Free Traffic Legal Advice

1. Penalty Exceeded the Amount Applicable

• The Notice of Rejection (NoR) offered to accept £35 if I paid within 28 days of service. 
• Service was deemed on 3 September 2025, meaning the discount period ended on 30 September 2025. 
• On 27 September 2025, within that 28-day period, I went to the council’s official payment portal. It demanded £70 instead of £35. 
• I took a screenshot that day showing the incorrect amount and emailed the council to report the issue. 
• I had not yet filed an appeal. I created my tribunal appeal the following day, so the NoR condition (“if an appeal is made”) had not been triggered. 
  
• By demanding more than £35 inside the valid 28-day period, the council exceeded the amount applicable under Regulation 5(4)(e) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. 
  
• Under Regulation 7(5), once this ground is proven, the adjudicator must direct cancellation of the PCN. 
  
• The council’s error removed my right to pay the discounted rate and forced me to appeal. That is substantive prejudice, not a minor technical fault.

---

2. DVLA Delay and Lack of Proof

• The council claims the PCN was delayed because DVLA did not supply my keeper details in time. 
• Their own Case Status Report shows: 
  
  • 27 May 2025 – first DVLA enquiry (VQ4). 
  • 5 June 2025 – DVLA reply recorded as “Blank address / No Trace.” 
  • 15 July 2025 – second DVLA enquiry. 
  • 16 July 2025 – keeper address successfully received. 
• My DVLA Subject Access Response (7 October 2025) confirms DVLA processed both enquiries and that electronic responses are normally issued the next working day. 
  
• That means any delay beyond a day or two was internal to the council, not DVLA. 
• The council has produced no actual VQ5 response or KADOE/WEE transaction log proving the “blank address” claim. 
  
• DVLA’s Web Enabled Enquiry Guidance requires every local authority to keep “an auditable trail of evidence” for each enquiry for two years. 
  
• Without that proof, the council cannot rely on Regulation 10(7)–(8) of the General Provisions Regulations 2022 to justify late service. 
  
• Even if a genuine “no trace” existed, waiting roughly 40 days to re-query is unreasonable and contrary to DfT Statutory Guidance §7.6–7.7 (senior review of delayed PCNs).
  

---

3. Procedural Impropriety and Unfairness

• Failing to honour the NoR discount and taking 40 days to re-query DVLA both show poor administration and disregard for statutory duties. 
• Under Regulation 2(2) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations, such failures amount to procedural impropriety. 
  
• The council’s handling deprived me of a clear legal opportunity to pay at the correct amount and time.

---

4. Summary

• The council demanded an unlawful amount during the valid discount window. 
• It blamed DVLA without producing the mandatory audit record or acting promptly after a “no trace.” 
• Either failure independently justifies cancellation; together they show systemic mismanagement. 
• I ask the adjudicator to allow the appeal and, if appropriate, consider a modest costs order under Regulation 13(1) for wholly unreasonable conduct—since I had to appeal only because the council ignored clear evidence of its own mistake.