Free Traffic Legal Advice

OP, just stand back and think about what you submitted in your informal reps.

The required tariff was not paid for the car in question. But this should be forgiven because the person making the informal reps, who claimed to be associated with this vehicle and another one, says they paid for the different vehicle.

Did you:
Submit a screenshot of your RingGo page showing the combination of vehicle VRMs;
Put yourself in the position of the person whose mind starts as a blank canvas?

Or did you think that the mere act of saying would be accepted as fact?

Next time, think of what the reader would need to see for them to be persuaded to your point of view.

Yes, I submitted all of the Ringgo details and referred to a previous case which I thought might help. The reason I chose not to pay the reduced fee and wait for the NTO is because I still feel that it is wrong for the council not to exercise their discretion when it is pretty obvious that this was a genuine mistake, that combined with the comments from Hippocrates and CP above that highlight some shortcomings in the PCN wording that might make the PCN non compliant. However I also appreciate what you say above.

that it is wrong for the council not to exercise their discretion when it is pretty obvious that this was a genuine mistake,

How would they know? Both vehicles could have parked on the same day, one with the benefit of payment and one without. How would the authority know the link you say exists between the two cars and their drivers?

And it's their choice whether to exercise discretion, so don't compile reps which in any way hint at them having to do so.

Remember, an adjudicator cannot exercise discretion, so IMO this is your last bite of the cherry on this point.

Do not expect them to fill in gaps in your reps e.g. to check whether the other vehicle was also parked at that time. Explain every point you want to get across.

Yes, discretion still applies, indeed the authority may cancel a PCN at any time.

As regards grounds of a PI, I don't think this is a correct reading of the regs.

The legal requirement for a PCN in this respect is:

Particulars to be included in a penalty charge notice given under regulation 9
2.  The information to be included in a penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 is—

(a)the date on which the notice is served,

(b)the regulatory matters,

(c)the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable,

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


My emphasis.

Not 'must state', even less that the words must be used verbatim, but 'information to be included'. And IMO provided the information is included, however expressed providing it is clear and does not mislead, then there cannot be a PI.


A PCN must be read as a whole and must convey the meaning of the words in the regs.

Can the meaning be conveyed, and therefore compliance achieved, without using the words in the regs?

IMO, yes.

Has it on this occasion?

The regs also require (as part of the 'Regulatory Matters' ) that the information includes

c)the date on and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred,.

Not, 'This is the Contravention Date' but 'the date on which....'.

So, does the PCN carry this information? It certainly doesn't say 'Date of Contravention' but says:

Was seen in...
On...
Between .....12.36 and 12.43


So, if this isn't 'Particulars to be included' then you should put this forward as a PI, otherwise if this satisfies the regs then IMO so must 'date on which the contravention occurred.'

There will be other views, I'm sure.

Thanks CP. I have submitted the response via their challenge page on the Kingston website. I have email confirmation and screenshots.

@968t I suggest you make a representation asking the council to exercise discretion, and if they refuse an appeal to the tribunal can be easily won based on these cases:

Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230464748, 15 February 2024)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230487415, 23 February 2024)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2230545861, 26 February 2024)
Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2240138955, 18 May 2024)

Of course you don't want to mention that now because doing so would undermine the argument. Here's what you could send:

Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,

In the first instance I require you to reconsider my informal representations. I also draw your attention to the decisions in Andrew David Rush v London Borough of Southwark (2120562288, 5 January 2013) and Natalie van Dijk v London Borough of Islington (2150275729, 23 September 2015), while those cases are not binding there is no reason to suppose the adjudicator would reach a different conclusion in this case.

Yours faithfully,

Make representations online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.

Formal notice of rejection has just arrived. The reasons given are pretty much the same as the first response posted above, wrong vehicle paid for (they acknowledge that I paid for the wrong vehicle and reference the Rinngo evidence I provided), previous decisions take by adjudicators are neither binding on other adjudicators or a statement of law etc.

I can post the complete response up if required?

I have 28 days to appeal to the independent Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.

As per HCA.

previous decisions take by adjudicators are neither binding on other adjudicators or a statement of law
etc.


Bolleaux in bold.

Immediately!

Has cp8759 offered to represent? If not, I will do it.

Is that all of the NOR? If so, it is lacking information.

I have in mind 6(6) ff

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/regulation/6

Website says this:

Click your reason or search for it below
Resident's permit
Printed resident's permit
We will reconsider if you upload a copy of your resident's permit.

If you upload a copy of your resident's permit we'll double check that resident's permits could be used for the vehicle, date and place where you parked you parked. We may not reconsider your Penalty Charge if you were parked where resident's permits are not allowed to be used.

If we have previously cancelled a Penalty Charge of yours through goodwill, we may not cancel this one.

Virtual resident's permit
We will reconsider if you explain what the issue was with your resident's permit. Please include any screenshots, confirmation emails or receipts that you have. We will check that your resident's permit was valid for the vehicle, date and place where you parked

Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Tried paying by phone/app
If you explain the problem you had trying to pay by phone, we will reconsider your case and then reply to you. Please upload any receipts, emails or screenshots that show you tried to pay by phone or online.
Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Didn't see/understand the signs
Your Penalty Charge was issued for contravention 12: parking without paying or without clearly displaying the relevant item (such as a permit or Pay & Display ticket). In bays where virtual (electronic) permits can be used or where you can pay to park by phone or online, Civil Enforcement Officers check their handheld computers before issuing a Penalty Charge. The sign(s) beside the bay explain who the bay is for.
Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Was loading/unloading
We will reconsider if you upload a copy of your delivery note, receipt/invoice for goods or job sheet. We will check that your document was valid.

We will reconsider your case if you provide us with more information. Depending on what you were loading or unloading, we may need to see a delivery note, a receipt/invoice for goods or a job sheet. And please describe the loading or unloading activity. Among other things, we will check: that what you were doing counts as loading or unloading; and that you only parked as long as necessary for the loading or unloading that you did.
Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Signs/lines faulty
If you explain why you believe the signs or markings were faulty, we will reconsider your case and then reply to you.
Select this reason to use it in your challenge
Procedural impropriety
We were unable to find a matching reason, please try another search term

*********

Tribunal website:

Stage 1 – You have received a Notice of Rejection
The person to whom a Notice of Rejection has been issued has 28 days, beginning with the date of service of that notice, to:

Pay the charge; or
Appeal to the adjudicator.
A Notice of Appeal form should be sent by the enforcement authority with their Notice of Rejection. If this form is not enclosed, the authority should be contacted to obtain one.

If you miss the 28 time limit your appeal may still be registered by the adjudicator.  When you submit your appeal you must include an explanation for the delay. The adjudicator will then decide whether the appeal should be registered

I am free.