Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yes, usually put as "I rely on my formal representations". However, you can enhance them before the hearing, but your reps must be in by a certain date in advance of the hearing, as they need to be passed to the council.

Slight nudge, as I need to respond today

This has got too complicated and HC Andersen isn't around.

I'll try an look at tis tomorrow - what is the date of the NTO.

Appreciate that, date on NTO is 7th jan, so beleive 28 days will actaully be end of day tomorrow (3rd), in which case I can hold out till tomorrow allowing you to review and read their rejection so we can counter them properly, as it'd be good to try counter their rejection points.

Hi @stamfordman,

See my draft appeal, although in theory is very similar to the informal appeal I sent and re-iterating similar points. Added the bit you advised as point 2.


Ground: The alleged contravention did not occur

I make these formal representations following the council’s rejection of my informal challenge.

1. Incorrect and misleading contravention description

The PCN was issued for contravention code 16s – “Parked in a permit space or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid permit.”

However, the council’s own photographic evidence shows that the vehicle was parked in a shared-use bay, where parking is permitted either:
* by permit or
* by payment of the applicable tariff.

Where payment is an alternative method of lawful parking, a contravention that alleges only the absence of a permit does not accurately reflect the restriction in force. This renders the contravention description misleading and ambiguous when applied to a shared-use bay.
This point was raised in my informal challenge, but the council’s response does not address it.
It is a fundamental principle of civil enforcement that a PCN must correctly and unambiguously describe the alleged contravention. Where it does not, the contravention cannot be said to have occurred.

2. Clarification requested regarding the alleged regulation breached

In its rejection letter, the council states:
“For shared use bays, the general regulation requires either a valid permit or a correctly registered pay-by-phone session for the specific location.”

I respectfully request clarification as to which specific regulation or Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) provision the council is relying upon when making this assertion.

This clarification is necessary in order to properly understand:
* the precise legal basis of the alleged contravention, and
* how that basis aligns with the contravention alleged under code 16s, which expressly refers to the absence of a permit rather than a payment-related failure.

The council’s response to date has not identified any specific regulation or TRO provision that is said to have been breached.

3. Genuine attempt to comply and payment made

It is not disputed that:
* a RingGo parking session was purchased,
* the correct vehicle registration number was entered, and
* the session covered the full duration of my stay.

The only error was the selection of an incorrect location code by one digit (6081226 instead of 6081228).

The code entered relates to York Road, only a short distance from where the vehicle was parked, and was presented in RingGo with the description “Ilford Town, Redbridge.” The correct code refers to “Ilford Outer, Redbridge.” Given the similarity of these descriptions and the proximity of the locations, this was a genuine and understandable mistake when using the app.

There was no intention to avoid payment or circumvent parking controls. On the contrary, I actively attempted to comply and ensured payment was made.

4. No loss to the authority and disproportionate enforcement

The first hour of parking at this location is free. As such, even if no parking session had been purchased, no financial loss would have arisen during the relevant period.
Issuing a penalty in circumstances where:
* payment was made,
* the vehicle was authorised in principle to park in the bay,
* the error was minor and limited to a location code, and
* no financial loss occurred,
is disproportionate.

The Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance advises that enforcement authorities must act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably. The council’s response does not demonstrate that discretion has been meaningfully considered in this case.

5. Failure to properly consider representations

The council’s informal rejection does not engage with:
* the argument regarding the applicability of contravention code 16s to a shared-use bay, nor
* the requirement to consider discretion in cases of genuine error and paid parking.

Instead, it merely restates that no valid session existed for the precise location code, which was never in dispute.

This suggests that my representations were not properly considered. I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

The regs*:
Service by post or electronically
3.—(1) This regulation makes provision about the service of documents under these Regulations, other than notices or orders made by a county court.

(2) A notice or charge certificate which is required by these Regulations to be served by post—

(a)may be served by first class (but not second class) post, and

(b)where the person on whom it is to be served or to whom it is to be given is a body corporate, is duly served or given if it is sent by first class post to the secretary or clerk of that body.

(3) Service of such a notice or charge certificate contained in a letter sent by first class post which has been properly addressed, pre-paid and posted is to be taken to have been effected on the second working day after the day of posting.

(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3) “working day” means any day except—

(a)a Saturday or a Sunday,

(b)New Year’s Day,

(c)Good Friday,

(d)Christmas Day, or

(e)any other day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971(1).

7th Jan was a Wed, therefore deemed served on 9th which is day 1. Day 28 is therefore 5 Feb.

*- The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022

Edit:
While on the subject of regs and procedure, the process can seem complex and therefore daunting. It is littered with definitions and a quick skip through these might help:
Notice to Owner(NTO) - formal demand for payment from the 'owner' who is the person by whom the vehicle is kept(presumed to be the registered keeper). Only the person to whom the NTO is addressed may make formal representations to the issuing authority. This is where you are(although we've not seen the NTO, pl post);
Notice of Rejection(NOR) is issued by the authority if they don't accept these representations. This should not be confused with a response to informal reps made against the initial PCN. You have posted their initial rejection dated 4 December.
An Appeal - made against a NOR if the owner wishes to have their case independently adjudicated (against the full penalty) by an Adjudicator working for the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators(ETA). 

Here's the process: https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process

@stamfordman @tincombe

Thanks for clarity around the NTO Service

Great I'll send this across and see, on my previous cases that have gone ajudication, theyve never re-offered a discount, but even if they did I'd be tempted to take this all the way if my case is strong.