Free Traffic Legal Advice

For meaningful advice please to have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

and post up here copies of
all sides of
the PCN,
your challenge,
the Council's response
and a GSV link to the location.

Only redact your name & address from docs, leave everything else in.

Considering the absence of any reply after posting all the evidence, I will probably pay the PCN despite the multiple procedural and signage issues affecting it.

Yes, but is the fact that their response to my challenge was factually incorrect enough to get the PCN cancelled by a formal appeal?

Thanks. I am the registered keeper and the log book is up to date. I would only send a copy of my permit as I permanently need the original to park in my zone. Bearing in mind, the permit can clearly be seen on display in one of the PCN's online pictures.

Also worth noting, I parked my car there on 08/10 before going abroad on the 9th. Many other cars were parked alongside in the same bays.The PCN was issued on 17/10, and I found it upon my return on 20/10, partly damaged by the rain. The questionable state of the pay-by-phone parking signs leads me to suspect they were covered at the time I parked, and carelessly uncovered at some later date while I was away. I have no direct evidence for this, but might this increase my chances of getting the PCN repealed?

So I got the NTO and made a further representation on the following grounds:

There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.


1. The Penalty Charge amount is mis-aligned and not readable on the printed PCN (attached)


2. The pay-by-phone road signage is at best confusing, with quote location not being readable (attached)


3. My PCN Challenge Submission (submitted on Mon 21/10/2024 13:32 with case reference number TF00527024 for the above reasons) was rejected for the wrong reason: "The details of the notice have been checked and found to be valid because the vehicle was parked in a Residents Bay / Zone without displaying a valid resident or visitor's permit.". This is incorrect. I am a resident permit holder for zone ALH, and my resident permit RE00091599 (Applicant: 35873) was clearly displayed (as can be verified in the PCN's online pictures). I'm also attaching a close-up picture of my permit, as clearly displayed under my car's windscreen.

Evidence(s): scan of the PCN, picture of my permit clearly visible on windscreen, and picture of one of the 2 pay-by-phone signs delimiting the zone, where the location number is almost totally obscured and the phone number partially obscured (see first picture above). 



TBH, my car was actually parked closer to the second sign (see second picture above), where the location number is only partially obscured but still not obvious to read. I didn’t send that picture due to the limitation of 3 attachments.



This is the Notice of Rejection of Representation I received (bold marks added by me for highlight):

Thank you for your formal representation against the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). After careful consideration of the details provided we do not feel that there are sufficient grounds to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice. This letter is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection of your representation.



We have rejected your representations because your vehicle was seen parked without payment.



The officer observed your vehicle parked in a pay and display area without a valid Ringo session. It is clear from the officer's photographs that your vehicle was parked adjacent to the sign which clearly advises the restrictions. The signs are clear and have not been vandalised. The images you have provided are not from where you were parked.



Your residents permit is only valid in a permit area or shared use permit area, not a pay and display area.



I have noted your comments and mitigation and whilst there was and administration error with the informal challenge letter, this does not warrant the cancellation of the PCN.



You now have the following options;



* Pay the outstanding amount of £80.00 within 28 days of the date this letter was served (the date it was delivered).



* Or you can appeal to the Environment & Traffic Adjudicators (ETA, part of London Tribunals) using the enclosed appeal form. This must be done no later than 28 days of this letter being served. An Adjudicator, who is independent of the Council, will then consider your appeal and make a final decision about whether your appeal should be allowed or rejected by the Council. Their decision is legally binding on both you and the Council. 
Should the Adjudicator reject your appeal you will be liable to pay the full penalty charge of £80.00, as at this stage you are unable to pay the 50% reduced amount.



Information on how to pay your outstanding penalty charge balance can be found on your PCN or on the parking section of the Council's website www.redbridge.gov.uk.

The signs aren’t clear as can be seen from the pictures above, and the image I provided was only about 20 meters from where I was parked.



So I intend to proceed with the formal ETA appeal on the following procedural grounds:



1. Misaligned printed PCN amount


2. Poor condition and readability of both pay-by-phone signs


3. ‘Administration error’ with the informal challenge response letter rejecting for the wrong reason (failure to display permit)


4. ‘Administration error’ with the Notice of Rejection of Representation stating that ‘The signs are clear and have not been vandalised. The images you have provided are not from where you were parked.’, which is contrary to photographic evidence.




Any further recommendations?

Thanks H C, what punchy appeal grounds would you suggest?