UPDATE - Appeal rejected by Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
1. Mr TXXX submitted that the Council served the Notice to Owner too late and not in accordance with the time limits stated in the Regulations.
2. The Penalty Charge Notice was issued on 10 September 2024.The Notice to Owner was served on 11 March 2025.
3. He contends that the Council did not give adequate consideration to representations and did not have an up-to-date policy to deal with matters arising from payment by phone.
4. The driver did not have their reading glasses when paying. The RingGo app selected ‘Castons Cark Park’ instead of Castons Yard Car Park’.
5. According to
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/20‘Notice to owner
20.—(1) Where—
(a)a penalty charge notice has been given with respect to a vehicle under regulation 9, and
(b)the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired without that charge being paid,
the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (a “notice to owner”) on the person who appears to it to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.
(2) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date…….
(4)For the purposes of this regulation, the relevant date—
(d)in any other case, is the date on which the relevant penalty charge notice was served under regulation 9.’
6. The case concerns a Regulation 9 penalty charge notice, issued and served on 10 September 2024.
7. The Notice to Owner was issued on Friday 7 March 2025.
8. Mr Thompson identifies no prejudice caused to him by the deemed service date being 1 day late.
9. Glasgow City Council v Decision of Upper Tribunal Scotland
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/livestream/court-of-session/case-xa38-24/ underlines that a failure to follow regulations or a procedural irregularity that causes no prejudice is not fatal to the enforcement of the penalty charge notice.
10. No real prejudice arose. Accordingly, any lateness of service by 1 day does not invalidate the enforcement process as a whole.
11.The Council adequately considered the pre-appeal representations including the mitigation in accordance with its discretionary policy. For instance, its Rejection of the informal representations stated:
‘We have checked our cashless payment system, which allows us to search for all the payments made by motorists. We can see that there is a record of a payment matching your details ….. covering the time of the contravention.
However the location which you have selected is incorrect (1908). The correct location where your vehicle was observed is 1914. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that payment is made for the correct, date, time and location.
Instructions signposted where you parked, explain how the system works and gives the location details which you need to select when making payment. You may now pay the reduced penalty charge of £25.00, which will be accepted as settlement providing payment is received by the council within 14 days of the date of this letter. After this period, the reduced payment will no longer be available and the full penalty charge of £50.00 will be payable.’
12. The Civil Enforcement Officer’s notes and photographs establish that the vehicle was parked in the adequately signed Castons Yard Car Park without payment made for this location.
13. The matters raised by the Appellant are noted but these are mitigating circumstances that do not amount to a statutory ground of appeal. The Adjudicators have no power to take such mitigation into account.
14. I find that the Council has established that the vehicle was parked as alleged in the Penalty Charge Notice. The penalty charge remains payable to the Council.
