Free Traffic Legal Advice

Formal Represenations

The appeal for the above PCN is on the basis the contravention never occurred, for the below reasons.

Procedural Impropriety – Outside Jurisdiction

The exact location at which the PCN was issued, is part of Southwark (please see image below and also reflected in the evidence from the CEO – Evidence #1). The failure of Lambeth to provide evidence to that assertion on the initial informal appeal, indicates that there is no agreement with Southwark. This is further proven by an email from Southwark (Evidence #2) who categorically claim no other local authority has any agreement to issue PCNs on their behalf. As such the PCN issued by Lambeth is invalid and unenforceable.

Evidence #1 – Border of Lambeth and Southwark – Vehicle was categorically in Southwark (data from https://boroughs.dpope.uk/)





Evidence #2 – Email from Southwark Parking Department – 10th October 2024



Procedural Impropriety – Failure to Consider

Lambeth was clearly asked to provide an agreement with Southwark, which allows them issue PCNs on behalf of them. This was not considered or provided, and instead asserted that the CEO issued the PCN correctly, as a boilerplate response.

I would like draw attention to the following case: 2210280742

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge when in Orford Road on 2 December 2020 at 14.01.
I have considered the evidence in this case and I have allowed this appeal, after some consideration, because I find that the Authority's Notice of Rejection does not consider the Appellant's representations and respond accordingly.

I find that the mere assertion that the contravention has been committed is insufficient.

To that extent I am not satisfied that the enforcement authority has discharged its duty under regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, which is to consider the representations and any supporting evidence by the person making them.

In my judgment an Appellant is entitled to have the points they raise properly considered by the Enforcement Authority pursuant to its duty under regulation 5(2)(b). On this occasion the authority has failed to do this.
Regulation 4(4) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides the grounds on which representations may be made against a Notice to Owner.

Regulation 4(4)(f) states:
'that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority'
"Procedural impropriety" in this context means a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 or the General Regulations or Representations and Appeals Regulations. This includes, pursuant to Regulation 4(5)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than in accordance with the conditions subject to which; or at the time or during the period when, it is authorised or required to be taken.
I find that the failure to consider the representations of the Appellant, to be a procedural impropriety as so defined.
Regulation 7(2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that if the Adjudicator concludes that a ground specified in Regulation 4(4) above applies, "he shall allow the appeal".
In light of this finding I am not required to determine any other matters in issue.

Loading/Unloading Restrictions

At the time of the alleged contravention, a large prepaid order was being loaded onto the car and a redacted invoice was provided to for the purpose of the business. The invoice was redacted for Data Protection purposes. For the purposes of specific appeal, we do not wish to reveal the details of the customer for this order, however we shall do so at the tribunal to provide evidence, should you choose to reject this appeal on above grounds.

I ask you cancel this PCN.