Unusual of this council to be so difficult, they cancel lots of first time moving traffic PCNs.
The OP should note that tribunal decisions are not precedents but are legally persuasive. I have lost a collateral challenge argument with a new adjudicator but the argument usually prevails.
There is an interesting difference as against on street resident permits. Guidance from London Councils is that a lower rate PCN should be given for recently expired permits. No such code exists for off street contraventions.
We need to be sure the restriction is 24 hours a day so I have emailed the council for the traffic order. If the order is 24 hours a day then I agree this is a continuous contravention. If it isn't the council have failed to accurately sign the restriction which would be a procedural impropriety. I note that the restriction is signed as applying on bank holidays (as not excluded). (added: The London Gazette suggests this isn't a 24/7 restriction but Monday - Saturday 9am to 5pm)
I agree with the publicity point. Councils hate being in the papers as bad news so I wouldn't wait. I would also ask your councillor to intervene, they can't order cancellations but any normal person would see this situation as excessive. The council should have towed you on day 3 which would have stopped the penalties (but run up storage fees).
Mr Teper took a robust approach to a council pursuing excessive penalties, he asked them some hard questions and then struck them out (he used to be a judge and doesn't mess about). I blogged about the case:
 Of a morning Mr Mustard makes himself a proper cup of tea, using leaves, and settles down to a quick perusal of the tribunal register for ...
I had a 30+ PCN battle last year. Mr Aslangul made the first decision in 2250042965 before all of the cases got amalgamated. You can look it up on the tribunal register but a key extract is:
I am unable to be satisfied that the authority has exercised its positive duty in relation to penalties in a fair and consistent way by pursuing a charge when it is inappropriate to do so in the light of a total potential liability of £4,550.00 in penalty charges.I then appeared in person in front of Mr Houghton and he allowed c. 75% of the remaining Appeals in decision 2250027972 and others (the PCNs had not all progressed in unison so multiple Appeals were started at different times, unravelling the mess took me c. 100 hours). The relevant extract is:
Mr Aslangul's decision is not binding on me but it is very persuasive, and I entirely agree with the approach taken, which was to allow the Appeal on the grounds of a breach of the public law duty of fairness. If this were a parking case an Adjudicator would have no power to allow an appeal on such a basis, the limit of Adjudicators powers being to consider whether the Council’s actions fall within the definition of a procedural impropriety. However in moving traffic cases (where no such ground of appeal is available) I consider, as Mr Aslangul clearly did, that it remains open to an Adjudicator to allow an appeal on the basis of a collateral challenge on the grounds of a breach of the public law duty of fairness . As my learned colleague, the Chief Adjudicator Mr Chan, stated in Guarunteed Cleaning Ltd -v- Transport for London (2240546521):-
"None of these changes" (referring to the legislation providing for procedural impropriety as a ground of appeal) "apply to PCNs issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. It must therefore follow, or at least there is a strong argument, that the Adjudicator retains the power to hear a collateral challenge against a PCN issued under the 2003 Act. In other words, for cases to be decided under the 1993 Regulations, the adjudicator has the power to determine a collateral challenge See R v the Parking Adjudicator ex parte Bexley, CO- 1616-96."
It is the case that, looked at as individual cases, the Council has acted lawfully and within its powers. However it seems to me that it is entirely artificial in this situation to consider the trees but not the whole wood. There is some force in Mr Dishman's submission that "The purpose of this restriction is not to revenue raise from residents who live within the school street, but to prevent the road past the school being used as a 'rat run' during the school arrival and departure times. The EA have not properly turned their mind to the question of proportionality for what is in essence an administrative question, they have looked with a narrow viewpoint purely as to whether or not a contravention occurred"
The Appellant cannot be said to have been entirely without fault. He should have understood the meaning of the signs and got himself a permit. He was under a legal duty to ensure that the vehicle was registered at the correct address. He could not complain about having to pay a penalty, or even a few, for his error.
That said, however, the amount due is well in excess of any fine that would be reasonably expected in a Magistrates court for far more serious motoring offences such as driving without insurance, and far in excess of a fines that would have been imposed for this sort of offence in the days when they were criminal offences ( where a series of offences would normally be dealt with their being taken into consideration when sentencing for a single matter) . I also regard it as extremely relevant that the Appellant was actually entitled to a permit as a resident and indeed now has one. These cases are therefore effectively no more than a continuing failure to possess the necessary paperwork ( or its virtual equivalent). As Mr Dishman puts it, he is guilty only of an administrative oversight I do not believe it can possibly have been Parliament’s intention to fine a motorist £4500 in these circumstances, a sum which is wholly disproportionate to the error made.
The Regulations state that an Adjudicator may make such an order as he sees fit. The order I see fit to make and which in my view meets the justice of the case is is to allow the Appeals in the case of those PCNs which never reached him in time for him to obtain the permit, but refuse the Appeals in the case of those PCNs which were sent to his actual address at Crescent Road. Although Mr Aslangul's decision allowing the Appeal was in fact in respect of such a case it seems to me in the case of the latter group the Appellant is in the same position as any other motorist finding out for the first time that he has been contravening in error, and there seems to me no good reason why the Council cannot enforce these PCNs at the full rate. To that extent therefore I do not consider my decision inconsistent with that of my learned colleague, who of course was not seized of the entirety of the matter.Please can the OP show us last year's permit reminder and the documents he received after renewing it so we can see what they say in case they damn the council.
Thanks to another expert whose permit expired and for which he got one PCN which I have challenged I have thought to look at the council website which says they will send a reminder, not that they may send one and there is no warning, apart from saying it is the resident's responsibility to renew I read that as meaning once told you need to.
https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/parking/parking-permits/residents-parking-permit/renew-your-parking-permitIn the case I am challenging I wrote this:
The point of the residents parking bays is to protect residents not to penalise them.
The council will doubtless claim that the reminder system they have introduced is a courtesy and there is no legal requirement to provide it. However, in reminders sent to me about my own vehicle there is no warning that the council accept no liability for any future failing that they may have nor that the public should not rely on a system the council have set up which was presumably for the very purpose helping residents. If the public should not rely on the council they should be honest about it and tell them not to rely on the council system which really should be a foolproof one so the best and simplest solution. The public should be told to set their own calendar reminder. It would of course be ludicrous to replace one council system with tens of thousands of individual reminders.If your car is leased or provided as part of a salary sacrifice scheme we need to make sure the provider does not pay any Notices to Owner. Please confirm OP that the vehicle is registered with DVLA to you at Sullivan Court.
(Don't fret about exactly what to write at the next stage, most experts are too busy to work ahead of time and we need all the facts before we do decide on the best strategy).
