Below is a copy and paste of the summary:
(the appellant) has challenged the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that there has been a procedural impropriety and that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable.
The PCN was correctly issued under contravention code 19, which attracts a standard charge of £110.00. This was stated in both the PCN (evidence C) and the Notice of Rejection (evidence E).
Therefore, the enforcement authority does not accept that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
The enforcement authority’s case is that evidence submitted by civil enforcement officer (CEO) IS2025 demonstrates that the appellant’s vehicle, LK56CSZ, was parked in a permit holders bay with an invalid permit on 18 September 2025. The contravention occurred in Brewery Road, N7 and the CEO issued the PCN at 09:51am.
The CEO’s photographs (evidence C) show that the vehicle was parked in a resident permit holders bay. The CEO noted that the vehicle had a resident permit which had expired on 12 September 2025. I can confirm that a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO) is held for this location (evidence B).
The appellant believes that a procedural impropriety has occurred as their representation has not been fully considered. In their representation, the appellant made an appeal on the grounds that they had attempted to renew the permit prior to its expiry and were unable to do so due to technical issues. They state that they then forgot about the renewal which led to this PCN being issued.
A new permit was indeed purchased on 19 September 2025 which is after the PCN had been issued on 18 September 2025 (evidence J). The enforcement authority maintains that it is the permit holder’s responsibility to ensure they renew their permit in good time to avoid a break in continuity.
Resident permits are electronic and can be renewed electronically.
The appellant states that they were prevented from purchasing a permit in the first instance due to the council’s online system repeatedly failing to process the renewal. The enforcement authority is unaware of any system issues that would have impacted the appellant renewing their permit.
However, if the appellant was prevented from purchasing a new permit then we would expect the appellant to get in touch with the enforcement authority and to try to find another method of renewing their permit. The appellant admits in their appeal that they forgot to renew their permit. The
appellant’s appeal amounts to mitigation which has already been considered at the representation stage. The enforcement authority is not satisfied that there are any grants cancel this PCN.
A procedural impropriety is a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it by the Traffic Management Act 2004, the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum. There is no evidence of procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority.
The enforcement authority has considered whether there are any circumstances to mitigate the contravention and have decided there are not. I find no compelling reason to cancel the PCN and I therefore request that the adjudicator refuses the appeal. If the appeal is refused, Islington Council would seek to recover the full charge of £110.
