witness Statement to TEC that you submitted representations but did not get a Letter of Rejection of Representations. The matter is then reset to the Notice to Owner stage, at which point you can submit reps again, or pay.

YOu must now start to be proactive in this matter, and regularly contact the TEC (weekly), quoting the PCN Number to find out if the debt has been registered. Reason for this, is that there is only a short period from receipt of the OfR to submit the Witness Statement (14 days, I think). Acceptance of the WS is automatic if submitted "In-Time". If you don't submit it within this time window, it becomes "Out-of-Time", and a lot more bother.

OP, to add to the consternation of others and in my individual manner: stop moaning and feeling that the authority is against you.

You were sent a link to the enforcement process, make sure you read it.

These breakdowns in communications happen often, it's nothing personal so don't take it as such.

Simply wait for the next notice - Order for Recovery - and come back here either when it arrives or in 3 weeks whichever is the sooner - if one notice has gone astray, so possibly could another and not letting more than 3 weeks elapse from now will ensure you keep on top of matters.

You've got a copy of your reps and their automated reply and this is all you need.

To Update:

Charge Certificate was dated 14/12/2020 and made mention I needed to pay within 14 days before council may apply to register to county court.

14 days from that date was therefore 28/12/2020 - end of period.

9 days on from the end of period date and today is 06/01/2021, I still have not received any letter or communication.

What should I do - hang on and still wait for the Order for Recovery?
I can't find any electronic 'Witness Statement Form' - so I can only wait for the letter?

EDIT: I called the TEC, who said to call Northamptonshire county court (?). The council who issued the Charge Certificate is Redbridge, so I'm a bit confused.
I called the Northamptonshire county court today - they haven't received anything from the council, advised me to wait.

The form is here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...-charge-parking

You can't do anything with it until the debt is registered with the Traffic Enforcement Centre, which obviously won't happen until the 14 days have passed. You don't need the physical OfR that'll be sent in the post. You can find out when the debt has been registered by calling them, their contact details are here: https://courttribunalfinder.service.gov.uk/...ment-centre-tec

Your post is almost tinged with disbelief..in us.

Will you pl stop it.

Our posters have navigated '000s of OPs through the waters of parking and your situation is neither unique nor difficult.

IF the authority want your money then they have to follow prescribed steps.

The next one is to issue the Order for Recovery.

An OfR allows 21 days for the owner to submit their witness statement, so we're talking about a pretty slow and extended process.

And I'm sure you're not going anywhere in the next 3 weeks.

Just phone TEC every few days to keep on top of matters.

Update: I had filed a witness statement - under Ground 2 as is the truth.

"I made representations about the penalty
charge to the enforcing authority concerned
within 28 days of the service of the Notice to
Owner, but did not receive a rejection notice."

The County Court came back with a letter confirming my filing of a witness statement and that the order for recovery be revoked and the charge certificate cancelled. It also said to contact the council should they wish to pursue further.

I hadn't heard from the council in over 3 weeks and noticed my original PCN wasn't cancelled.

Contacting them by email - I was told that as I filed under ground 2, my case will be sent to the London Tribunals at the full charge of £110. They mentioned they have 6 months between my filing of witness statement to deal with the paperwork and sending the case to London Tribunals. They've offered to accept half that amount (£) if agreed and paid in 14 days. If not, then wait between now and September for them to do paperwork for London Tribunals.


Given I was not given a 'Rejection Notice', I did not get the chance to take my matter up with an adjudicator. So the London Tribunals is the independent adjudicator and I'll have my chance to challenge the PCN?

Does anyone know that this is correct and the next procedure(s)?

Yes that the correct procedure and they are trying to buy you off with the discount. So now you either pay or take your chances, which seem good as PMB was on the case. There's a good chance the council will withdraw before and you'll pay nothing.

Don't pay The adjudicator will ask you to substantiate your witness statement by providing a copy of your representation, if you have a copy "Happy day's " if not you do have the acknowledgement from the council and that will suffice. The adjudicator will then either list the case for appeal or more likely ask the council to re send the NoR and the 28 day period will start again.

They cannot take six months or it will be found to be unfair. Sit back and wait for contact from the adjudicator

Update: The council have responded by sending the notice of rejection. There is the option to pay or go to the adjudicator.












They have taken an image of the other side of the road from where I parked as a defence?

First and foremost the NOR is for parking and the council have a limit of 56 days to serve a NOR or the representation is deemed accepted the CC was served before they were allowed and they tacitly acknowledge that so that is ground to cancel the PCN

Did you ever receive an order for recovery by the way?

Then as you say their reason for cancelling is rubbish, I would go as far as to say dishonest.

I would be looking for costs here based on the wholly unreasonable behaviour of the council >i have 4 appeals to do this week so might not get to you til next week so bump next Monday to remind me

Thanks for your help PASTMYBEST.

To clarify communication and timeline I've kept all correspondence, this is the timeline:

PCN: 14/07/2020
Initial Appeal: 27/07/2020 (online)
Council response: 11/08/2020
Notice to Owner: 07/09/2020
Representation against Notice: 04/10/2020 (online)
NoR: Not Recieved
Charge Certificate: 14/12/2020
Order for Recovery - Letter is not dated, will have to estimate
Witness Statement(filed with TEC under ground 2) : 08/03/21
Notification letter from County Court that witness statement filed stating CC and OofR cancelled: 11/03/21
I send an email to council as I have heard nothing since: 06/04/21 (email)
Council response it could take till September to process paperwork: 07/04/21 (email)
Notice of Rejection of Representation: 04/06/21


I don't understand the councils response and not sure if/how it would invalidate my representation (PMB helped draft) - they didn't have the correct sign to inform a motorist of the disapplication of ban (TSGRD 2016 Schedule 7 Part 2). Not sure about how I would seek costs either. Any/All help is welcome.

Just file an appeal with the tribunal, you can do it online and given the discount is not on offer, you have nothing to lose:


If they have any degree of common sense left, they won't contest it.

I titled this query on the forum as 'easy win against council'. I'm not sure how easy this was but it was a win nonetheless. At London Tribunals, the council have cancelled the PCN and decided not to contest, appeal withdrawn.

A huge thank you to everyone who helped me. I was very nervous taking the matter all the way and would have given up had it not been for the advice shared here. This was a serious learning experience.

I thought it only right to share the outcome given the time and effort all of you put into this. i'm so relieved. Thank you!

Well done for seeing this through to the end. It might be an idea to contact the council and ask them to fix the sign, it may stop someone else from getting a PCN.

I just received this in the post. Despite withdrawing at the Adjudicator stage and claiming to cancel the PCN, the council just sent me a new letter.




Can they even do this?

To clarify what I mean by cancelling the PCN (this came from London Tribunals rather than the council directly), I upload this:



How should I word my response - surely the matter should have been over?

I would write to the authority sending them a copy of the letter include the PCN number and the London tribunal case number perhaps copy in London tribunals

If the council push this further you can make a fresh witness statement to the effect that the appeal was decided in your favour

I would ignore it in the hope that they do progress this. If they register the debt at TEC, you can get them for contempt of court. You can also go after them for costs at the tribunal. Could be a nice pay day.