Surely it must still include statutory appeal rights and instructions and explain the rights under the TMA 2004? Also, VAT is not chargeable on Penalty Charge Notices because they are considered fines. Is it a statutory penalty or not, i'm confused?
Well, yes indeed, but they have actually served you with an unlawful demand for money, because the order has been in force since 7th April 2025 which replaced their previous arrangements.
Clearly in this council, it takes a very long time for new parking arrangements to filter down the hierarchical pyramid ! Whoever this person is that has been responding to you, he is totally ignorant of the enforcement arrangements that should be operating in this car park.
So I would respond to their "Notice to Owner" pointing out that they seem to be operating under two separate sets of incompatible laws and regulations. Point out that if they were operating under the Traffic Management Act 2004, you should have received a Penalty Charge Notice that the law mandates must contain a fixed set of information. Their Parking Charge Notice does not, so if anybody is committing fraud, it must be the council by issuing unlawful demands for money.
You might also consider making an official complaint to the council.
The sheer stupidity that we see nowadays in councils beggars belief.
[/quote]
I replied saying:
"Hi Brian,
It appears you’re suggesting that the driver knowingly tried to avoid payment. If that is the case, I would expect the council to be able to evidence this intent clearly.
I fully understand that you cannot entrap a vehicle. However, knowingly allowing a driver to exit the site without informing them that the receipt is invalid knowing this would lead to a penalty also has the effect of entrapment and does not support fair enforcement.
From your correspondence, it is unclear whether this charge is issued under civil enforcement powers as set out in Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA 2004) or as a contractual private notice.
If it is issued under the TMA 2004, I must remind you of your obligations under Schedule 1 to provide a formal Notice to Owner, which informs and allows statutory representations, and if rejected, provide the right to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. No such documentation or legal process has been followed.
Instead, your communications threaten debt collection, which is not permitted under TMA enforcement without a court-issued Order for Recovery. This cannot be issued without following the legal steps: NtO, Representations, NoR, Adjudicator appeal, Charge Certificate, Order for Recovery, then bailiff enforcement (not “debt collection” like a private operator would threaten).
I also note that the charge you have issued includes VAT. Under TMA 2004 PCNs are civil penalties and as such are exempt from VAT. This makes it look like a private contractual charge and not a civil penalty.
If it is instead issued under private contract law, I dispute the debt on the grounds that:
1. There was a genuine attempt to pay, as supported by the receipt and information provided, showing good faith on our part.
2. I have offered to pay the full parking charge, which you declined.
3. The Notice to Owner, which should surely be a Penalty Charge Notice under TMA 2004, not a Parking Charge Notice, fails to make it clear whether operated under public or private enforcement.
I therefore request either:
• A formal rejection notice with access to adjudication (if it is indeed TFA enforcement), or
• Written confirmation that the charge is cancelled.
Any further enforcement or reference to “debt collection” without observing the correct statutory process will be reported to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, the Local Government Ombudsman as well as a formal complaint to Newark & Sherwood District Council.
Regards"
