Newham - code 12 parked in resident's place without valid virtual permit - Geoffrey Gardens

Hi there,

My virtual permit was expired - I was away on holiday with the car when it expired and got a ticket with code 12 the morning after returning home. The previous permit expired on 25/06/2026 23:59 and the contravention was on 06/07/2026 09:22.

---

Two things I was thinking to appeal on the basis of, wondering if I could have some advice on whether it is worth doing for either reason.

---

1 - When I renewed my permit (via the MiPermit app) the virtual permit states it is valid from 00:00 the day of renewal. The contravention was at 09:22. Although the ticket was issued before I renewed the permit, does it count for anything that the validity of the permit itself was from 00:00 of the same day and thus was valid at the time of the contravention?

---

2 - The code issued was code 12, however I believe from reading elsewhere the correct code to be used when a permit has expired (virtual or otherwise) is code 19. As my PCN is stated as a contravention of code 12, is it invalid?

---

I raised an informal challenge with the council already for two issues when I received the yellow sticker ticket - one was the 00:00 validity mentioned above, which was rejected. Another was for a second ticket they gave me around the same time because I had moved my car outside my house to load things in and deal with the permit expiry (so, whilst I was in the house renewing the permit, they officer came back and gave me another ticket!). However, they cancelled this second ticket out of 'goodwill'. I did not realise about the code 12 vs 19 issue when raising the informal appeal.

---

I had an email today stating my informal challenge was rejected, and if I dont pay within 14 days Notice to Owner will be sent where formal representations may be made. I can paste the full email for this if helpful.

---

For more context the other code 12 vs code 19 cases I read about were:

Case 2210295739 (Lieberman v Haringey - 10 Aug 2021) and 2250139320 (Allin v Islington - 28 May 2025) mentioned on this post https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/newham-continuous-contravention/15/

The PCN was issued over a week after the permit expired. Some councils have a grace period for expired permits so it may be they had already applied that. At some point a code 19 is going to be a 12 but maybe you could argue that within 2 weeks it should apply but this is Newham.

Post the rejection.

Thanks, rejection is here:

IMO, the issue of substance here is the penalty i.e. code 19 (invalid permit) carries a lower penalty than code 12.

What is the council's policy - and it's this which binds the actions of the CEO- as regards the period during which they consider a permit to be 'invalid'?

It's water under the bridge to elicit this at the informal stage but you could at least find out.

The latest Newham policy has nothing to go on. Councils are taking out such policies from their enforcement documents, that is if they are bothering with policy docs now.

The Islington case I found cited above was a 6 day expiry. This is longer at 10 days but I'd say within 2 weeks ought to be qualifying.

Interesting point.

OP, I suggest you contact London Councils(who in collaboration with the Mayor of London sets penalties) and find out what time period applies to a Code 19 contravention.

It strikes me that as it does not lie with any individual borough to set a penalty level there must be conditions attached by those who do set penalties as to when the lower penalty must be applied otherwise it completely undermines the purpose of the distinction.

I doubt you'll get anything out of London Councils. The best is probably reference to a 'should' with no timeframe in the Civil Enforcement Officers Handbook, which seems to have been withdrawn as it's no longer on the LC site that I can see.

Thanks for the replies. Is it worth mentioning the above on grace period in my formal response or just keep it to the ‘contravention did not occur’ point referencing code 19. Or is it not worth perusing? Understandably it is all rather confusing!

There is no 'grace' period in your situation because you were never parked within a 'permitted parking period', you couldn't be, you did not have a valid permit, see regulation 5:

I think with the code 12 vs 19 point not being clear cut enough I’ll have to take the hit and pay the penalty, unless anyone thinks otherwise.

You can have a go at NTO stage and they will probably reoffer the discount again on rejection but it could tease out a possible policy.