OP---did you get the NOR by post? If so it is essential that we see it entirely.
The Council should have given you details of adjudication and sent you a PIN Code.
So the question now, for others, is how to get access to TPT or whether to send the appeal below back to the Council.
I would convert the appeal to pdf if its sent.
Name
Address
VRM:-CU56SXP
APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE-- NO. PT21541165
The Charge
Contravention 23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle
Circumstances
My vehicle made an emergency stop at this location because my two children, who have learning difficulties, were biting their cochlear implants which cost a significant amount of money. The vehicle showed a Blue Badge which would not have been picked up by your passing camera car. Likewise the camera car would not have seen me in the back of the vehicle dealing with the situation.
Appeal
The major impetus of this appeal is that the Enforcement Authority have “achieved” several procedural improprieties, each of which renders the penalty charge invalid and makes the contravention given untenable.
1) The PCN is defective in that the Contravention Code 23 stated does not have a suffix.
How the recipient of such a notice is supposed to understand what vehicle is allowed in that bay is beyond me.
In this regard I would offer case MC49426047 ---- Mr Robert Piatt - v - Manchester City Council in which the adjudicator stated:-
“I therefore find that the contravention code used was deficient in that the suffix was not used. If the suffix had been used together with the words “goods vehicle loading bays” it would have been more clear to the driver what he had done wrong. I therefore agree with Mr Piatt that there was a procedural impropriety“.
2) The PCN is defective in that a parking place was never created by the TMO
Where the alleged parking contravention occurred the lines and signs denote a no stopping prohibition; the TMO never created a parking place so the contravention given is untenable. In this regard I would offer the following case--- 2230157501 Rafael Mendez v London Borough of Lambeth:-
“On examination of the Traffic Management Order (TMO) produced by the
Authority, I find that it does not create a designated parking place”
3) Increased penalty statement is incorrect and fetters the Council’s discretion
The PCN states that the penalty charge will be increased by 50% and steps will be taken to enforce payment. This relates to the charge certificate stage where the legislation notes:-
20.—(1) Where a notice to owner is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the authority serving the notice may serve on that person a statement (a “charge certificate”) to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by the amount of the applicable surcharge.
This will/may issue is important as in the following case:- AW00056-1811 Claire Jones - v - Cheshire West and Chester Council where the adjudicator remarked:-
“In my view there is an important distinction between the words “may” and “will”. The wording set out in the Regulations shows that the issue of a Charge Certificate is discretionary. Use of the word “will” in the Notice of Rejection suggests that the issue of an increased charge is automatic. In my view this is misleading. I am therefore allowing the appeal on the grounds of procedural impropriety“
4) The Notice of Rejection (NOR) is Defective
My Regulation 10 PCN also acts as a Notice to Owner as per 20(4)(a) The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (General Provisions) (Wales) Regulations 2013.
Under the Appeal Regs the NOR should therefore enclose details as follows particularly an appeal to an adjudicator:-
Rejection of representations against notice to owner
6.—(1) Where representations are made under regulation 4 and the enforcement authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b), that notice must—
(a)state that a charge certificate may be served unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection—
(i)the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii)the person on whom the notice is served appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge;
(b)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs; and
(c)describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made.
Since I’m missing the essential PIN Code I cannot access TPT and I am therefore forced to return this appeal to the Council whereas TPT is it’s proper destination. This of course ranks as a procedural impropriety of the first order.
Want to give up now before I start on the illegality of moving camera cars and withholding your discretion against two disabled boys?
Yours