Hi guys, had my hearing at 17:00 yesterday over teams, EA were not represented. It was a bit daunting. Adjudicator had not looked at the cases I had presented so told me will not make a decision on the call. Didn't seem convinced from the get go about the contravention code number and wording plus on the failure to consider argument as well. Just received the decision that appeal has been denied. I will paste the full decision below. She mentions mitigation which I had never argued so not sure what that was about. A bit disappointed all in all.
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and quality purposes
Adjudicator's Reasons
1. This is an appeal by Mr Abdul-Razzak (the Appellant) against a penalty charge notice (PCN)
issued by the Enforcement Authority (EA) for parking without clearly displaying a valid pay
and display ticket or voucher.
2. The appeal has been at a video hearing at which only the Appellant was in attendance.
3. The EA's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in Kingsbury Road in a pay and
display bay where parking is restricted Monday to Saturday between 08:00 and 18:30 hours
on 15 February 2025 at 12:20 hours. The EA has provided photographic evidence of vehicle
registration mark (VRM) KS15 FKU at the location of the contravention. They state that there
was signage to indicate the parking restrictions.
4. In response to the Appellant's representations, the EA states that whilst payment of the
parking charge could also have been made by telephone, no payment was made by phone or
text for the period of the alleged contravention for the vehicle in question. They also assert
that it is usual for contravention code 06 to be used where there is an option to use a pay and
display option and that contravention code 11 is usually only used where there is no element
to pay for parking at a pay and display machine and they are therefore satisfied the PCN is
compliant.
5. The Appellant's case is that there was no contravention because the incorrect contravention
code has been used. They state that as there was an option to pay for the parking charge by
telephone or text, the EA has denied them the defence of having purchased a parking charge
by phone or text.
6. The Appellant does not dispute that they were parked at the location recorded in the PCN
without payment of the parking charge.
7. The Appellant further states that the EA did not fully consider their representations in the
Notice of Rejection by not responding to the Appellant's representations that a precedent was
set in the case of Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (TPT) (PL00004-2401, 12 March
2024) and further relies upon a decision of this tribunal (case reference 2210280742) in which
they assert the adjudicator found that the failure by the EA to consider the representations of
the Appellant in that case, to be a procedural impropriety.
8. I am satisfied from the evidence that the contravention did occur. I have seen photographs of
VRM KS15 FKU parked at the location specified in the PCN. I am satisfied that there was
clear signage indicating that these were parking bays which required payment of a parking
charge between 8:00am and 6:30pm Mondays to Saturdays. The signage indicates that
payment can be made by telephone, text or pay and display.
9. Whilst not law, I note that contravention code 6 is described in The Civil Enforcement Officer's
Handbook as being suitable for a contravention where 'a vehicle waits in a pay and display
bay during controlled hours and a valid voucher or ticket has not been clearly displayed' and
contravention code 11 (which the Appellant asserts should have been used) 'where a vehicle
parks in a bay during controlled hours and fails to pay the parking charge (usually by mobile
phone)'. In this instance, I find that contravention code 6 used by the Civil Enforcement
Officer is compliant with the requirements of Regulation 4(
(a)(i) of The London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 in that it states the grounds on which the EA
believes that the penalty charge is payable. I find that subjectively, a recipient of the PCN to
which this appeal refers, would have had a good understanding of the contravention to which
it relates, and that by using contravention code 6 and not contravention code 11, the
Appellant has not been denied a defence if that had of paid the parking charge by telephone
or text.
10. I am not bound by the decision of other adjudicators in this tribunal or those of the Traffic
Parking Tribunal. I find that the requirement under Regulation 6 (4)(a) of The Civil
Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007 is that the EA is to 'consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the
recipient provides'. I find that the Notice of Rejection dated 20 August 2025 states that the EA
has given the Appellant's representations full consideration. Whilst the EA does state in their
Notice of Rejection that they have been unable to locate the Traffic Parking Tribunal case to
which the Appellant referred in their representations, I do not find, in any event, that this is
'supporting evidence' to which the EA are obliged to give consideration. Evidence governs the
proof of facts, the case law which the Appellant argues was not considered by the EA, is the
Appellant's assertion that a legal precedent has been set, it is not in support of a proof of fact.
I do not therefore find that there has been any procedural impropriety on the part of the EA.
11. The matters raised by the Appellant amount to mitigating circumstances which have alread been considered by the EA. I find that no grounds of appeal or exemptions have been met.
An Adjudicator has no power to consider mitigation as decided by the Court of Appeal in
Walmsley v Transport for London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540.
12. I therefore refuse the appeal and find that the penalty charge is payable.
<ol></ol>
Louise Fisher
Adjudicator
12th February 2026
2250476433
BT24415109
