Author Topic: Birmingham CAZ PCN - Frank Road  (Read 473 times)

0 Members and 84 Guests are viewing this topic.

Birmingham CAZ PCN - Frank Road
« on: »
PCN: KW35548833
Reg: DE61CYH
Date of contravention: 24/03/2025

Friend forgot to pay CAZ fee and received a PCN. He appealed (no real grounds to be honest) and it was rejected.

A bit annoying with Birmingham but they do not pause the discount period. My friend received the rejection on 09/04, but it went to spam and he didn't see it until 10/04. 09/04 was the last day to pay the discounted. He also received the physical letter on 13/04.

He gave enforcement team a ring who said to appeal again and attach evidence that it was in spam.

This was rejected again but the reasons just cited the same as before, and made no reference to the email going to spam or that he was advised by the enforcement team to re appeal.

Since they won't re-offer the discount he is taking it to tribunal.

His defense is quite weak, not much to go on, but I am wondering if ignoring the second appeal and the fact the enforcement team advised him to do the re-appeal will help? I mean he'd be fine to pay the discount at least.

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: Birmingham CAZ PCN - Frank Road
« Reply #1 on: »
Forget the discount; t he period for its payment is passed. If they're not re-offering it, then it is a total no-brainer to appeal to the TPT, but on what basis ? I would suggest the council have failed in their duty of fairness, as there seems no argument about the contravention itself.

However, in the absence of any documents at all, it's difficult to give meaningful advice.

Re: Birmingham CAZ PCN - Frank Road
« Reply #2 on: »
I have asked my friend to send his appeal and rejection.

Is being fair good enough? The whole not freezing the discount period seems unfair already but wouldn't be a valid argument I think.

I can only really say they advised my friend to re-appeal only to give the same rejection, emphasising the discount period is not paused, but then what was the point of the enforcement team advising him to re-appeal. But this seems weak.

Regardless, it's gone to tribunal already (no hearing yet).