Free Traffic Legal Advice

The formal appeal has  been rejected

I will post the rejection letter on here in the next couple of days

Is there a document available that gives advice on appealing to The Traffic Tribunal

Struggling a little bit as I'm on holiday past the deadline to submit  and posting from a tablet

Steve

It's now either cough-up or register an appeal at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. There is no discount option at the TPT, so the full PCN penalty will be in play.

IMO, register an appeal.

1. Contravention did not occur;
2. Procedural impropriety.

As regards 1, Mr. Chips and other have explained why the council's received wisdom position is wrong. You should get the adjudicator to confirm this by allowing your appeal on these grounds because this might(I say this more in hope than expectation) get the council to change its mindset and thus prevent further occurrences;

As regards 2, the NOR is required to state your appeal rights. Their NOR doesn't. In as much as your timeframe for registering a statutory(as opposed to discretionary) appeal is concerned, this is misstated in their notice ('within 28 days of service' is incorrect), there is no reference to a discretionary appeal and neither does the notice advise you regarding costs which may be awarded against you or the authority subject to conditions.

The authority cannot finesse these errors by claiming that 'our website will explain this further' because the 'our' is not the council, it's the tribunal; they've lifted that part straight from the tribunal's publications. But a NOR must be self-contained.

Don't 'work on an appeal' just register. At this stage this is all you need to do.

10 minutes' work, not War and Peace.

This is my first draft
I think part1 is correct, maybe too much
Unsure about part2


Any further guidance appreciated

I am appealing on the following grounds

1. Code 30 contravention did not occur;
2. Procedural impropriety

1. Code 30 contravention did not occur

I hold a residents parking permit for the Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire Council CPZ

When I purchased the permit I entered into a contract with the East Riding, the terms and conditions published by the Council formed part of the contract.
The ERYC terms and conditions clearly state

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

Vehicle EY60NBG
Date PCN issued 18/03/2026

09.54 - CEO observed car parked without permit
10.02 - I logged into my MIPermit account and updated the details to cover EY60NBG
12.00 - I logged into my MIPermit account and removed EY60NBG
12.08 - the CEO observed car parked without permit, served a PCN.

The council accepts that the times the permit was changed are correct
I contend that the 118 minutes between 10.02 and 12.00 cannot contribute to a Code 30 contravention.
I further contend that when the permit was removed at 12.00 a further period of 2hrs free parking commenced
In addition when the permit was removed a 10 minute period of grace as laid down in law should have been allowed

The council's weird logic is that if during a period of discontinuous observation a vehicle is covered by a permit and then removed then the period parked under the free parking for 2 hours grounds commences when you first parked.

I feel the council is attempting to penalise me for a failing in their system. I am free to change the vehicle on the permit as frequently as I wish. The information relating to the change of vehicle is not communicated to the CEO

2. Procedural impropriety

The NOR is required to state your appeal rights.
The NOR I received doesn't. In as much as your timeframe for registering a statutory(as opposed to discretionary) appeal is concerned, this is misstated in their notice ('within 28 days of service' is incorrect), there is no reference to a discretionary appeal and neither does the notice advise you regarding costs which may be awarded against you or the authority subject to conditions.
The authority cannot finesse these errors by claiming that 'our website will explain this further' because the 'our' is not the council, it's the tribunal; they've lifted that part straight from the tribunal's publications. But a NOR must be self-contained

You are addressing the adjudicator.

IMO, put the facts simply and clarify the issue between you and the council which is the one on which the adjudicator must make a finding in your favour.

Perhaps.....

By way of context and facts which are not disputed by the council:

I am the holder of resident permit 'X or whatever'.
Permits are virtual.
Residents are permitted to have one qualifying vehicle's VRM allocated to the permit at any one time. This is effected by logging in to their online account.
However, they may change this allocation to another qualifying vehicle whenever they wish and as often as they wish (see attached extract from Terms and Conditions). 

At *** on *** I parked at the location. There is no issue that this was subject to a restriction of ********.
At the time of parking, I had allocated my permit to a second qualifying vehicle which I own and therefore parked subject to the '2-hour' free parking restriction.
At ***, my other vehicle was removed from the permit and the vehicle in question allocated.
At ** I removed this vehicle and re-allocated my permit to my other vehicle. At this time, I contend that I was again subject to the '2-hour' free parking restriction.
At ** the PCN was issued alleging that I was parked for longer than permitted.

There is no issue that my vehicle was parked for a total of ****.

In its rejections of my representations, the council's position is clear i.e. it interprets the restriction as placing a 2-hour total limit on parking irrespective of whether at any time the vehicle was covered by a permit for which there is no limit. I believe that this neither a correct interpretation of the restriction as displayed on the traffic sign nor one which is supported by a provision in a traffic order.

I respectfully ask the adjudicator to make a clear finding in my favour on this point as this should inform the council's enforcement practices and forestall possible further occurrences.

In addition, I would raise the following procedural improprieties found in the NOR:
******

Hi Steve - apologies, been a hectic few days and this is quite a complex case!

Happy to have a go at something later today if you haven't already given up waiting...?