Sorry Pat, I think you are reading too much between the lines of what I am saying. I said nothing about static pictures. What I said was: In the cited case the adjudicator criticised TFL for not producing evidence showing the vehicle entering the box junction and it was that to which I was referring. I am aware of the exemption for turning right but there is no suggestion that this applies here. There is no specific exemption for a vehicle changing lanes, however, I can see a good argument in such circumstances. Again though, there is no suggestion that those circumstances apply. What does appear to be the case is that TFL have not provided evidence to substantiate that the contravention took place and I do agree with you that video evidence is the most appropriate way to do so. I would advise digel to request the video from TFL and in the absence of it I would appeal and I would also ask the adjudicator to award costs on the grounds of their wholly unreasonable behaviour in pursuing this matter in light of the previous case.

No idea. Personally I would have said within is within and not partially within. Worth a shot. This is what the contravention is: it is not: Nor is it: The case referred to is a good one. They need to have evidence showing you entering the box junction and stopped within it. They should give you access to that evidence.

Do you think you have entered and stopped within the box junction? If not then there's your appeal.

In London! Where? Or did you drop off a "0"?

Good point. I was concerned that the adjudicator might be able to reject arguments that hadn't been put to the LA but I guess they can't as there is no right to a personal hearing at the LA stage.

What's the name of the company? If it's a "Ltd" you can look it up at companies hous and fin the registered office.

OK, These are the ground of appeal that you have (from PTAS web site): If I was in your shoes I would appeal under ground 2 because of inadequate signage. I would appeal in this way: I would hope to be successful but you make up your own mind. Good luck and let us know how you get on.

bmwman, I will take a look and respond, probably towards the end of the w/e.

Sorry, I meant its the answer for the two possible drivers. Not for the company who I suspect may be stuffed if the CPS decides to prosecute. One for a guilty plea I suspect.

That's fine but remember you have to appeal to BHCC first as you need a "Notice of Rejection" to go to NPAS.

It's bluster. What is interesting is that this response can only have been issued following informal representations as no NTO had been served. I suspect that they may need to take a bit more notice from the representations made now a NTO has been served and the right to appeal arises in law.

So that would be the answer here I guess!

Because the penalty of the relevant amount can only be levied if a lawful PCN and Lawful NTO have been lawfully served. If not and the authority are trying to levy a penalty of any amount above £0 then it exceeds the relevant amount. The relevant amount for an unlawful PCN or unlawful NTO or if either of them is unlawfully served is £0. The PTAS website has this key case where they describe exactly this. The case was lost by the owner but for different reasons.

Different schools of thought: I personally think you should be reasonably specific. I think that you need to give the authority directions and clues as to where you are coming from. Others would say just say it does not comply. Rather depends, perhaps, on whether you care on whether you win at LA appeal stage or independent adjudicator.

Tick that the penalty exceeded the relevant amount. The reason being that if either or both of the pcn and the nto are invalid the applicable penalty is £0. Ignore "other representations" that is not a statutory basis for appeal.

So if no PCN served, NTO fails. OK its a question of proof but it should be put forward as part of the appeal. The ground is that the penalty charge exceeds the relevant amount.

How are cases when husband and wife were travelling together, sharing the driver and cannot remember who was driving and the photo gives no help? It must have happened.

I would have thought that the lease company has to demonstrate that there was a legal liability to pay the invoice to have a legitimate claim, not that they cannot be arsed to defend spurious claims.

I'll not answer the time issue (ie the length of time it has taken to get the NTO to you after the alleged contravention) because I have not researched that sufficiently. But, I would contest the NTO because it does not give to the option to state that "you were never the owner of the vehicle". It has also changed the ground that "the vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the parking place by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner" to "the vehicle had been taken without my consent" which is not the same thing. On a separate post on this thread I linked to the argument. My view is that you have a legitimate argument that both the PCN and the NTO are invalid and potentially that the NTO has been served out of time. You have absoloutely nothing to lose by following both stages of the appeal process. The penalty cannot increase and all it costs is time and a stamp.

I figured that. Slightly different agenda but I'm fighting a London Authority PCN for a pre 1 July 07 contravention and the penalty is £100 reduced to £50 etc. So I don't get the £80/£40 for OP. That's what I'm hoping to get to the bottom of. But for me the OP doesn't seem to have had the opportunity to pay at £40. So what I don't know is how not receiving the PCN by post in CCTV cases affects the appeal process.

This was the conclusion I was coming to last night when I was doing some research. What I wasn't getting was the £40 and was trying to find out from the London Councils website the rate for the DYL contravention. I have no experience of CCTV tickets, are you saying that there is never an opportunity to pay at a 50% discount? Can you give me a link to the regs on this 'cos I haven't seen them or found them. From what we know here I reckon the only chance of success is the possibility of a defectively drafted NTO giving a Barnet type case but on the NTO rather than the PCN.

Which doesn't make sense when you look at this (Newham's web page on penalties). I know it's boring but can you post the full text of the notice that you have received. The whole thing. Scan it if you can.

Two things: Firstly, relating to spinningfish's mother who owns the car, I think it is unrealistic to expect her to remember to answer a technical response. OK I don't know the lady in question but I get a sense from the posts. Secondly, I feel that it is not unreasonable to suppose that many of these threads are read by people who wish to use the arguments suggested against charges received when they are both the keeper and the driver. They can defend the charge simply enough by asking the claimant to prove who the driver was. But if they chose to make a claim for harassment, a lawyer or any half decent person representing themselves will ask the question if it gets to court: "who was driving the car on dd/mm/yyyy" and that question will have to be answered truthfully or a crime will be committed. Even your suggested response, if truthful, will not I think deflect a competent lawyer. A bit of probing and the truth will out. The times when the driver is genuinely not known for a privately owned vehicle will be few and far between. In my view to make a formal accusation of harassment and to start civil proceedings is an escallation taht is not worth it.

That's the general intent but it's not always the way that it is. For example letters sent "without prejudice" can be shown to the court as evidence of bad faith in settlement negotiations. The time when you may wish to send a letter "without prejudice" would be if you wished, for example, to make an offer for commercial or pragmatic reasons to settle a claim against you but wanted to do so without admitting liability or to deny all liability if the offer was declined. What I do accept is that in the circumstances we are talking about here "without prejudice" is inappropriate. ". . . NOT . . . on any . . ." could give the wong impression.

Who issued this ticket? I don't see how a local authority can issue a penalty that goes from £40 to £80 and to £120 prior to a charge certificate? I may be missing something.