@H C Anderson
@stamfordman @cp8759 @404BrainNotFoundDetails on what I lodged and the Authorities Response
MW92219104
26/08/2025
Meadowbank Road
19
30/12/2024 14:07
Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone either displaying an invalid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket, or after the expiry of paid for time
£50.00
Adjudicator's reasons for registering:
The appeal is registered
Grounds of Appeal:
The penalty charge exceeded the relevant amount.
The authority made a procedural error.
The alleged parking contravention did not occur.
Explanation:
I will provide evidences and update my appeal submission below later.
In the interim, I rely on my informal appeal and formal representation, in addition to the appeal submission below.
I appeal this Penalty Charge Notice on three statutory grounds. First, the alleged contravention did not occur. The PCN was issued under contravention code 19, which concerns the display of an invalid permit. I was at all material times the holder of a valid residents permit issued by Medway Council. That permit was on my dashboard when the PCN was issued, albeit it had become partially obscured. An obscured permit is not an invalid permit. It was valid in substance and in law, as the council itself has acknowledged by accepting a copy of my permit in correspondence. Since the alleged contravention presupposes the permit was invalid, and it was not, the contravention cannot be sustained.
Secondly, the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. In the rejection of my informal challenge the council misstated the penalty level, asserting that the full penalty was £70 and the reduced penalty £35. The correct statutory amounts for contravention code 19 are £50 and £25. Regulation 4(4)(e) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 recognises this as a statutory ground. By demanding a greater penalty than prescribed, the council acted unlawfully and committed a procedural impropriety.
Thirdly, there has been a further procedural impropriety in the handling of my formal representations. I attempted to make representations within the statutory 28 days of the Notice to Owner dated 8 July 2025. On 6 and 7 August 2025 I attempted to submit them online but the council’s electronic system failed repeatedly, generating error messages which I have preserved by screenshots. I attempted telephone contact, without success. On 8 August 2025 I submitted my representations by email, attaching the screenshots and my valid permit. On 11 August 2025, after re-sending the same email when initially told it had not been received, I was informed the council did have both emails on file. Nevertheless on 11 August 2025 the council issued a Charge Certificate. This was unlawful. Regulation 5(2)(a) of the 2007 Regulations imposes a duty on the authority to consider any representations made within the statutory period and to serve a notice of acceptance or of rejection. Issuing a Charge Certificate in the face of timely representations is a clear procedural impropriety.
It is also relevant that a member of the council’s parking staff initially gave me an assurance that if I produced proof of my valid permit the PCN would be cancelled. I relied on that assurance, which reflects the council’s past practice of cancelling one PCN per year for residents upon proof of a valid permit. The subsequent reversal of that position is inconsistent with the principle of legitimate expectation, as recognised in R v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213, where the Court of Appeal held that public authorities must honour substantive assurances absent overriding policy considerations.
In summary, the contravention did not occur, the penalty exceeded the amount due, and there has been procedural impropriety. I therefore respectfully invite the adjudicator to allow this appeal and direct that the PCN be cancelled in full.
Read less
Authority Information▼
Authority Summary:
This statement is submitted in response to Ms Jo Wilson's appeal against the Penalty Charge Notice issued for parking in a permit space without displaying a valid permit during prescribed hours.
Ms Wilson's argument that she had displayed, albeit partially obscured, and is the holder of a valid permit to park in a designated parking area, is not upheld by the photographic evidence taken at the time of the contravention as this permit was obscured to the point that no relevant details (expiry date, zone, vehicle registration) could be seen, by a permit for Croydon (not valid in Medway), the permit is not, therefore, clearly displayed for inspection by the Civil Enforcement Officer and becomes invalid.
The terms & conditions of the permit clearly state ' The permit is only valid if displayed in a conspicuous position on the front windscreen of the vehicle for which it was issued. A Penalty Charge Notice will be issued for not displaying a valid permit or not displaying it clearly to enable verification'
In summary, the contravention is clearly observed in the photographic evidence, specifically Item 2. The vehicle is clearly parked without claerly displaying a valid permit for the space where it was parked, which constitutes a breach of the relevant regulations. The explanations provided by the appellant do not align with the legal requirements or the evidence available.
In conclusion, the contravention is supported by clear visual evidence, and no mitigating circumstances have been provided that would warrant cancellation of the Penalty Charge Notice. The Council respectfully requests that the appeal be refused.
