Free Traffic Legal Advice

@george74 well there are several issues here but in a case like this, I think it's important to remember regulation 7(8) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022:


Even if the adjudicator cannot find any legal ground to allow the appeal, I still think virtually all adjudicators would make a recommendation that the penalty be cancelled. In one third of cases the council refuses the recommendation, in one third of cases it accepts it, and in the other third it does not respond, and if there is no response after 35 days then they are deemed to have accepted the adjudicator's recommendation.

Therefore at worst you have a 66% chance of getting the penalty cancelled, and we might also find some statutory ground that the adjudicator accepts, including in particular failure to consider which some adjudicators still accept notwithstanding the Halton judgment, which strictly speaking does not apply to parking cases.

On that ground, my personal recommendation would be to carry on.

The instructions for appealing are on the notice of rejection, but I'll drop you a PM in case you'd like to be represented.

The permit is under my wife's account.

Which would suggest that she is the RK.


To buy a resident permit in Barking in Dagenham you must:

live in the borough
have a permit online account
have your vehicle registered in the borough
provide proof of residence and proof of ownership of the vehicle the permit is for (see the documents you will need under Step 1 - Create an Account)


Who is the registered keeper and in whose name were the reps and the appeal made?

The NTO from the council was addressed to you and you are the registered keeper?

The relevance is that the driver has not standing in these matters, only the registered keeper. That the permit was in your wife's name(or account as you've expressed it) combined with the council's criteria for holding a permit give reasonable grounds to check who's who.

If you are not the RK then you should not be able to act in your own name.

We do not own the car, so is Motability (the company) the RK?

Whose name & address is on the V5C?

 Ok I get it now.

My wife would be the RK.

For the informal reps, we challenged in my wife's name - so the first rejection was addressed to her.

The NTO however was addressed to me. I have had private parking invoices that come addressed in my name, not my wife's - I am not sure why exactly.

For the formal reps, we challenged in my name - so the rejection was addressed to me.

The v5c is held by motability by default. I can request it and may be able to access it through my account but no access due to system upgrades or something - it'll have to wait until Monday.

I received the evidence pack from the council. I noticed that while they have included my online reps - they do not include the attachments sent in with the reps i.e. in my formal challenge, I simply wrote "see attached" and attached my challenge in a pdf along with diagnosis letters and appointment letters - but those attachments have not been included, so my formal challenge is also not included.

Can it be dismissed on these grounds?

Yes, failure to provide a true copy of the representations should be an instant win. Look at the cases on rows 697 to 724 here, also see Rent 2 Buy Your Car London Ltd v London Borough of Hounslow (2190507965, 27 December 2019), Gurdish Kapur v Bristol City Council (BS44, 13 November 2000) and Benjamin Weedon v London Borough of Barking and Dagenham (2230197958, 18 May 2023).

The lead authority on the subject is Vanessa Price v Nottingham City Council (NG00044-2201, 7 March 2022), that dealt with the copy of the PCN having to be a true copy but the same principle applies to the representations.

You don't need to provide copies of London Tribunals cases, but any cases from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal you will have to upload to the tribunal portal.

If the point is argued properly, you basically can't lose.

When's the hearing?