Free Traffic Legal Advice

• A valid Pay & Display ticket was obtained at 16:03 on 24/08/2025, covering parking until 18:00.
• The ticket was clearly displayed on the dashboard, as evidenced in the attached photograph.
• Due to visual impairment and poor machine interface design, the vehicle registration mark (VRM) was entered incorrectly.
• The Civil Enforcement Officer issued the PCN at 17:08, despite the vehicle being covered for the full duration and parked in a marked bay.

• Clause 6(1):
   “The Driver of a vehicle using a pay and display Parking Place shall upon leaving the vehicle in the Parking Place, and on payment of a charge, purchase a Pay and Display Ticket at the level of charge and for the period required in accordance with the instructions on the machine…”
• Clause 6(2):
   “The Driver shall display the Pay and Display Ticket issued in respect of the vehicle in a conspicuous position on the dashboard or fascia of the vehicle so that the ticket is clearly visible from the outside of the vehicle.”
• Clause 6(3):
   “A Pay and Display Ticket shall be valid only for the vehicle in respect of which it was issued and for the Parking Place in which it was issued.”

• The correct charge was paid.
• The ticket was displayed conspicuously.
• The ticket was issued for the correct location and used by the driver of the vehicle in question.

• The machine interface was inaccessible when there are visually impairment and challenging light conditions.
• The failure to accommodate this barrier, and the refusal to cancel the PCN despite being informed, constitutes indirect discrimination.
• The Council must consider the Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149) to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity.

“An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.”

“Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to be judicially reviewed.”

“Authorities should formulate (with advice from their legal department) and then publish their policies on the exercise of discretion. They should apply these policies flexibly and judge each case on its merits. An enforcement authority should be ready to depart from its policies if the particular circumstances of the case warrant it.”

“The enforcement authority should have clear policies, instructions and training available on how to exercise such authority. These policies should form the basis for staff training and should be published.”

• The parking was paid for and covered the relevant time.
• The error was minor and caused by accessibility barriers.
• The TRO does not support enforcement for VRM entry errors.
• The Council has a statutory duty to act fairly and make reasonable adjustments.
• The Council has failed to publish or apply a discretionary policy as required under statutory guidance.
  
  

Why are you preparing formal reps, you don't have a NTO!

Councils invariably reject all informal challenges, because they know that if they do, most people then just cough-up.

IMO, procedural improprieties abound in the PCN.

(7) A penalty charge notice given under this regulation must include the information set out in—

(a)Schedule 2, and

(b)regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.

Schedule 2

Particulars to be included in a penalty charge notice given under regulation 9

Para. 2
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,


(f)that if the penalty charge is not paid within the period of 28 days referred to in sub-paragraph (d), a notice to owner may be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the vehicle. 

2(f) Is NOT there.

Regulation 3(1):
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—

(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;

(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;

(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.

3(1)(c) is NOT there.

• Regulation 9(7) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (England) General Provisions Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/71)
• Schedule 2 of the same regulations
• Regulation 3(1) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/576)

• Missing Schedule 2(f): No mention that a Notice to Owner may be served if unpaid.
• Missing Regulation 3(1)(c): No info about formal representations after NtO.
• Ambiguity in service date phrasing: Could confuse recipients about payment deadlines.

“...that if the penalty charge is not paid within the period of 28 days referred to in sub-paragraph (d), a notice to owner may be served…”

• Why it matters: This informs the recipient of the next legal step. Its absence is a breach of mandatory content and has been upheld as a procedural impropriety in tribunal decisions.
  

“...representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.”

• Why it matters: The PCN must explain that even if informal reps are rejected, formal reps can be made after an NtO is served. This is a statutory safeguard, and its omission is a clear procedural defect.

• Ambiguity in “date of service”: The PCN uses the phrase “date on which this PCN was served,” which is technically correct for a Regulation 9 PCN (served at the time of issue). However, it could be clearer by explicitly stating that the date of contravention and date of service are the same.
• No mention of approved device: While not strictly required unless issued by camera, it’s good practice to state whether the PCN was based on direct observation or an approved device.
  

• Clear contravention details
• Proper discount period
• Informal challenge instructions
• Address for representations
• Mention of adjudicator appeal rights