Free Traffic Legal Advice

Why do you think there may be grounds to challenge it?

@runninghorse observation times only exist to reduce the risk of PCNs being issued in error, they are not a defence. So for instance if a CEO issued a PCN with no observation time and you were walking back to the car with a visitor permit, the council would incur the cost in issuing the PCN and you would have the inconvenience of having to challenge it, but that's not the defence, the defence would be that you had gone to get a visitor permit and were returning with the permit without delay.

The same applied to loading and unloading, assisted boarding or alighting of passengers and so on.

However if the contravention did occur, the fact that the CEO didn't follow the observation time is irrelevant.

Looking at the council photos, the contravention does appear to be made out and the sign appears to be not far behind your car:













GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/7Bispk4xs4BvuSwf6

The traffic order is The City of Westminster (Parking Places) (F Zone) (Consolidation No.1) Order 2011 and the relevant entry is item 147 on page 45, I can't see any obvious issues with the order but someone else might spot something.

In a case like this it would be best to get the background: why were you parked there, how long were you parked for, did you look for signs, and did you see any signs?

You obviously parked in a bay and while it is possible we might find a technical way out, it's much easier for us to help you if you can tell us whether there was an issue with the signage, whether you simply didn't look or whether you assumed that given the time of day it would be OK to park there.

Were you visiting a local resident, or doing something else?

And was the issue of parking or parking permits not discussed?

Anyway my suggestion is to make a one-line representation saying that the alleged contravention did not occur. This will hopefully allow you to go down the same route as this case.

Shall I just state “the alleged contravention did not occur”?

Yes, don't forget to take a times / dated screenshot of the confirmation page.

The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Mon, 3 Mar 2025. Please pay £65.00 now.

That date is clearly wrong. I make it 27th February.

That's not the point, at the moment the website is in the recipient's favour and the authority is entitled to use its discretion to allow a longer time period for payment of the discount.

The key issue rather is that once an informal rejection is issued, the website will likely indicate that the penalty will go up to £195 after 28 days from the date of service of the informal rejection, which would obviously be before 28 days from the date of service of the Notice to Owner. It's that threat to increase the penalty before the council is entitled to demand £195 that is unlawful.

Personally I would select an unrelated ground, because the tick-box you pick does not appear in the tribunal evidence pack but it does sometimes determine which letter template the system generates for the rejection. If for instance you pick the tickbox to say the car was stolen or that you're a hire company, but you when write in the text box that the contravention did not occur, the adjudicator will see a representation saying that the contravention did not occur but a rejection letter that says there's no evidence the car was stolen or that you're a hire company, and that will look like a complete failure to consider.