Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

They sent the Notice of Rejection just before Xmas, dated 22/12/24. They rejected the rep despite the letter:

-acknowledging that it was a genuine mistake and no financial loss occurred
 
-acknowledging that the car was indeed parked for less than an hour (within the one hour free parking)

-acknowledging "payment was made" for a session, albeit in a different location (NB no payment was made, it was a Ringo booking for a one hour free parking).

Additionally, the letter responds to my request for discretion by saying:

"Regarding your request for discretion, enforcement authoritles are required to act fairly and proportionately. While we appreciate that this was a genuine mistake and that no financial loss occurred to the Council, the contravention is enforceable under the Traffic Management Act 2004. After reviewing the circumstances, we are satisfied that the contravention occurred....and remains payable"

Please can you advise what to do next?

Here is a link to the full NoR letter:

Page 1: https://freeimage.host/i/fvZb73J

Page 2:
https://freeimage.host/i/fvZbR4a

They say the use of 7 digit codes is standard practice - well it isn't. They are mostly 5 digit in my view.

The problem with the rejection of acting fairly is the tribunal can't act fairly and will probably record that the council chose not to use discretion and is entitled to enforce. But we need to see this tested properly as it is statutory guidance.

But I would have a go as if you get the right adjudicator the ground of not paying for a free thing is sometimes allowed, and you could also get a recommendation to cancel even if appeal refused.

They also say the code rendered the session invalid - but this is not the contravention on the PCN.

I'll help.

This case from yesterday references the statutory guidance. It concern a removal but the principle is there.

------------

Case reference   2250395772
Appellant   xxxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Newham
VRM   CN64OFT
   
PCN Details
PCN   PN22739440
Contravention date   06 Jun 2025
Contravention time   10:45:00
Contravention location   Jedburgh Road
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   12 Jan 2026
Adjudicator   Edward Houghton
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   refund the release charges paid.
Reasons   The Appellant’s case is essentially that the resident was unable to purchase a permit I until 12 51 as a result of a poorly performing computer system.
On parking a vehicle in any type of bay the motorist is allowed a reasonable time to f do whatever is necessary to validate the parking, in this case to obtain a permit. In these days of virtual permits it seems to me one should take a fairly generous view of what is a reasonable time in cases where the motorist is experiencing IT difficulties of some kind. However the point has eventually to be reached after a few minutes where the motorist has to accept that the attempt to obtain a permit has failed , and move the vehicle elsewhere, inconvenient and irritating though that would obviously be.
I see no reason at all to doubt the evidence in this case as to the difficulties experienced with computer system. However as the Appellant is unable to state the time the vehicle was initially parked It is impossible to make say how long the vehicle had been parked, attempting to obtain a permit , prior to the issue of the PCN. It sounds as if it might well have been some considerable time and I am not satisfied that this is a case of a PCN being issued to a vehicle prematurely within the few minutes allowable for permit to be obtained. The vehicle was therefore in contravention and it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully. The circumstances of course amount to mitigation, but as an Adjudicator I have no power in law to allow appeals on the basis of mitigation, the exercise of discretion on that basis being a matter for the Council, not an Adjudicator.
The vehicle was , however , subsequently removed. The Appellant contends this was unnecessary ; and there seems to be no obvious reason for it. I therefore adjourned the case for the Council to “ to demonstrate that in removing the vehicle it has complied with its statutory duty to have regard to the guidance of the Secretary of State.”. The Council, in its response has re-stated my request as “The Adjudicator has directed that the Enforcement Authority to provide details of the removal” which is not what I directed ; and the Council’s response in this form rather suggests that it is completely unaware of the Guidance and its statutory duty to comply with it , let alone having any evidence that it has done so. As I am unable to be satisfied the Council has complied with its statutory duty I am not satisfied that the removal of the vehicle was lawful.
The Appeal is therefore allowed to the extent of requiring the Council to refund the release fees (only ) leaving the Appellant to bear the cost of the PCN as a more proportionate penalty for the contravention

Well, first, if you're going to take them to London Tribunals, is to register an appeal with them, and in the reps box, you put "I rely on my formal representations". This can be added-to later before the hearing. Do NOT opt for a papers-only adjudication as we see these lose more often than not. Hearings are by phone or video.