I read the letter you published from ME of Kentisbeare and his problems with Lambeth. Essentially an HGV with a similar number to his car had been photographed in a bus lane and they were doing him for it 17 months later. He was worried because they were threatening to increase the fine from £60 to £180 if he did not pay up. You advised him to sue them in the small claims court for the same amount. I do not believe this is the right step as he is not out of pocket until he has paid, which clearly he should not do if he was blameless and also it costs £25 to file the small claims papers. My suggestion, having had a great deal of experience with Lambeth council, is as follows: ME clearly made an informal representation against the ticket when he was first advised of the “offence”. Presumably the full price of the ticket was £120 reduced to £60 for payment within 14 days. It would appear that this “discount” was still being preserved when Lambeth replied 17 months later – it is usual practice for the 14 day discount period to be frozen awaiting reply. If he does not pay he should now be sent a NTO that will give him a formal appeal process to the council (but the discount will have been lost i.e. he is in for £120 if he loses). There is no way that Lambeth can accelerate it straight to Northampton TEC without doing this. ME should reply to the NTO with if necessary a photo of his own car reg pointing out the discrepancy with the photo of the HGV. This should cause Lambeth to cancel the ticket. If they do not, then he can appeal to PATAS who in my experience are pretty fair and could not ignore such obvious evidence of a miscarriage. The penalty if he were to lose stays at £120. If ME were to ignore the NTO then and only then can Lambeth increase the penalty by 50% and issue a charge certificate (£120 + 50% = £180). If ME were to ignore this then and only then can Lambeth send it to Northampton to be filed as an unpaid debt whereupon ME would have one more chance to pay before bailiffs were appointed. Lambeth seems to be threatening to miss out steps 2 – 5 which is completely illegal. Should they actually do so then ME would need to file a statutory declaration at Northampton to say that he had not received a charge certificate etc. Further information: The Traffic Management Act 2004 came into effect on 31 March 2008. Amongst other things it provides that all appeals should be responded to within 56 days, after which the original offence is cancelled. Although ME’s “offence” and informal appeal was clearly prior to 31 March 2008 it is indicative of how unreasonable a period of 17 months is for a reply. ME can in parallel pursue Lambeth’s internal complaints procedure, which I have found slow and unresponsive but can ultimately give rise to a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman once exhausted. Having said that, I did eventually speak to Lambeth’s chief complaints officer who turned out to be articulate and sensible and his details are: Stephen Pollock, Corporate Complaints Manager, Corporate Complaints Unit, Finance & Resources, London Borough of Lambeth.