I have tried to shorten and reword my request for review - here it is:
-----------------
1. I am requesting a review of this case on the grounds of the "interests of justice require a review".
2. I believe that the case ruling which was used in the judgement by the adjudicator has been misinterpreted and incorrectly used in deciding my case. I therefore contend that the adjudicator has erred in law and their decision should be reviewed.
3. The ruling Glasgow City Council v Decision of Upper Tribunal Scotland (
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/uikbqxn4/2025csih2-appeal-to-the-court-of-session-by-glasgow-city-council-against-a-decision-of-the-upper-tribunal-for-scotland-dated-14-may-2024.pdf) sought to establish whether a PCN was valid if it was not sent by recorded or registered mail. It found that this ‘technicality’ was a directory rule (i.e. good practice) and not one that was intended to be mandatory (i.e. must be adhered to), and therefore failure to comply would not necessarily be fatal to the enforcement of the penalty charge.
4. The ruling in Scotland also states that previous cases where the authority had made this same mistake previously could not be looked at again because the statutory time limits had been exceeded (see paragraph 3 of the ruling). This indicates that timely service within the statutory time limits is key to the enforceability of a PCN.
5. I believe that the adjudicator has misinterpreted this ruling in deciding my case, as its meaning appears to have been arbitrarily extended by the adjudicator to determine that any and all procedural requirements in the English legislation are merely directory rules that can be ignored without consequence. However, it is very clear that the statutory time limits are mandatory requirements in the legislation. The requirement for prejudice to be demonstrated is only valid where directory rules are not adhered to, it does not need to be demonstrated for mandatory rules.
6. The requirements set out in the English parking legislation have clearly defined mandatory rules for time of service of the NtO, which must be within 6 months of the service of the PCN: "(2) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date". This not only gives a time limit but also a consequence to this time limit not being adhered to – the time limit is 6 months from the date of service of the PCN, the consequence of failing to adhere to this time limit is that the notice to owner may not be served. This is clearly intended to be fatal to the enforcement of the penalty charge. This is not open to interpretation. Indeed, it is backed up by the clear and unambiguous wording in the Statutory Guidance: "The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO". The wording "ultimate time limit" is very clear as to its intentions here. The authority has not provided any reason whatsoever for exceeding the statutory time limit for service of the NtO, in fact they did not even attempt to reference it in their evidence. The tribunal did not appear to consider this point in their decision.
7. If this ruling is used by the tribunal to determine that the statutory time limits in legislation are not mandatory rules that are not binding on authorities, this risks undermining the entire purpose of having statutory time limits set in legislation. It raises the question: at what point does the authority failing to comply with a legally mandated time limit become relevant? 1 day late? 2 days late? 1 week late? 1 month late? 1 year late? At what point does a statutory time limit set out in legislation actually become relevant for the purposes of law? The legal time limits laid out in legislation for the service of a PCN and the service of a NtO are clearly intended as mandatory, "bright-line" requirements with no room for interpretation. If they are not met it is clearly intended that this is fatal to the penalty charge procedure. I do not believe that the adjudicator has the authority to determine where failing to comply with mandatory statutory time limits in the legislation is acceptable or not acceptable. If Parliament had not intended that time limits were absolute requirements for legal compliance, why would they be so clearly laid out in legislation and given clear consequences for failing to meet them? Ignoring the statutory time limits set in legislation and determining them as mere ‘technicalities’ makes a clear and unambiguous legal requirement subject to inconsistency and unfairness.
8. There are multiple time limits laid out in the regulations, on both the authority and the motorist. Are all of these to be considered as null and void? This is clearly not the intention of the legislation. How can there be any possible fairness and consistency if statutory time limits are considered flexible?
9. In my case, the time limit for service of a notice to owner is very clearly written as a mandatory rule in law. This is an absolute time limit for legal compliance and not a technicality such as sending the PCN by normal mail in the case ruling in Scotland. It is both written clearly in the Statutory Instrument and also backed up by the Statutory Guidance. There is no room for interpretation here, or flexibility for the authority to miss these deadlines without consequence. The use of the Scottish ruling as a broad brush to justify any and all non-compliance with legislation on the authority’s part, whether directory or mandatory, is a dangerous precedent which harms motorists and effectively denies one of the statutory grounds of appeal (Procedural impropriety by the authority).
10. I would therefore request that the original adjudicator’s decision be reviewed and overturned, and that the NtO be cancelled for failing to be served within the mandatory statutory time limits.
11. I would like to request a telephone or video hearing as part of this review.
