Parked in a red route loading only bay - Ilford.

However, this was not a stop made for convenience or to gain any advantage. It was a brief stop made because I could not leave my disabled mother unattended while essential items were obtained for her.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but want to make sure you have a robust argument for your appeal.

Could you have parked in another location and still stayed in the car with your mother whilst your wife and daughter walked a bit further to the store?

Unfortunately, not to that particular Tesco. In hindsight, I should have gone to the local superstore retail park, but I only needed bread and milk for her to be honest.

Submitted on the 7th, let's see what type of rejection they come back with...

Ok, so as expected, I got a rejection from the council.

Is there anything in their response that may allow me to take it to a tribunal?


A by Zee Aze, on Flickr


B by Zee Aze, on Flickr


C by Zee Aze, on Flickr

My view is that you would lose an appeal at London Tribunals, unless Hippcrates or cp8759 can suggest a 'technical' appeal. The sign is clear enough and only stopping for a short time is not grounds for cancellation.

Thank you - I'll decide once I hear from them. I think I still have until next Friday (18th Sept) to get the discount of £80

I think I still have until next Friday (18th Sept) to get the discount of £80

No you do not.

The NOR states: '..pay the outstanding amount of £80 within 14 days of this letter being served'.

NOR dated Friday 21 Aug, therefore deemed served Tues. 25th. 'Within' excludes the trigger date(in this case 25th) and therefore 26th is day 1 of 14.

The latest date is 8th Sept, not 18th.

IMO, the NOR gives you clear appeal grounds of procedural impropriety because it fails to advise you correctly of your rights of appeal. And to add to this, the council has used this power '[the NOR may](b)may contain such other information as the enforcement authority considers appropriate.' to misinform you further. What a F U.

The law:
[The NOR]'—

(a)must—

(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice—

(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or

(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge,

(ii)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs, and

(iii)describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made,'

(a)(iii) has been misstated. You have the RIGHT to:

Submit an appeal within the 28-day period which if of the correct form MUST be registered as an appeal i.e. the adjudicator has no discretion; and

Submit an appeal outside the 28-day period which the adjudicator MAY register as an appeal.

It therefore follows that this comment by the council is totally incorrect:

'...we may serve a Charge Certificate....At that stage you have no further opportunity to appeal'.

What absolute B******s!

Wait for others. By the way, what does their website say is outstanding? I'd be interested to know what it says tomorrow as well, I wouldn't put it past them to start counting on 25th instead of from 25th!

So im I right to assume the following;

---------------------------

The Notice of Rejection does not comply with Schedule 1, paragraph 3(a) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

Paragraph 3(a) expressly requires a Notice of Rejection to state that a Charge Certificate may be served under paragraph 5 unless, before the end of the 28-day period beginning with the date of service, the penalty is paid or an appeal is made to a traffic adjudicator.

The Notice of Rejection served by the Council does not contain this mandatory statement. It merely advises that the £80 discounted amount may be paid within 14 days and that an appeal may be made within 28 days. It does not state that a Charge Certificate may be served.

Therefore, the Notice of Rejection fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 1 paragraph 3(a).

So im I right to assume the following;

No!

This is a parking contravention under the Traffic Management Act and Chapter 2 of these applies:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564

Regulation 6(6).

So I've just asked ChatGPT to analyse this thread, and it has come to the following summary - is this accurate to include in a potential appeal?

The enforcement authority's Notice of Rejection does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Regulation 6(6) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

In particular, it does not state that a Charge Certificate may be served unless, within 28 days of service of the decision notice, the penalty charge is paid or an appeal is made to an adjudicator. It also does not indicate the nature of an adjudicator's power to award costs. I therefore submit that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.

The enforcement authority's Notice of Rejection does not comply with the mandatory requirements of Regulation 6(6) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

In particular, it does not state that a Charge Certificate may be served unless, within 28 days of service of the decision notice, the penalty charge is paid or an appeal is made to an adjudicator. It also does not indicate the nature of an adjudicator's power to award costs. I therefore submit that there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.

Are conclusions and the adjudicator is not going to determine the WHY, this is your burden and I have set out previously the errors by quoting what's in the NOR, identifying the applicable law and demonstrating the differences.

So this is what is stated on the website...

1 by Zee Aze, on Flickr