Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Steve from Beverley on May 12, 2026, 08:02:30 pm
-
It is clear from the enforcement authority's submission that they are irked by my actions as, according to them, they are contrary to 'the spirit' of the MiPermit scheme. I ask the adjudicator to find that this resentment on the part of officers has clouded their judgement in this matter and led to them not considering my representations with the required objectivity.
I did not create the council's permit policy, but neither did the officers in the enforcement authority department. If, as seems clear, they have a problem with permit holders using the flexibility of the policy to its fullest extent, then I suggest they deal with this internally rather than try and alter the policy extra-constitutionally by penalising individual motorists.
-
Mr Chips
No mention of the grace period
They appear to be ignoring the period when the vehicle was covered by the permit
On this occasion, the CEO observed the vehicle parked at 09:54 and 12:08 hours, without having moved, the vehicle was not covered by a Resident Permit at either of these times. Mr Walford is not disputing this, however he states that the vehicle was covered by a Resident Permit between 10:02 and 12:00 hours, and he believes that the two-hour permitted parking period should only begin at the time he removes his vehicle from the permit. The council however considers that in order for a permit to offer an exemption from a parking restriction, it must be in place at the time(s) that a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observes a vehicle parked.
The no return period is not relevant in this instance as the PCN was not issued for returning to a location within a no return period.
As is evidenced by the Notice of Rejection of Formal Representation letter, Mr Walford was advised of his right to appeal the decision to the Tribunal.
Given that Mr Walford’s vehicle was not covered by a Resident Permit for either of the CEO’s observations, and the vehicle remained parked for over two hours without moving, the council is satisfied that the contravention did occur and that the PCN should stand. Mr Walford has not provided any mitigating circumstances for consideration.
Many Thanks
-
Did they address the grave period issue?
-
I have now registered the case
I think I would rather have a telephone call, I don't think I would cope very well with a video call
This is the councils response to my submission
The council offers Resident Permits to qualifying residents within Beverley’s Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), which offer an exemption from certain parking restrictions in residential areas. Residents within Beverley’s CPZ can purchase a maximum of two Resident Permits per household, with the first permit currently costing £35.00 and the second permit costing £110.00. Resident Permits are a virtual permit, issued through the MiPermit system. Permit holders create their own account on MiPermit, meaning they have the facility to purchase, amend and cancel their own permits online at any time.
Parking at Queensgate, Beverley is limited to two hours maximum stay, with no return permitted within one hour, on Mondays to Saturdays between 8am and 6pm. Resident Permit holders are exempt from this restriction.
It is clear from Mr Walford’s MiPermit history, that in order to avoid purchasing a second Resident Permit, he alters the vehicle registration covered by his one Resident Permit, roughly every two hours, when both vehicles are parked during restricted times. This happens almost every day, several times a day.
The Resident Permit Terms and Conditions do stipulate that permit holders can update the vehicle covered by their permit as often as they wish; the spirit of this term is to ensure that permit holders are not inconvenienced when they get a new vehicle or have a courtesy car, as they can easily update the vehicle online without having to wait for the council to process this; the spirit of this term is not to allow two vehicles to park in reliance of one permit to avoid purchasing a second Resident Permit. Mr Walford has previously had PCN Challenges accepted, and he has been advised of this in response letters, which are included in the evidence.
On this occasion, the CEO observed the vehicle parked at 09:54 and 12:08 hours, without having moved, the vehicle was not covered by a Resident Permit at either of these times. Mr Walford is not disputing this, however he states that the vehicle was covered by a Resident Permit between 10:02 and 12:00 hours, and he believes that the two-hour permitted parking period should only begin at the time he removes his vehicle from the permit. The council however considers that in order for a permit to offer an exemption from a parking restriction, it must be in place at the time(s) that a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observes a vehicle parked.
The no return period is not relevant in this instance as the PCN was not issued for returning to a location within a no return period.
As is evidenced by the Notice of Rejection of Formal Representation letter, Mr Walford was advised of his right to appeal the decision to the Tribunal.
Given that Mr Walford’s vehicle was not covered by a Resident Permit for either of the CEO’s observations, and the vehicle remained parked for over two hours without moving, the council is satisfied that the contravention did occur and that the PCN should stand. Mr Walford has not provided any mitigating circumstances for consideration.
I'm not happy with the comments relating to the MI permit previous history
They appear to disagree with the impropriety of the Notice of Rejection
2. Procedural impropriety
The NOR is required to state your appeal rights.
The NOR I received doesn't. In as much as your timeframe for registering a statutory(as opposed to discretionary) appeal is concerned, this is misstated in their notice ('within 28 days of service' is incorrect), there is no reference to a discretionary appeal and neither does the notice advise you regarding costs which may be awarded against you or the authority subject to conditions.
The authority cannot finesse these errors by claiming that 'our website will explain this further' because the 'our' is not the council, it's the tribunal; they've lifted that part straight from the tribunal's publications. But a NOR must be self-contained.
Any further advice appreciated
Steve
-
Many thanks to all that have helped
Have registered
Got a case number
I can now upload scans of the various documents I received
The way I read things they will contact the Council before setting a date
Have not seen an option for a decision in person, maybe that becomes available when a date is set
Mr Chips I have taken your previous advice on board
Once again thanks
I will keep the board updated as things progress
-
Have you registered; opted for a decision in person; got a case number and a date for your hearing?
-
Hi Steve - apologies, been a hectic few days and this is quite a complex case!
Happy to have a go at something later today if you haven't already given up waiting...?
-
Busy today but will feedback soon.
Hi Mr Chips did you get a chance to have a further look
Thanks
Steve
-
You are addressing the adjudicator.
IMO, put the facts simply and clarify the issue between you and the council which is the one on which the adjudicator must make a finding in your favour.
Perhaps.....
By way of context and facts which are not disputed by the council:
I am the holder of resident permit 'X or whatever'.
Permits are virtual.
Residents are permitted to have one qualifying vehicle's VRM allocated to the permit at any one time. This is effected by logging in to their online account.
However, they may change this allocation to another qualifying vehicle whenever they wish and as often as they wish (see attached extract from Terms and Conditions).
At *** on *** I parked at the location. There is no issue that this was subject to a restriction of ********.
At the time of parking, I had allocated my permit to a second qualifying vehicle which I own and therefore parked subject to the '2-hour' free parking restriction.
At ***, my other vehicle was removed from the permit and the vehicle in question allocated.
At ** I removed this vehicle and re-allocated my permit to my other vehicle. At this time, I contend that I was again subject to the '2-hour' free parking restriction.
At ** the PCN was issued alleging that I was parked for longer than permitted.
There is no issue that my vehicle was parked for a total of ****.
In its rejections of my representations, the council's position is clear i.e. it interprets the restriction as placing a 2-hour total limit on parking irrespective of whether at any time the vehicle was covered by a permit for which there is no limit. I believe that this neither a correct interpretation of the restriction as displayed on the traffic sign nor one which is supported by a provision in a traffic order.
I respectfully ask the adjudicator to make a clear finding in my favour on this point as this should inform the council's enforcement practices and forestall possible further occurrences.
In addition, I would raise the following procedural improprieties found in the NOR:
******
-
Busy today but will feedback soon.
-
This is my first draft
I think part1 is correct, maybe too much
Unsure about part2
Any further guidance appreciated
I am appealing on the following grounds
1. Code 30 contravention did not occur;
2. Procedural impropriety
1. Code 30 contravention did not occur
I hold a residents parking permit for the Beverley, East Riding of Yorkshire Council CPZ
When I purchased the permit I entered into a contract with the East Riding, the terms and conditions published by the Council formed part of the contract.
The ERYC terms and conditions clearly state
Resident Permits can only have one vehicle covered by them at any one time, however you can change the vehicle details any time, and as often as you wish, by simply logging into your MiPermit account
Vehicle EY60NBG
Date PCN issued 18/03/2026
09.54 - CEO observed car parked without permit
10.02 - I logged into my MIPermit account and updated the details to cover EY60NBG
12.00 - I logged into my MIPermit account and removed EY60NBG
12.08 - the CEO observed car parked without permit, served a PCN.
The council accepts that the times the permit was changed are correct
I contend that the 118 minutes between 10.02 and 12.00 cannot contribute to a Code 30 contravention.
I further contend that when the permit was removed at 12.00 a further period of 2hrs free parking commenced
In addition when the permit was removed a 10 minute period of grace as laid down in law should have been allowed
The council's weird logic is that if during a period of discontinuous observation a vehicle is covered by a permit and then removed then the period parked under the free parking for 2 hours grounds commences when you first parked.
I feel the council is attempting to penalise me for a failing in their system. I am free to change the vehicle on the permit as frequently as I wish. The information relating to the change of vehicle is not communicated to the CEO
2. Procedural impropriety
The NOR is required to state your appeal rights.
The NOR I received doesn't. In as much as your timeframe for registering a statutory(as opposed to discretionary) appeal is concerned, this is misstated in their notice ('within 28 days of service' is incorrect), there is no reference to a discretionary appeal and neither does the notice advise you regarding costs which may be awarded against you or the authority subject to conditions.
The authority cannot finesse these errors by claiming that 'our website will explain this further' because the 'our' is not the council, it's the tribunal; they've lifted that part straight from the tribunal's publications. But a NOR must be self-contained
-
Agreed, at this stage I think you can just register the appeal, and come back with you arguments at a later date.
-
Don't 'work on an appeal' just register. At this stage this is all you need to do.
10 minutes' work, not War and Peace.
-
Thanks for the advice
Unfortunately I am away until the 24th
I am working on the appeal to the Traffic Tribunal
Will keep you informed
-
IMO, register an appeal.
1. Contravention did not occur;
2. Procedural impropriety.
As regards 1, Mr. Chips and other have explained why the council's received wisdom position is wrong. You should get the adjudicator to confirm this by allowing your appeal on these grounds because this might(I say this more in hope than expectation) get the council to change its mindset and thus prevent further occurrences;
As regards 2, the NOR is required to state your appeal rights. Their NOR doesn't. In as much as your timeframe for registering a statutory(as opposed to discretionary) appeal is concerned, this is misstated in their notice ('within 28 days of service' is incorrect), there is no reference to a discretionary appeal and neither does the notice advise you regarding costs which may be awarded against you or the authority subject to conditions.
The authority cannot finesse these errors by claiming that 'our website will explain this further' because the 'our' is not the council, it's the tribunal; they've lifted that part straight from the tribunal's publications. But a NOR must be self-contained.
-
I don't think the discount has been reoffered, in which case there's no incentive not to appeal!
Deadline to appeal is, I think, 24 June. What are your dates away?
Based on their logic, they could note you parked without a permit at 9.01am, you could add a permit at 9.02am, they could check you every hour during the day, all while confirming a valid permit is in force, then you remove the permit at 4.58pm and they serve a PCN at 4.59pm.
They've also admitted that you were legally parked while you had a permit (i.e. at 12pm) but then said the 10 minute grace period started at 11.54pm at a time during which you were covered by a permit. It should start from the point your period of permitted parking ceases which by definition cannot be a time while your vehicle is covered by a valid permit.
As the legislation says:
"No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes."
-
It's now either cough-up or register an appeal at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. There is no discount option at the TPT, so the full PCN penalty will be in play.
https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/want-to-appeal/
-
Apologises for the backgrounds
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/LAxOrtH_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/1xFfAIW_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ICiDxAG_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/sZYX7hB_xl.jpg)
Any advice appreciated
Steve :)
-
The formal appeal has been rejected
I will post the rejection letter on here in the next couple of days
Is there a document available that gives advice on appealing to The Traffic Tribunal
Struggling a little bit as I'm on holiday past the deadline to submit and posting from a tablet
Steve
-
Not sure that the CEO has sussed me out
The terms and conditions are quiet clear "Residents can change the VRM on the permit as often as they wish"
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/qdD0Mmk_md.jpg)
I think the issue is that the council system does not appear to able to cope with the change(s) and keep the CEO's electronic device informed of the changes
When I purchased a permit, I entered a contract, the terms and conditions form part of the contract
Steve
-
Doesn't feel like gaming the system to me. I think it's just a short term, compliant solution for when he has to park both cars in the controlled area.
The council have presumably designed it this way by choice, it would be easy to prevent of they saw it as a problem. The issue is the CEO can't (or didn't) see that there was a period of permit parking in between the two observation points.
-
Are you trying to game the system by having just one permit for two vehicles instead of paying for two permits, and by swapping the permit over every two hours the CEO may have sussed out that is what you were doing and if you miscalculated the swap over the CEO jumped at the chance of catching you out.
-
I don't think anything you write will persuade East Riding to give way. So are you prepared to risk the full PCN penalty at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal ?
-
Apologies for the delay in responding
This is my umpteenth draft >:(
I make representations on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
There are three reasons the contravention did not occur
1) The vehicle was subject to a valid permit until 12:00:40, when the permit was removed from the vehicle I was entitled to a 10 minute grace period.
a) The PCN was issued at 12:08, this is within the grace period
b) In the UK, a 10-minute statutory grace period applies to council-run bays. If your ticket or paid session expires, a traffic warden cannot legally issue a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) until 10 minutes after expiry
2) I was entitled to a new period of parking (2 hours), from the moment the permit was removed from the vehicle at 12:00:40
3) Between 10:02:04 and 12:00:40 the vehicle was subject to a valid permit, this entitled me to park for as long as I wished
Referring to the TRO
The relevant articles are 36-39 (which set out how parking restrictions operate) and, to a lesser extent, 123-126 (which set out how virtual permits operate).
They basically state:
- you can't park for longer than the maximum period (article 36)
- but if you have a permit you can park for any period of time (article 39)
- unless you have a permit, you cannot park again in the same place (or within the same CPZ) for the "no return" period specified (articles 37 and 38).
- article 38 prevents "parking again" in a parking place within a controlled parking zone before the expiry of a specified period (one hour in my case)
- however, there is an explicit exemption to this restriction for permit holders.
- consequently, I was permitted to a new period of parking commencing from the point I switched off the permit, which allows up to 2 hours of parking from this point in time.
I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation of this PCN
-
Many thanks for your comprehensive reply.
Your time taken in looking into the matter is greatly appreciated
I shall draft a reply and post it on here
Thanks
Steve
-
OK - now been through the TRO.
The relevant articles are 36-39 (which set out how parking restrictions operate) and, to a lesser extent, 123-126 (which set out how virtual permits operate).
They basically state:
- you can't park for longer than the maximum period (article 36)
- but if you have a permit you can park for any period of time (article 39)
- unless you have a permit, you cannot park again in the same place (or within the same CPZ) for the "no return" period specified (articles 37 and 38).
So, not much to go on specifically in terms of how changing permit status interacts with the maximum period of staying. It seems the TRO wasn't drafted with your scenario in mind!
I still believe in this specific instance the grace period means you couldn't be served a PCN when you were as you were legally parked less than 10 minutes before it was served.
But for future use (and also relevant in this case) I wonder if you can construct a legal argument along the following lines:
- article 38 prevents "parking again" in a parking place within a controlled parking zone before the expiry of a specified period (one hour in your case)
- however, there is an explicit exemption to this restriction for permit holders.
- as such, you were permitted to commence a new period of parking in the same place/zone at any time up to the point your permit ceased at 12 noon.
- consequently, you are permitted to a new period of parking commencing from the point you switch off the permit, which allows you up to 2 hours of parking from this point in time.
Quite apart from this it doesn't seem logical for a 2 hour period to be inclusive of a period while you had a permit. It could lead to all sorts of anomalies or paradoxes, e.g.
- is a non permit holder who parks on Sunday allowed to be ticketed at 8.01am on Monday on the basis they have been parked over 2 hours and the restricted hours have commenced?
- would you still have been ticketed at 12.08pm if you hadn't switched your permit off on the basis you had been parked for over 2 hours without a permit at the start of the observation period?
- if you switched the permit on and off every 10 minutes, would you be eligible for a PCN as the grace period would never expire?
- the sign says "Resident permit holders or 2 hours". In the absence of an explicit statement to the contrary, "or" is normally interpreted to be inclusive, i.e. it is not required to satisfy one and only one of the conditions. A driver can expect to be allowed to rely on either or both. Consequently, a driver should expect to be able to park on the basis of being a permit holder, and also on the basis of the allowance for 2 hours where one is not a permit holder.
-
I have just found this document
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Civil Parking Enforcement Procedures
It states that for a Code 30 the observation period is 5mins
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-U5X2R2nboz8J5f7_1qBgKeggeNRlMa1/view?usp=drive_link (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-U5X2R2nboz8J5f7_1qBgKeggeNRlMa1/view?usp=drive_link)
Steve
-
Thanks Mr Chips
Steve
-
Thanks Steve - successfully accessed.
Will need a bit of time to work through it - there doesn't seem to be anything in there from a first glance around how the 2 hours interacts with a permit switching on and off. But it also seems clear you were permitted to park there by nature of your permit while it was in force.
-
Hope the link works
Apparently to large to view, can only be downloaded
Traffic Regulation Order The East Riding of Yorkshire Council (On Street Parking Places)(Civil Enforcement) (Consolidation) Order 2021
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WDRtiTr-PssazIux8oy0iblJdr70wi5l/view?usp=sharing
I could split the pdf into two or three parts if that would help
Thanks
Steve
-
Unfortunately, nothing is held on the Tribunal website post-2019!
-
I'll have a go tomorrow
Thanks
Steve
-
Can you host it there and share a link on here?
-
Yes I have Google Drive
Adobe File size is 184 MB
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/7roMjvQ_xl.jpg)
Thanks
-
What is the name of the TRO? The TPT (the tribunal in this case) have an online library of deposited TROs, so the name should be in the citation references at the start of the order.
-
Do you have Google drive or similar? How big is the pdf file size?
-
On Friday I managed to get through to the correct department via email
I was asked why I wanted the TRO, my reply was that I was expecting an NtO and advice I had taken indicated that I would not be able to write a Formal Challenge without a copy of the TRO
They said they would send me a copy by post, I asked if it could be emailed, the reply was it was too large????
Anyway Saturday morning the NtO and the TRO arrive, separate envelopes
The TRO is 78 pages (separate images), I can convert to a single pdf file, but where do I host it
Notice to owner
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ExLWt98_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/424mohz_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/IMz3SxD_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0KIzBXN_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/Vw1PEja_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/pQKdJvM_xl.jpg)
Many Thanks
Steve
-
You may have more success with the TRO if you request it in writing as part of a follow up to your informal challenge (although it sounds like this will be held on file until they receive your formal representations).
-
Many thanks for all the replies
I have attempted to contact the council, to request a copy of the TRO
The only number available to the general public is Customer Services
After spending 35 minutes on hold, 10 minutes explaining what I wanted and why. I get transferred to a telephone that immediately goes to an answer machine
The 10 minutes grace period is interesting and has given me food for thought
I will keep you informed
Steve
-
Adding to the above, the key issue is not the start of discontinuous observation, it's whether at the time of contravention stated on the PCN you were in contravention of the cited grounds.
IMO, no.
Time of contravention: 12.08
Parking rights relied upon: max. 2 hours.
Time at which you relied upon those rights: 12.05(according to the council).
Time so parked: 3 minutes.
Time allowed: 2 hours.
The council's weird logic is that if during a period of discontinuous observation a vehicle is covered by a permit and then removed then the period parked under the free parking for 2 hours grounds commences when you first parked.
Can't see an adjudicator going for this one.
Your reps can be a condensed version of the facts i.e. you contend that your period of parking under the free for 2 hours criterion(breach of which is the cited contravention) commenced at 12.05 whereas the council claim it was 9.54.
It would be interesting to see the actual provision within the TRO.
-
If the challenge is on the basis that the permit supersedes the free parking time then the grace period is not really relevant as a new 2 hour period would start from the time the permit was taken off the vehicle.
-
I accept that's the crux of the issue - but a PCN could not have been served on that basis if he was parked not relying on the 2 hour period but on the basis of having a permit. The sign allows parking on either basis. A PCN couldn't have been served at 12pm as the vehicle was not parked in contravention at the time as it was covered by a permit. Even if removing the permit somehow rewrites history that he had not been parked up to that point on the basis of having a permit, I believe the grace period is still in place until 10 minutes after being legally parked, i.e. after 12.10pm.
The grace period exemption is worded in law as follows:
"No penalty charge is payable for the contravention where the vehicle has been left beyond the permitted parking period for a period not exceeding 10 minutes."
So effectively, the council are trying to claim that at (no later than) 11.57, the vehicle was parked in contravention of the "parked for longer than permitted" restriction, which inherently can't be the case if it was covered by a permit at the time as allowed by the signage. Unless I'm missing something?
It seems there's a flaw/weakness in the CEO monitoring equipment which only allows them to check the permit status at the start and end of the observation period and not the period in between. The council might appreciate some feedback on how their processes could be improved?
-
The contravention is nothing to do with the permit. It's a lower level code 30 for overstaying the free 2 hours starting with observation at 9:54.
-
I can't see how the 10 minute grace argument could be beaten. The council would have to claim that a car parked with a valid permit at 12 noon is not legally parked which is clearly not consistent with their own signage.
I still think even without this argument no contravention has taken place, but I think we'd need to see the wording in the TRO to be 100% confident. Assuming the OP wishes to continue flipping his permit going forwards I think (s)he should request it so they know where they stand.
-
Interesting view from Mr Chips.
Really the only way to get a decision either way would be to test the matter at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. Of course this means putting the full PCN penalty into play.
-
Separately, as your car was legally parked at 12pm (when it was covered by a permit) I'm not sure they are allowed to issue a PCN until more than 10 minutes after this point due to the grace period enshrined in law. Issuing a PCN at 12.08 is too early.
-
I've tried to find the TRO online but without success, you may wish to ask the council for a copy.
In its absence, applying logic...
The sign indicates parking either with a permit, or for up to 2 hours if you do not hold a permit, is allowed.
If you parked without a permit, but subsequently covered your vehicle with a permit within 2 hours (and left it covered by a permit), I would not expect you to be eligible for a PCN.
If you parked with a permit, but removed the permit later, I wouldn't expect you to be eligible for a PCN within 2 hours of removing the permit (strictly 2 hours and 10 minutes).
It seems to me that following the council's logic, you would be eligible for a PCN in either of those circumstances which does not feel right or consistent with the sign.
-
I recall you on here before with a vehicle swapping issue.
The key on this one is indeed whether the unmoved vehicle did not overstay its welcome owing to an interim permit.
I'm not sure!
-
Their letter rejecting your informal reps basically refutes your 2 hours, by stating the car was observed before you swapped the permit details, and was observed again after you had reverted the permit details.So as I understand it, you applied a 2 hour period for the parked car, but were parked for longer than 2 hours. Have I understood correctly ?
viz: -
09.54 - CEO observed car parked
10.02 - you swapped car regs on the permit making it legally parked from that time,but car was already parked
12.00 - you swapped back the car regs, but the car remained parked
12.08 - the CEO served a PCN.
So it seems the PCN has been served correctly.
-
I have a valid resident permit for the CPZ zone
I have two vehicles and alternate the resident permit between the two vehicles, changing every two hours
VRN's EY60NBG and DG17OLC
From ERYC terms and conditions
Resident Permits can only have one vehicle covered by them at any one time, however you can change the vehicle details any time, and as often as you wish, by simply logging into your MiPermit account and clicking 'Manage Digital Permits'.
On 18/03/2026 at 12:08 a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) placed a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on Vehicle VRN EY60NBG.
Code 30, parked for longer than permitted.
The PCN states that the vehicle was observed from 09:54 to 12:08
An Informal Challenge was submitted to the ERYC,stating that between 10:02 and 12:00 the resident permit was transferred to VRN EY60NBG, therfore the vehicle was not parked for longer than permitted.
The informal challenge was rejected
The Rejection of Informal Challenge letter clearly shows this change of vehicle
In the past similar appeals have been upheld and the penalty dismissed, for some reason they have now decided not to allow the appeal
My defense is that the vehicle was not parked for longer than 2hrs without a valid permit covering the vehicle
I am now waiting for the Notice to Owner letter
Any advice appreciated
Steve
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ywji7hu_md.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/5Tj2gKP_md.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/QWEkNK1_md.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/LEScDTJ_md.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/onLeFXe_md.jpg)