Well this cloak and dagger approach has hardly helped others, has it?
Couple things... First off - Given firms (public and private) are upskilling and leveraging data, I do genuinely question how long it'll be until councils are scouring forums such as these to try and get ahead of the community. If I were working on the other side, I'd be checking these spaces regularly and running a few AI Agents through new posts to train the systems to be smarter and tight up any loopholes, which is partially why I held off publishing the official docs. I'd really like to see a portal that's somewhat locked down or restricted in access that people can upload their docs to without it being so easily available on the clearnet.
Secondly, Whilst drip-feeding info to you isnt the most helpful, pls know I'm hugely grateful for all of your help.
Have written up an events-based timeline below. Hope this helps others. Anything else of interest just let me know.
The main points listed below:
Contravention: 53C - Driving down a School Street during restricted hours. Council: Sutton
1) PCN: Received PCN 7 days after contravention.
2) PCN Appeal: Made representation to council 3 days later. Requested PCN be cancelled as contravention was a first-time mistake.
3) NoR: Received NoR 1 day later. Noticed NoR incorrectly referenced pre-April full charge/uplift amount (£130 -> £195) instead of £160 -> £240 when describing effects of no action/response to NoR. Researched using GPT-o3, Claude, Perplexity. Created appeal to be filed later to Lon.Trib
4) NoR Appeal: Waited 24 days to respond to the NoR. My understanding of the rule is council must issue one
valid NoR within 56 days. If I say the NoR is invalid, and the council agree, they could then technically argue a
valid NoR has yet to be issued, and may be within their rights to issue another NoR (this time without a mistake in it). There's nothing in the 2003 Act that says only one NoR may be issued. The wording is that only one
valid NoR may be issued. Key word here
valid. I'm aware this is contrary to some views in this thread. I couldn't confirm for sure on the stance here so decided to at least draw out the process for 24 days which would have given them a little less of the 56 days to respond, if indeed that was an option available to them. I think the 2004 Act tightens things up a bit.
Filed to London Tribunals the following.
The NoR must warn that a charge certificate will be served unless you pay or appeal within 28 days, and it must describe the effect of that certificate - i.e. the penalty increases by 50% of the full charge.
1. Wrong financial uplift: Schedule 1, (5)(1) states that a charge certificate increases the penalty by 50% (one-half). Sutton’s full penalty for this contravention is £160, so the Charge Certificate amount specified in the NoR should be £240. The NoR instead warns of an increase from £130 to £195. It therefore mis-states a mandatory statutory consequence.
2. Wrong timing statement: Schedule 1, (3)(a) requires the NoR to say that a charge certificate may be served unless, before the end of 28 days, I pay or appeal. The NoR received says the a Charge Certificate may be sent before 28 days, implying it can act during that 28-day window. This reverses the statutory sequence and is potentially misleading.
Because the NoR fails on both the amount and the timing required by Schedule 1, it is invalid. That is a clear procedural impropriety and the penalty charge exceeds the amount permitted by law. I ask the adjudicator to allow the appeal and cancel the PCN.
5) DnC: Council filed a Do not contest 1 week later.
