Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: ReflectoR on March 11, 2026, 10:27:44 am
-
Ooh, I see now. Well at least I think I do.
The extra two pages are just copy pasted from the tribunal site, in a sense, and Islington made no attempt at explaining it properly.
So your original draft is okay to send?
Can nothing be said about the mismatch of the PCN timings?
-
No problem.
It's what my draft referred to:
I would add that this duty could not be discharged by a vague reference to the tribunal's website and publications as here because:
1. The duty does not fall to the tribunal but to the enforcement authority;
2. In any event, the tribunal's website is provided to guide and assist prospective appellants; it includes matters prescribed by regulations and which represent tribunal policy and practice but which is some respects are a departure from the regulations e.g. references to 28 days from date of service for submission of an appeal etc. But of course no detriment should be suffered by an appellant by reading such documents provided the authority's NOR has set out the legal position as required.
That leaflet is awfully misleading without a context, but then again if authorities do what they're supposed to do(as in convey the mandated regulatory info) then no harm's done.
-
These 2 pages. I'm sorry, I didn't realise they might be relevant. But I should know better by now.
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202608222321432.jpg)
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202608222321542.jpg)
-
Just to clarify, I did leave out 2 pages from my post, only because I thought they may not be relevant.
??
-
Just to clarify, I did leave out 2 pages from my post, only because I thought they may not be relevant.
I can post them here, in case they contradict the argument you've made.
-
Thank you tincombe.
How did you find the code??
Edit: nevermind, I reread what you said, and feel a bit stupid now.
-
Code is 73G614 and is in the body of the NOR under Appeal.
IMO, one of your appeal grounds:
Procedural impropriety
I refer the adjudicator to the council's decision notice which, because my representations were not accepted, is a Notice of Rejection which must contain information warning the recipient that they must either pay the penalty charge within a specified period or appeal to the adjudicator:
(6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice—
(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or
(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge,
(ii)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs, and
(iii)describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made
The 'form and manner in which an appeal ..must be made' is given in Regulation 7 as follows:
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their representations.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice under regulation 6(4)(b) which states that the enforcement authority does not accept the recipient’s representations, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
Regulations 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(b) are complementary and both vitally important as regards compliance with the authority's regulatory burden under Regulation 6. Both must be stated clearly in a NOR.
However, in this case 7(2)(b) is omitted entirely. I ask the adjudicator to find that this is a material failure by the enforcement authority to observe a requirement imposed on it by the Appeals regulations and is therefore a 'procedural impropriety'.
I would add that this duty could not be discharged by a vague reference to the tribunal's website and publications as here because:
1. The duty does not fall to the tribunal but to the enforcement authority;
2. In any event, the tribunal's website is provided to guide and assist prospective appellants; it includes matters prescribed by regulations and which represent tribunal policy and practice but which is some respects are a departure from the regulations e.g. references to 28 days from date of service for submission of an appeal etc. But of course no detriment should be suffered by an appellant by reading such documents provided the authority's NOR has set out the legal position as required.
But the enforcement authority has not.
-
Looking at the all the pages they've sent for this, I don't think they sent a verification code this time for the tribunal.
Does this mean I need to do it via post?
Argh! This is what I get for leaving it so last minute.
Edit: I've submitted reps again on the PCN portal, asking them for a verification code, and to consider my previous reps again.
Status changed to on hold, and email confirming as such.
-
Is there nothing to be said on the PCN observation time being wrong?
Happy to take it tribunal, because I lost the discount anyway.
-
You've lost the discount unfortunately as they probably reckon they weren't going to consider discretion twice. You can appeal this but the tribunal can't consider mitigation.
Tincombe may see something on the NOR though.
-
Hi. I got a response from the council on the 27th of July, which I am posting below.
I know I've left it very late.
I also can't seem to find the page that would have the code to take it to tribunal, if I've lost it, is there anyway to recover or find it?
Thank you all in advance, as always.
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202608181907523.jpg)
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202608181908092.jpg)
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202608181909052.jpg)
-
Manage your expectations here, councils can be hard hearted.
-
@tincombe.
Thank you, I used what you gave, filled in the details, and modified it for a little more accuracy. Thank you very much.
-
This situation is worsened because, even during their active hours, I believe the bays are sometimes used without issue by council staff for their personal vehicles i.e. not liveried or 'council' vehicles.
Then I suggest you turn this round:
This situation is worsened because the bays are used by council liveried vehicles. I understand why this 'council vehicle' exemption(against a prevailing restriction) might be desirable when they are operational e.g. street cleaning, highway works, meals-on-wheels etc. but it is surely not the council's intention to create an overflow car park for the Brewery Road depot which effectively robs fee-paying permit holders of the opportunity to park legitimately.
Thank you, very, very much! :D
-
This situation is worsened because, even during their active hours, I believe the bays are sometimes used without issue by council staff for their personal vehicles i.e. not liveried or 'council' vehicles.
Then I suggest you turn this round:
This situation is worsened because the bays are used by council liveried vehicles. I understand why this 'council vehicle' exemption(against a prevailing restriction) might be desirable when they are operational e.g. street cleaning, highway works, meals-on-wheels etc. but it is surely not the council's intention to create an overflow car park for the Brewery Road depot which effectively robs fee-paying permit holders of the opportunity to park legitimately.
-
Thank you so much!
I will edit and submit this (or my wife will at least).
The council vehicles have Islington decals on them.
They have a "base" on Brewery Road. But despite having their own parking yard, they seem to use all the resident bays.
I've been told by a CEO they are to only use the IS-D business bays, but that doesn't happen. Well it does, but they overflow onto the permit bays.
-
Thanks for the confirmation and clarification.
I would not simply resubmit your informal reps because I cannot see that they contain any statutory defence. The council's response at the informal stage counts for little in the evidential scales, let's see what we can get from them at this stage. I'm sorry that my draft is long, but I've done this so that perhaps there are parts you could take and raise with a local councillor NB. not the council because officers don't need your vote.
Pl amend any inaccuracies.
Perhaps:
Re PCN *********
I live at ****** and hold a Resident's Permit for zone ID-S, I therefore use the bays reserved for permit holders in Brewery Road whenever possible. Unfortunately, the council's policy makes this more difficult than it should be for permit holders because these bays do not operate 24/7, in fact they're active for only 5 days per week and 7 hours per day (Mon-Fri 0930-4.30pm) which means that they may be used more by motorists who don't pay than those who do, like me, at a rate of £*** per year. This situation is worsened because, even during their active hours, I believe the bays are sometimes used without issue by council staff for their personal vehicles i.e. not liveried or 'council' vehicles. This lack of provision means that permit holders jockey with all and sundry for permit bays during their non-operational hours. If we're successful, fine. But if not, as happened on the day in question and preceding evening, then permit holders have to look elsewhere.
On ***(insert the day before the PCN) I couldn't find a vacant permit bay but managed to locate a vacant pay bay during its (identical) non-operational hours. From that moment, the Sword of Damocles was hanging over my head: could I find a vacant permit bay in that instant when an all and sundry motorist vacated a permit bay, something my husband and I juggle with too often? You will see from our otherwise unblemished PCN record*, that we're normally successful, but on the day in question we weren't. He thought it was my turn to move the car and I thought it was his. By the time we realised our error, we had already fallen between two stools and had been caught in the arms of your CEO with their £110 penalty.
Damocles's fate was more fortunate.
I understand that the above does not fall within any of the statutory grounds listed on the NTO, but none the less I hope they give you compelling reasons to exercise your discretion on this occasion and I should be grateful if you would.
However, as regards substantive grounds, I would state the following:
Time allowed to pay
A motorist is allowed a reasonable period of time to comply with a parking place restriction, in this case to pay. This limits a CEO who may not determine that a contravention has occurred until all possible exemptions have been examined e.g. loading, collecting, motorist in the process of paying etc. Contrary to the comment in your letter rejecting my husband's informal representations, a driver is not obliged to remain by their vehicle. With this in mind, issuing the instant PCN in this case is procedurally improper. NB. I note the reference in your letter to an observation period beginning at 9.38, but this is not supported by the PCN which quite clearly states: 'Observed from: 9.41 to 9.41'. If you are saying that the PCN is at variance with the CEO's notes, then this is a serious matter in itself.
*- is it?
-
RK is my missus. If I remember correctly, this ones on her (for once).
The pay and display begins at 9.30AM according to the signboards.
Many of the the permit holder bays in IS-D are taken up by Islington's own vans (a lot of which are diesels, which I find hypocritical).
They take up the bays day and night. Many of the residents complain, but do nothing. Including myself.
I don't mind getting my wife to resubmit the old reps. Just looking to go tribunal in the hopes I can get something.
-
For accuracy, with an NTO dated 9th June the last day of the 28-day period is 8 July.
OP, would you confirm that the NTO is addressed to you because only the addressee may make reps. So even if this is your 'missus' reps would need to be made under her name.
Also, I'm confused by the layout in Brewery Road. GSV suggests that the payment bays become operational at 8.30 whereas the permit bays only come into effect at 9.30 which suggests that one can park for free in a permit bay when it's chargeable on the other side of the road. As you are a permit holder, I was wondering how to develop this but got stuck because you cannot just move from a payment bay to a permit at 8.30 because the latter might still be occupied by non permit holders. I'm sure there's something which could be used to strengthen 'your' reps, but exactly what I'm not certain.
Pl confirm whether the above layout is correct and who is the RK.
-
No reps made against NTO yet. Was wondering on what grounds to submit reps.
Should I just submit my original appeal again?
Date of your NtO is 9th June, so you need to get your skates on as you have 28 days from then to submit reps or pay-up !
Nothing wrong with submitting your informal reps again if you're in a hurry.
-
No reps made against NTO yet. Was wondering on what grounds to submit reps.
Should I just submit my original appeal again?
-
Have you submitted any representations against the Notice to Owner ? Only when reps against an NtO are rejected is it possible to register an appeal at LT.
-
Hi guys,
I received the NTO for this PCN recently. I've left it a bit late to upload, I know. Sorry.
Is there any grounds I could appeal on and go to tribunal, since it's at the higher price now anyway?
Thank you as usual.
NTO Page 1
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202606281516422.jpg)
Page 2
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202606281517032.jpg)
Page 3
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202606281520162.jpg)
Page 4
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/20260628152042.jpg)
Page 5
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202606281521202.jpg)
Page 6
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/20260628152139.jpg)
-
If the CEO had waited for a few minutes what would they have observed?
-
They have stated 10 minute observation is for after a payment session expires.
I accept that, but is there no observation period for before a payment is made?
Surely it's not right that the PCN states 9.41to 9.41 as an observation period. Which means the CEO printed as soon as he possibly could to try avoid the motorist paying or even returning back into the car after deciding not to pay?
And yes the photos show 9.43 etc, but with the PCN already printed, had I returned to the car, the would have simply said "sorry it's already printed". Like they've done on so many other occassions?
-
They haven't addressed your status as a permit holder and parking record and spaces, instead just homing in on direct mitigation concerning the contravention, which you aren't disputing.
At formal stage you could try and pin them down on this and their duty to act fairly and as said they will probably reoffer the discount if they don't give in.
-
Your choice. Pay the reduced penalty today or wait for the NTO*. Even unsuccessful reps often elicit an offer to pay the reduced penalty and if this were to happen you lose nothing but get the opportunity to scrutinise their NOR for procedural improprieties.
*- assuming this is you.
-
So I appealed this PCN. I will need to find my original appeal, but parts of it are in Islington's second response anyway.
Should I pay or take it further based on their response? Please see below:
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/Screenshot2026052515.jpg)
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/9eScreenshot2026052515.jpg)
Response to above:
Thank you for your response. However, it does not address any of the points I made in my original appeal. Please could you address the points made in the original challenge.
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/bbcScreenshot2026052515.jpg)
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/59Screenshot2026052515.jpg)
-
Thank you.
I submitted a challenge to the PCN earlier this morning.
-
IMO make reps online TODAY.
Given that you don't hold a strong hand substantively as regards adjudication(where mitigating factors such as the council's alleged misuse of bays and the misunderstanding between you and your wife cannot be considered), you'll need the council to cancel. IMO a complaint at this stage wouldn't warm them to your situation.
Why online today?
Because today is the last day of the 28-day period*. Reps made today must be considered. The other significant factor is that the council could serve a NTO as early as tomorrow and what you hope is that they've jumped the gun and already issued the NTO for delivery(service) tomorrow and because it's been issued they do not consider your reps. This would be a procedural impropriety and also fall under the '.....circumstances of the case' ground.
I would just set out what you've stated above:
We hold a permit(no. ******) and have done for *** years.
We usually park in the reserved or shared use bays, but at times have to park in payment bays when not in force and move before they are because reserved bays are full in the evening, often with council vehicles.
On the day in question there was a breakdown in communication between me and my wife as to who was going to move the car, something which we realised at *** just after the PCN was issued.
We have a clean PCN record, we're sorry, pl let us off.
*- you miscalculated this in your first post. 28 days begins on the date of service, not the next day.
-
Why not raise a complaint to Islington about council vans blocking resident parking bays.
You're right, I really should. But I just feel like it won't go anywhere, like a lot of things with Islington.
I know that's not the right attitude.
I also don't know where to begin, or who to complain to.
-
Why not raise a complaint to Islington about council vans blocking resident parking bays.
-
I would try a grovel for discretion, enclosing proof of permit, saying it was an oversight on this one occasion not to move the car to a permit bay.
But why wasn't it in a permit bay?
All the permit bays were full. It doesn't help that Islington have a depot on this same road, and all their vans take up residents' bays, during ALL times of the day. My understanding is that they are to only use the Business bays. But miraculously, them parking in any bay is overlooked by the wardens, despite them telling me that they shouldn't be in them. Of course, I do not know how correct the wardens are. But it seems highly unfair for so many Islington vans to take up all the bays, in the one of the smallest permit zones in Islington.
Anyways, back to the matter at hand, usually if we can't find a bay we leave it anywhere else suitable, and I will move it in the morning before going to work.
This time I did not move it, because I knew my wife was going somewhere, and she was suppossed to leave at or before 9.30AM. Unfortunately, she left late, and she had assumed I'd already moved the car to a permit bay.
-
I would try a grovel for discretion, enclosing proof of permit, saying it was an oversight on this one occasion not to move the car to a permit bay.
But why wasn't it in a permit bay?
-
Yes, I am a permit holder.
If I ask for discretion, and it gets rejected, which seems highly likely with Islington nowadays. What grounds could I take it to tribunal on?
Either way I'd look to take it to tribunal.
Adjudicators cannot accept appeals based on mitigation. This was decided in the High Court many years ago. This has always puzzled me because why have a statutory grounds of "the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case". There is nothing in the regulations that defines "circumstances".
-
Yes, I am a permit holder.
If I ask for discretion, and it gets rejected, which seems highly likely with Islington nowadays. What grounds could I take it to tribunal on?
Either way I'd look to take it to tribunal.
-
Lack of observation is only useful to you if the CEO missed exempt activity, mainly loading and assisted alighting/boarding.
Are you a permit holder? I can only see an ask for discretion.
(https://i.ibb.co/prPP8k0S/Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-17-17-01.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/KcpGYXf4/Screenshot-2026-03-13-at-17-16-37.png)
-
No payment was made because my wife drove the car off 5 minutes later. And also if a payment was to be made, we would have thought it mute, considering a PCN was already issued.
Usually the car gets moved to a permit bay, any on the same road.
But on this day I'd assumed my wife was going out, and she would leave before 9.30, and so I left it where it was and went to work.
She left later than she'd expected and got a PCN at 9.41.
So yes it was kind of our mistake. But I was seeing if theres anything I could say around the observation time. I was under the impression they are to give a little bit of time in observation.
Are there any technicalities that could be argued? I'm happy paying the higher amount after a tribunal.
But I'm wondering if I have case to take to tribunal to begin with.
-
Most cases we see in council car parks for non-payment is because the OP was in course of paying, usually by phone, and was not present by the car. It is accepted by all players in the decriminalised regime that time must be allowed to make payment after parking, or else nobody could ever park legally ! However in your case, no payment was ever made, and to be honest, unless you tell us more qabout why no payment was made, the discount looks your best option.
-
Hello everyone,
a bit of miscommunication with the missus meant that the car was left in a Pay & Display without payment. The enforcement hours are 9.30 to 16:30.
Observation time was 9:41 to 9:41. No observation in other words. I don't know if that's something I could base an appeal on?
I've post the front and back of the PCN below.
As always thank you all for your help!
P.s. I know I've left posting this very late, and there's only 6 days left until the 28 days is up. Sorry.
Front
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/RTS01IZ38775759PCNFr.jpg)
Back
(https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/RTS02IZ38775759PCNBa.jpg)