Free Traffic Legal Advice

Continuous contravention has nothing to do with PCN1, for obvious reasons.

IMO, failure to consider representations is subjective. It is not a regulatory requirement to detail their reasoning in respect of every issue raised. While 'We have thoroughly considered and the answer is no' might be considered a tad terse, they do not have to detail every reason in respect of every decision.


The requirements mentioned in paragraph (3) [the authority's duty] are that enforcement authority must—

(a)consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the recipient provides, and

(b)serve on the recipient a notice of its decision (a “decision notice”) which states whether or not it accepts the representations made by the recipient.

Consider and serve notice of its decision. There is no requirement in the regs to set out chapter and verse but 'South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004]' which is the definitive guide on statutory and common-law duty suggests that they should set out their reasoning in respect of the principal matters.

IMO, if you have trumps in your hand then......

Appeal posted.

The top sheet giving evidence types and their letter code, their Case Summary and the traffic management order extract pl.

Did you apply for a personal hearing(phone or Teams video)?

Have you a decision date?

Evidence type:

"B. Case Summary & Traffic Management Order | 51"

"CONTRAVENTION CODE 12(r)"

Traffic management order extract
RESTRICTIONS Resident permit holders, Monday-
Saturday, 8am-6.30pm, WG (Wood
Green Outer CPZ).

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ORDER
LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ORDER
2021 No. 182
The Haringey (Charged-For Parking
Places) Order 2021

Summary section copy and pasted

Grounds of appeal
The appellant has filed an appeal on the grounds that there was a procedural impropriety on the part
of the enforcement authority.

Case summary
A Penalty Charge Notice was issued on 22/05/2026 at 17:20 at the location Langham Road, N15 . The
vehicle was parked without displaying a permit or voucher in a resident bay.
The signage in place indicates the restrictions: Resident permit holders, Monday-Saturday, 8am-6.30pm,
WG (Wood Green Outer CPZ). The vehicle was observed to have parked on a residents permit bay
without displaying a valid permit or visitors voucher. Haringey Council is therefore satisfied that a
contravention occurred.
The appellant has stated that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement
authority. A procedural impropriety is a failure by the enforcement authority to observe any requirement
imposed upon it by the Traffic Management Act 2004, The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 and The Civil Enforcement
of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions)
(England) Regulations 2022 in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.
Haringey Council is satisfied that there was no procedural impropriety.
The Authority submits that the Notice of Rejection complies with the requirements of the Regulations and
does not amount to a procedural impropriety.
The Notice clearly informed the Appellant of the available options, the applicable time limit for payment
or appeal, and the consequences of taking no action. When read as a whole, the Notice adequately
conveyed the statutory position and provided the information necessary for the Appellant to understand
and exercise their rights.
The Authority notes that the Appellant has successfully exercised their right of appeal, demonstrating
that they were not misled or prejudiced by the wording of the Notice. Any alleged deficiency identified
by the Appellant is one of form rather than substance and did not affect their ability to understand the
enforcement process or challenge the penalty charge.
The Authority therefore submits that the Notice substantially complies with the requirements of Regulation
6(6), that no prejudice has been caused to the Appellant, and that no procedural impropriety has occurred.
The Authority respectfully invites the Adjudicator to reject this ground of appeal.

Summary of events
Notice to owner issued- 22/06/2026
Representation- 26/06/2026
Notice of rejection- 08/07/2026
London Borough of Haringey would advise that the full charge of the Penalty Charge is due for payment.
London Borough of Haringey have rechecked the original representation and all its PCN processes and
is fully convinced that due diligence has been performed in the aspects relating to this case and therefore
the appeal should not be allowed