Author Topic: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher  (Read 1533 times)

0 Members and 22 Guests are viewing this topic.

What date did you send reps. Looks like they've just scraped in the 56 day limit.


I have been abroad for work. I specifically asked them to email me the response which they completely ignored.

Shall I submit what I have already sent with no changes?

Sorry I have been away for work and was just sent this by someone checking my post. That's why I asked them to send me the response by email.

Shall I make any changes to my original challenge? Is it possible to submit electronically?

Sent the reps on 26th of June

Any further advice would be appreciated, can I tell them I've only just received it?

It looks like they have just got in before the 56 day limit.

I will send my appeal as below unless you good folk advise otherwise. Many thanks.

Dear Sir/Madam,

I make representations on the following grounds: The contravention did not occur. As the authority will see from their evidence (the CEO's photos) the restriction in effect is given in the traffic sign which states: Pay by phone or Text or Pay at the machine and display ticket. Clearly, displaying a ticket is an optional matter for a motorist and therefore the contravention grounds of 'Parked without displaying a  ...ticket or voucher' cannot be correct or even permissible contravention grounds because, among other matters, they deny the owner the defence of having purchased parking rights By Phone or Text. Contravention grounds must be correct and comprehensive in order to alert an owner to their possible applicable defences. If the authority believes that use of these grounds where payment By Phone or by Text or by purchasing and displaying a ticket are valid then they must explain the legal basis for this assertion when London Councils' Schedule of Contravention Descriptions already lists the correct grounds i.e. Parked without payment of the parking charge. I would also like to draw your attention to the following case Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (PL00004-2401, 12 March 2024) which was argued on similar grounds and the adjudicator concluded the contravention did not occur. 
In addition, by the councils own admission they did not consider the Lydia Russo vs Plymouth case cited above. Therefor as in the case of Ivan Bachkov v London Borough of Newham (2250079444, 20 June 2025) they have failed to consider all the evidence provided with the representations, so there has been substantial non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

Kind Regards,

Good Morning,

I have received a date for the hearing. This would be my first, so I would appreciate any advice on what to expect and what I need to prepare.

https://imgur.com/a/tJSBX67

Thanks

Hello All,

I have received the evidence pack from the council. My tribunal hearing is on the 12th of February.

Can anyone advise on the next steps and what to expect?

Thanks.

In the Evidence Pack there should be
a 2-3 page document saying why they think the appeal should be dismissed,
and
a list of contents.

Post these here and the experts here will let you know if they need to see anything else.

EDIT
Quote
https://imgur.com/a/tJSBX67

Imgur cannot be seen in the UK - please use
ibb.co or https://imgpile.com/
for posting images.
Wherever possible, use the BBCode.)
« Last Edit: January 30, 2026, 04:52:23 pm by John U.K. »

Ok thanks, I have attached the documents.

https://imgpile.com/p/zedQBMS

Can anyone offer any guidance on my case please, it is on the 12th of February.
Many thanks in advance.

You wrote this in your original representations:-
Quote
Therefor as in the case of Ivan Bachkov v London Borough of Newham (2250079444, 20 June 2025) they have failed to consider all the evidence provided with the representations, so there has been substantial non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Clearly you never bothered to look at the top of your PCN/NtO where it clearly states the legislation under which the PCN was served, namely the Traffic Management Act 2004, so this clause of your reps needs removing. These things are important, because it shows you were not diligent enough in submitting your original reps. OK, you're not familiar with parking and traffic law and we understand this. Do you prepare the original reps using AI apps ?