PCN appeal – council replied after 56 days: is it unenforceable?

user7921

Hi everyone,

I’m hoping to get your thoughts on my situation. I'm trying to find out if the 56‑day “deemed acceptance” rule really protects me, and whether the council’s late reply is a fatal flaw. I’ll summarise the facts below (with personal identifiers removed). Happy to share more if needed.

• I received a moving traffic PCN (code 52M) in London (ANPR camera) — full charge £160 (discounted rate £80 if paid early).

• The incident date was 22 June 2025.

• Date of notice: 9th July 25

• I submitted an online formal appeal / representation to the council on 10 July 2025.

• According to the London Local Authorities & TfL Act 2003, the council must respond to representations within 56 days, or the representations are deemed accepted.

• Their reply (a rejection) arrived 16th October 2025, this is more than 56‑days after my appeal.

• They say I must still pay.

Are they right?

1. Does the council’s late reply automatically void the PCN / mean they must cancel it?
   In other words, can I rely entirely on the 56‑day rule and say “too late, case closed”?

2. Has anyone here had a similar case where a council replied after 56 days and a tribunal (or the council) accepted the defence?

3. Are there counterarguments the council might use (e.g. claim the appeal was informal, or that “moving traffic” rules differ)?

4. If the council resists, is the best route to escalate to the London Tribunals — or simply send a demand letter citing the missed deadline?

5. Any tips on wording or precedent to quote in my next response?

6. Or, at this point, should I simply pay?

Thanks in advance for any insight or experience you have.

Coupon-mad

Short answer: I don't know but we know a poster or two that does: ask on FTLA forum (not on MSE).

kryten3000

You can also try asking Mr Mustard who is an expert on London Borough parking matters:

https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/