I recieved this in the post today. I remember the incident as I was in a road that I have not been in before and this appeared in front of me (see photo) - its just rumble strips with bikes & cars prohibited.

Not knowing exactly where I was I went through.

Probably clutching at straws but any way out of it?

It's rather difficult o read at that resolution, but seems to be in order. Is there definitely not another page/side?

Looks like you were snapped by a scam car.

I guess the only other route of appeal would be the signs?

Too difficult to read and as Dave says - need the rest ALL of it.

Can't see a location noted?

No location is grounds enough to challenge.

The back just gives the options for Representations.

I took the location out.

To be honest I think the signs are in order.

and?? did we mention needing to see it at all?? "just" ??

The options for representation is particularly important!

Back as requested

TWOC seems to be fettered to me. It only provides for a circumstance in which police or insurance companies would become involved.

And it says "the appropriate box"

You are a lucky man.

And at the risk of sounding preachy, this i a perfect example of why people should always post ALL of their documents, even if it just looks like blurb.

not fettered in that regard IMV. its says 'grounds' and is correct gramatically.

however C (TWOC) looks waaay off to me and 'misrepresents the legal position'.

On a logical level i have to disagree with you Bama.

A single statement can contain "grounds" of appeal. However it does specifically say "tick the appropriate box". This would suggest you can only tick one box. If it had said "box or boxes" or somethign similar it would be fine.

But perhaps your opinion is one that an adjudicator might agree with.

we disagree. the english on the notice is correct ref.
when discussing multiple options,
"None of which is" is correct "None of which are" is incorrect.

cf. each of the grounds has only one box.


But lets back to the other stuff.

regs are here

London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/localact2003/ukla_20030003_en_1

sched 1

1(1)

Where it appears to a person on whom a penalty charge notice has been served under section 4 (Penalty charges for road traffic contraventions) of this Act (in this Schedule referred to as “the recipient”) that one or other of the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (4) below is satisfied, he may make representations to that effect to the enforcing authority

I don't see how that quote supports either opinion, but perhaps i am being thick.

It does, as he highlighted. One or other =one. Only seems to apply to LLA 2003. Also, it would be pretty difficult to tick two of those boxes anyway? (barring 'no contravention' and subsequently obviously 'penalty exceeds')


Agree on that TWOC version though.

OP says signs are all ok? How does he know? Have we seen them?

-

I assumed the signs are ok. I would need to go and have another look and take some photos to post on here to confirm. Where do I find the regs regarding signage?

Thanks for all your help with this.

TSRGD - mostly....

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2002/20023113.htm


far better to post up pictures on here.

yes to explain further in this case you can claim on only one
of the grounds - so in this respect the notice is correct

this is particular to moving traffic regs - cf a parking nto where the regs are

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20073482_en_2#pt2-l1g3

and state

that, in relation to the alleged contravention on account of which the notice to owner was served, one or more of the grounds specified in paragraph (4) applies