Hi, nto arrived...
[img width=144.99998474121094 height=179.99998474121094]https://i.postimg.cc/BPcXfygf/page1-2025-10-11-233814-1.jpg[/img][img width=141.98863220214844 height=179.99998474121094]https://i.postimg.cc/sG9vC8cd/page2-2025-10-11-233855-2.jpg[/img][img width=140.98483276367188 height=179.99998474121094]https://i.postimg.cc/q6XzHYLd/page3-2025-10-11-233953-2.jpg[/img][img width=123.99620056152344 height=179.99998474121094]https://i.postimg.cc/y3XkC5Pq/page4-2025-10-11-234538-2.jpg[/img][img width=143.99620056152344 height=179.99998474121094]https://i.postimg.cc/GTJHnNQC/page5-2025-10-11-235042-2.jpg[/img]Link to Gallery
Do I just send the previous response in and fingers x-ed?....
Subject: Formal Appeal Against PCN OHXXXXXXXX – Tudor Grange Leisure Centre, 24/08/2025
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to ascertain assistance in regard to Penalty Charge Notice OHXXXXXXXX, issued on 24/08/2025 at Tudor Grange Leisure Centre Car Park. I respectfully request cancellation of the PCN on the grounds of factual compliance, procedural unfairness, and breach of statutory duties under the Equality Act 2010 and the Traffic Management Act 2004.
1. Factual Background
A valid Pay & Display ticket was obtained at 16:03 on 24/08/2025, covering parking until 18:00.
The ticket was clearly displayed on the dashboard, as evidenced in the attached photograph.
Due to visual impairment and poor machine interface design, the vehicle registration mark (VRM) was entered incorrectly.
The Civil Enforcement Officer issued the PCN at 17:08, despite the vehicle being covered for the full duration and parked in a marked bay.
2. Compliance with the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO OH05)
The relevant clauses of the Solihull TRO OH05 state:
Clause 6(1):
“The Driver of a vehicle using a pay and display Parking Place shall upon leaving the vehicle in the Parking Place, and on payment of a charge, purchase a Pay and Display Ticket at the level of charge and for the period required in accordance with the instructions on the machine…”
Clause 6(2):
“The Driver shall display the Pay and Display Ticket issued in respect of the vehicle in a conspicuous position on the dashboard or fascia of the vehicle so that the ticket is clearly visible from the outside of the vehicle.”
Clause 6(3):
“A Pay and Display Ticket shall be valid only for the vehicle in respect of which it was issued and for the Parking Place in which it was issued.”
I complied with all three clauses:
The correct charge was paid.
The ticket was displayed conspicuously.
The ticket was issued for the correct location and used by the driver of the vehicle in question.
The TRO does not explicitly require perfect VRM entry for a ticket to be valid. Enforcement based solely on machine instructions—without clear incorporation into the TRO—is legally unsound and ultra vires.
3. Equality Act 2010 – Reasonable Adjustments
Under Sections 20 and 29 of the Equality Act 2010, Solihull Council has a duty to make reasonable adjustments for disabled service users.
The machine interface was inaccessible when there are visually impairment and challenging light conditions.
The failure to accommodate this barrier, and the refusal to cancel the PCN despite being informed, constitutes indirect discrimination.
The Council must consider the Public Sector Equality Duty (Section 149) to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity.
4. Statutory Guidance – Discretion and Fairness
Under the Statutory Guidance to Local Authorities on Civil Parking Enforcement (TMA 2004, Section 87):
Quote
“An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.”
Quote
“Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to be judicially reviewed.”
In this case, the contravention—if any—was minor, unintentional, and caused by accessibility barriers. The vehicle was parked lawfully, paid for, and caused no harm. The Council’s refusal to exercise discretion is disproportionate and contrary to public law principles.
Furthermore, the guidance states:
Quote
“Authorities should formulate (with advice from their legal department) and then publish their policies on the exercise of discretion. They should apply these policies flexibly and judge each case on its merits. An enforcement authority should be ready to depart from its policies if the particular circumstances of the case warrant it.”
Quote
“The enforcement authority should have clear policies, instructions and training available on how to exercise such authority. These policies should form the basis for staff training and should be published.”
To date, Solihull Council has not previously published any such discretionary policy, nor provided evidence that staff are trained to apply discretion fairly and flexibly. This omission undermines transparency, accountability, and the Council’s legal obligations under the guidance.
5. Remedy Sought
I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled on the grounds that:
The parking was paid for and covered the relevant time.
The error was minor and caused by accessibility barriers.
The TRO does not support enforcement for VRM entry errors.
The Council has a statutory duty to act fairly and make reasonable adjustments.
The Council has failed to publish or apply a discretionary policy as required under statutory guidance.
Should this appeal be rejected, I intend to escalate the matter to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and, if necessary, raise a formal complaint regarding breach of the Equality Act and failure to act proportionately.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours faithfully,
[Name]
[Email Address]
[Vehicle Registration]
[PCN Reference]
