Free Traffic Legal Advice

I have a valid resident permit for the CPZ zone

I have two vehicles and alternate the resident permit between the two vehicles, changing every two hours

VRN's EY60NBG and DG17OLC


From ERYC terms and conditions
Resident Permits can only have one vehicle covered by them at any one time, however you can change the vehicle details any time, and as often as you wish, by simply logging into your MiPermit account and clicking 'Manage Digital Permits'.

On 18/03/2026 at 12:08 a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) placed a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on Vehicle VRN EY60NBG.
Code 30, parked for longer than permitted.
The PCN states that the vehicle was observed from 09:54 to 12:08

An Informal Challenge was submitted to the ERYC,stating that between 10:02 and 12:00 the resident permit was transferred to VRN EY60NBG, therfore the vehicle was not parked for longer than permitted.

The informal challenge was rejected

The Rejection of Informal Challenge letter clearly shows this change of vehicle

In the past similar appeals have been upheld and the penalty dismissed, for some reason they have now decided not to allow the appeal

My defense is that the vehicle was not parked for longer than 2hrs without a valid permit covering the vehicle

I am now waiting for the Notice to Owner letter

Any advice appreciated

Steve

I recall you on here before with a vehicle swapping issue.

The key on this one is indeed whether the unmoved vehicle did not overstay its welcome owing to an interim permit.

I'm not sure!

Separately, as your car was legally parked at 12pm (when it was covered by a permit) I'm not sure they are allowed to issue a PCN until more than 10 minutes after this point due to the grace period enshrined in law.  Issuing a PCN at 12.08 is too early.

I can't see how the 10 minute grace argument could be beaten.  The council would have to claim that a car parked with a valid permit at 12 noon is not legally parked which is clearly not consistent with their own signage.

I still think even without this argument no contravention has taken place, but I think we'd need to see the wording in the TRO to be 100% confident.  Assuming the OP wishes to continue flipping his permit going forwards I think (s)he should request it so they know where they stand.

I accept that's the crux of the issue - but a PCN could not have been served on that basis if he was parked not relying on the 2 hour period but on the basis of having a permit.  The sign allows parking on either basis.  A PCN couldn't have been served at 12pm as the vehicle was not parked in contravention at the time as it was covered by a permit.  Even if removing the permit somehow rewrites history that he had not been parked up to that point on the basis of having a permit, I believe the grace period is still in place until 10 minutes after being legally parked, i.e. after 12.10pm.

The grace period exemption is worded in law as follows:

"No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes."

So effectively, the council are trying to claim that at (no later than) 11.57, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the "parked for longer than permitted" restriction, which inherently can't be the case if it was covered by a permit at the time as allowed by the signage.  Unless I'm missing something?

It seems there's a flaw/weakness in the CEO monitoring equipment which only allows them to check the permit status at the start and end of the observation period and not the period in between. The council might appreciate some feedback on how their processes could be improved?