Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: 51 Fail to comply with No Entry - Harrow (London)
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Hi all

My first post - please be gentle on me as I have read all the rules.

I have received a Penalty Notice Charge (PCN) from Harrow Council (London) dated 17th June.

The office is: 51 - Failing to comply with a no entry sign

I'm pretty sure this is a decriminalised offence for London and as such I'm seeking your advice on whether it's worth appealing. The back page of the PCN gives 5 grounds on which representation can be made, my grounds don't really fall into any of the 5 categories but I have found the below issues:

1. Mis-print of location the alleged contravention:
The place of the contravention is given as: "In (place) Havelock Place jctn Greenhill Way Service [something illegible]"
I have highlighted this mis-print with a red box in the attached front page of the PCN. I have also attached the rear page of the PCN showing the 5 categories that can be used for appeal.

2. Road name issue:
-If the name of the road is supposed to be Greenhill Way, then there aren't any no entry signs with the junction of Havelock way
-If the name of the road is supposed to be Greenhill Way Service Road; such a road name doesn't even exist on google maps. They could be referring to a road leading out of a car park just off Havelock Place, but again if that's the case that road isn't named on google maps. It exists on Google maps but it isn’t named. I've uploaded a screenshot from google maps showing both Greenhill Way and Havelock Place and also the small unnamed road where the offence probably happened (highlighted by me using a red box)

3. Inconclusive pics of the alleged contravention:
In the pic on the PCN it shows the VRM of the car but does not show the offence. Thus I have logged on to Harrow Council website to view more pictures. There is a bunch of pics huddled together in what can be described as a film-strip and they seem to show the offence but the pics are so unclear that the VRM isn't legible. So the pics on their website show a car going through no entry signs, but the VRM isn't clear. I would imagine that the council have clearer pics as the pic on the PCN itself does show the VRM clearly. I have uploaded a screenshot of the filmstrip on the Harrow Council website:

I'd be very grateful is someone can provide opinion on whether it's worth making an appeal on any (or all) of the reasons above, or just pay the £65 (so called) 'reduced' charge.

Thank you.
My advice ,pay the discount. a slight misprint wont help the location is clear enough look at this GSV, you were not disadvantaged,-0....3312!8i6656
Thanks for the advice. What do you mean by 'not disadvantaged'?

Also if name of the road has been fabricated (perhaps the actual road doesn't have a name) would this not carry any weight?
PMB has given good advice, but it is always open to you to submit an appeal on the lines you suggest, then, when they reject it, take them to PATAS, the adjudicators. However if you do this, the discount option is lost, and you'd be in for £130, not £65, so think carefully about this. IMHO you have not described any really powerful grounds for a successful appeal.
i need help
Fight it.

Misprint should be enough for a win.

PCN photo does not show a sign being contravened.
QUOTE (i need help @ Thu, 25 Jun 2015 - 20:48) *
Fight it.

Misprint should be enough for a win.

PCN photo does not show a sign being contravened.

IMO This advice is quite frankly rubbish, but he is entitled to give it and you are entitled if you wish to take it
Thanks all for your input. I would seriously have thought that a non-existant road name given in the PCN would make it invalid. However from the council's point of view they probably have lots of people who pay the PCN for the same offence (there was in fact another guy who did it right in front of me). So if I appeal I would imagine the council will reject it.
A PATAS adjudicator may see things differently though, incorrect name of road = incorrect PCN.

The misprint on it's own probably isn't enough.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.