Here is the London tribunals appeal with all points included. Please provide feedback
London Tribunals Appeal
PCN:
Vehicle Registration:
I rely upon all representations previously made to the enforcement authority, together with all supporting evidence previously supplied. Those representations are repeated and incorporated into this appeal.
Without repeating those submissions in full, I make the following additional submissions arising from the enforcement authority’s rejection of my formal representations.
1. The alleged contravention did not occur
The allegation is that the vehicle was “Parked without payment of the parking charge.”
That allegation remains incorrect.
The parking charge was paid in full using the RingGo cashless parking system. The only error was that the incorrect vehicle registration was inadvertently selected within the RingGo application.
The authority has suffered no financial loss whatsoever.
The authority has never disputed that payment was made.
Accordingly, the allegation that the vehicle was parked without payment is not established.
If the authority contends that payment must be linked to the correct vehicle registration, that is a different issue from the contravention alleged on the PCN.
⸻
2. Failure to properly consider the representations
The enforcement authority was under a statutory duty to properly consider my representations.
Instead, the Notice of Rejection consists largely of standard wording and fails to engage with the principal issues raised, namely:
* that payment had in fact been made;
* that the council suffered no financial loss;
* that the alleged contravention specifically alleged non-payment;
* the procedural impropriety arguments concerning the wording of the PCN.
The rejection gives no proper reasons explaining why those submissions were rejected.
A failure to genuinely consider representations is itself a procedural impropriety.
⸻
3. The Notice of Rejection misstates the statutory right of appeal
Regulation 9(4)(b) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 requires that where representations are rejected, the decision notice must inform the recipient of the right to appeal under Regulation 10.
Regulation 10 provides that an appeal must be made:
“(a) within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice; or
(b) such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.”
The Notice of Rejection fails to inform me of this statutory right.
Instead, it omits entirely the statutory wording permitting the adjudicator to accept a late appeal.
That omission is material because Parliament has expressly conferred that discretion upon the adjudicator.
The authority has therefore failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Regulations.
⸻
4. The Notice of Rejection compounds the error
The defect is compounded by the authority exercising its discretion under Regulation 9(
(b) to include additional information stating, in effect, that:
after 28 days, and once a Charge Certificate is served, there would be no further opportunity to appeal.
That statement is inaccurate.
The legislation expressly provides that an adjudicator may allow an appeal outside the 28-day period.
Rather than accurately informing the motorist of their statutory rights, the authority has stated the opposite.
This is capable of discouraging or deterring a motorist from exercising statutory appeal rights and is therefore a procedural impropriety.
⸻
5. The PCN does not comply with the 2022 Regulations
As submitted previously, the Regulation 9 PCN states:
“The Penalty Charge must be paid no later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN was served.”
However, Schedule 2 to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 requires the PCN to state that payment must be made within 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred.
This point was raised in my representations but has not been properly addressed.
⸻
6. The PCN fails to include the mandatory information required by Regulation 3
As previously submitted, the Regulation 9 PCN also fails properly to convey the mandatory information required by Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 concerning:
* pre-Notice to Owner representations;
* the authority’s duty to consider them; and
* the position should a Notice to Owner nevertheless be served.
Again, this point was not properly addressed.
⸻
7. Contravention not proven
The authority bears the burden of proving the contravention.
The photographs relied upon do not establish the alleged contravention.
In particular:
* no photograph shows the vehicle together with the relevant sign;
* no photograph demonstrates the relationship between the vehicle and the applicable parking sign;
* no photograph shows the extent of the parking bay or the applicable restriction.
The evidence therefore fails to establish that the vehicle was parked subject to the restriction alleged.
Where photographic evidence is relied upon, it should demonstrate both the vehicle and the applicable restriction. It does not do so in this case.
Accordingly, the contravention has not been proved.
⸻
8. The Notice to Owner misstates and conflates the statutory time periods
The Notice to Owner states:
“If you do not pay the penalty charge in full, or if you have not made representations to the authority, within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which this Notice to Owner is served, the authority may increase the penalty charge by 50% to £165 and may take steps to enforce payment of the increased charge.”
This wording is capable of misleading the recipient.
The legislation requires the Notice to Owner to clearly explain the statutory time limits applicable to payment and to the making of representations. Instead, the authority has combined both matters into a single sentence connected by the word “or”.
A reasonable recipient could read this as meaning that a Charge Certificate may be issued where either:
* payment has not been made; or
* representations have not been made,
without appreciating how those statutory rights interact.
The wording therefore lacks the clarity expected of a statutory notice.
Furthermore, by compressing two distinct statutory requirements into a single composite sentence, the Notice to Owner fails to accurately and transparently explain the legal position.
Statutory notices are required to communicate legal rights and obligations with clarity. Where ambiguity exists, it should not be construed against the recipient.
For these reasons, the Notice to Owner is procedurally defective.
⸻
For all of the reasons previously advanced, together with the additional procedural improprieties identified above, I respectfully request that the Adjudicator allows the appeal and directs the London Borough of Redbridge to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
