Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Tod on June 11, 2026, 11:59:58 am
-
Thank you @tincombe, really appreciate you taking the time to put all of this together. It makes much more sense to me now.
@stamfordman 😂 with the belt, braces, suit and shoe shine I think I'm ready for the adjudicator now!
-
tincombe has given you belt, braces, a new suit and tie, a shoe shine and a smart hair or beard cut.
-
My long version of ideas:
so I can give the adjudicator my account[of events] directly.
IMO, not necessary.
Stick to the council's evidence and the law. IMO, nothing else is required OTHER THAN you apologise to the adjudicator by admitting that indeed you did park in contravention and this part of the council's regulation 10 PCN is correct. But only the council's actions are being scrutinised here, luckily.
Your formal representations and appeal are based solely upon the council having used inapplicable and therefore improper grounds to serve the regulation 10 PCN and to have given false information in their NOR. Given that the council actually admits as much in their Case Summary and the NOR, you do not understand why they have resisted this appeal then admitted their own error which accepts your case.
If I may refer to regulation 10 and the grounds on which a penalty may be demanded, specifically para. 3(h) of Schedule 2. I have set this out below, not because I think that you (the adjudicator) are not fully aware of their contents, but as an aide memoir to myself in setting out my argument.
3(h)that the penalty charge notice is being served by post for whichever of the following reasons applies—
(i)on the basis of a record produced by an approved device;
(ii)because a civil enforcement officer attempted to serve a penalty charge notice by affixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person in charge of the vehicle but was prevented from doing so by some person;
(iii)because a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice for service in accordance with regulation 9 but the vehicle was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or had served it in accordance with regulation 9.
Firstly, I would suggest that the specific use of English here, namely 'for which ever of the following reasons applies', means that they are distinguished and therefore only one reason may be relied upon.
As regards (h)(i), these grounds do not apply.
As regards(h)(ii), this is predicated on the CEO having prepared a [regulation 9] PCN but was prevented from serving the PCN 'by some person'. In the context of the case, this could only mean the driver/appellant and indeed in the Case Summary the council states this:
'The council is satisfied that the CEO had commenced the issue process and that the circumstances encountered prevented the PCN from being served. '
I deny that I prevented the CEO from serving the PCN in the normal manner, but with respect, this is not my contention as regards the council's procedural impropriety. The actual regulation 10 PCN does not give these grounds, instead it states:
The CEO had begun to prepare a PCN for service but the vehicle was driven away ....before the CEO had finished preparing the PCN or was unable to serve it by affixing it to the vehicle.
But, as shown above, the council asserts in its Case Summary:
1. A regulation 9 PCN had been prepared; and
2. That the vehicle was not driven away while the CEO was present.
They have stated explicitly that neither condition upon which the PCN grounds relied actually occurred and yet still rejected my representations and resisted my appeal.
I submit that it must therefore follow that the PCN was issued improperly because the basis for service was false, contrary to regulations and ask the adjudicator to therefore allow my appeal.
I would add that it is my belief that whatever the council believes transpired at the time, what they refer to as 'the circumstances encountered', clouded their judgement when considering my representations and that instead of accepting these, they changed horses and in the NOR gave their grounds for issuing the PCN as:
'The CEO attempted to serve the PCN but was prevented by some person'(NOR p2 para. 1 line 4. refers).
...while the actual grounds in the PCN were:
The CEO had begun to prepare a PCN for service but the vehicle was driven away ....before the CEO had finished preparing the PCN or was unable to serve it by affixing it to the vehicle.
For the reasons above, I ask that my appeal be allowed. In addition, because the council acted wholly improperly in rejecting my representations by dreaming up false grounds and continued to resist my appeal despite their own admissions, I ask for guidance on the matter of an award of costs.
-
Thanks, that makes sense. I'll opt for a telephone or online hearing so I can give the adjudicator my account directly.
There was certainly nothing that I did to prevent the CEO serving the PCN, so I'll make that clear at the hearing.
-
The relevant clause in the reg 10 postal PCN legislation is:
a civil enforcement officer attempted to serve a penalty charge notice in accordance with regulation 9 but was prevented from doing so by some person
Obviously there are situations where CEOs beat a hasty retreat but from what you say they have nothing to go on.
But you must have a telephone or online hearing so you can tell this to the adjudicator.
-
When I returned to the car the CEO was already there and we spoke face to face. I tried to reason with him rather than argue. I remember saying something along the lines of “come on, we're human beings, you saw me coming back”, because he was taking the photographs while I was standing there.
I explained that I had only gone around the corner briefly to check the Post Office opening hours. I had misunderstood the signage: I could see “Electric Vehicles Only”, and another sign referred to Mon–Fri, while this was Saturday. I genuinely thought I could park the EV there and then connect it to charge when I returned.
He explained that I needed to be actively charging. I said that I was going to charge, opened the car, got my cable out and began connecting it. He continued taking photographs while I was doing this.
I did not argue aggressively, obstruct him, prevent him approaching the vehicle, or prevent him attaching anything to the car. As far as I recall, he never offered or attempted to hand me a PCN either. He simply told me that it would be sent by post and that I could challenge it.
I remained there with the vehicle and continued connecting the cable. The CEO and his colleague then left while the car was still there. My own photographs taken at 13:17 show the car and cable connected to the charging point.
-
I can't see anything in their summary that explains why the CEO was unable to serve a PCN. They just say 'circumstances encountered' prevented service but they don't say what.
To make this stick they would have had to build on the CEO saying service wasn't accepted but they haven't.
What exactly happened in your interaction with the CEO?
-
The Authority has now uploaded its full evidence pack to the Tribunal. The two links above are the newly provided Authority's case summary.
They have also supplied the full Traffic Regulation Order, which is a very long PDF. I haven't posted it here because of the size, but I have it and can provide any relevant pages/details if useful.
I now have 7 days to review and respond to the Authority's evidence before choosing how I want the appeal determined. I'd appreciate any thoughts on their case summary and, in particular, their position that “the circumstances encountered prevented the PCN from being served in the normal manner.
https://ibb.co/2Y359Xj1
https://ibb.co/N6CDhp8g
-
The council has now decided to contest the appeal and has uploaded its evidence. I've attached the CEO's Ticket History/notes, which I hadn't seen before.
The relevant entry says:
“The driver returned after PCN has been issued… he still didn't accept the PCN so I advised him that the PCN will be posted to him.”
Their photographs already posted earlier show the vehicle and me still there at 13:15, while the PCN gives the contravention time as 13:10.
What strikes me is that the CEO's notes don't say that I drove away. They say instead that I “didn't accept the PCN” and that the CEO advised me it would be posted.
The Notice of Rejection subsequently said the CEO was “prevented” from serving it.
I now have 7 days to respond to the authority's evidence. Does this strengthen the Regulation 10 / procedural impropriety argument, and is there anything in the CEO's notes that I should specifically address at adjudication?
https://ibb.co/FbQQCkwf
https://ibb.co/LDrr6jHx
-
I've checked the metadata on my photographs. They were taken at 13:17:43, approximately 2–3 minutes after the CEO's photographs taken at 13:15.
They show the charging cable connected between the vehicle and the charging point. I had never used that charger before, did not have the required app and was unable to start the charging session before I had to leave for a retreat.
My point is not that I completed a charging session, but that I remained at the location after speaking with the CEO. The CEO took his photographs, made no attempt to hand me a PCN, then left with his colleague. I remained there attempting to start charging before eventually leaving.
https://ibb.co/hFgGMKMp
https://ibb.co/4g5c2357
-
Do you have evidence of a charging session starting shortly after 3:15? If so that would certainly add credibility to your case.
-
Citing one legal basis for issuing a reg. 10 PCN on its face and another in the NOR is a mega-PI IMO. It also implies that your reps, which themselves were against the basis for issuing the reg. 10 as well as the contravention itself, were not given consideration because in their minds they were judging these against 'being prevented' and not 'vehicle driven away'.
-
These situations often hinge on who the adjudicator finds more credible. If you made no attempt to prevent service and indeed didn't drive away an adjudicator is likely to side with you as it looks like they have no evidence you prevented service.
They may not contest this when you register the appeal.
Make sure you opt for a telephone or online hearing.
If they do contest you'll get a pack with what they rely on.
-
I've now received the Notice of Rejection. One thing I noticed is that the original postal PCN relied on the vehicle being driven away before service, whereas the rejection now simply says the CEO was 'prevented' from serving it. They still don't explain how, and they haven't supplied the CEO notes. Is that significant?
https://ibb.co/0R1BDxwS
https://ibb.co/60qBCwXj
https://ibb.co/BVRCjP35
https://ibb.co/vCcL3PVn
-
Ah yes, Regulation 10 PCN, so no Notice to Owner, next step is Traffic Penalty Tribunal, I think, because Thurrock is not within London Tribunals sphere for adjudications.
-
Surely the PCN acts as the NTO, hence one bite at the cherry before adjudication.
If these facts fit...I would suggest..
The council alleges that my car was in contravention at 13.10 and served a PCN by post because it claims that:
A contravention had occurred, and
The CEO......a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice for service but the vehicle was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or ..
In support, the council has posted photos taken by the CEO, one of which shows my car and me (together with the CEO) in situ at 13.15 therefore fundamentally undermining the second limb of its assertion that the 'vehicle was driven away [at or immediately after 13.10] or that the CEO was 'unable to serve [the PCN]'.
It therefore follows that based upon the council's evidence alone there was no legal power to serve the PCN which must therefore be cancelled.
-
+1
But don't expect them to fold when they see your reps, because they are only interested in your money. You may have to go all the way, certainly to the Notice to Owner stage, anyway. It's how they game the system to get the money in.
London councils and Transport for London between them get between £600 and £700 million per annum from PCN penalties. It's an enormous scam.
-
This time there is a time on the PCN.
But if you didn't even move the car there is no reason for a postal PCN. I can't see any way you won't get this cancelled.
I wouldn't worry about asking for anything - just say the car remained in place, you spoke to the CEO and a PCN could have been served on the car or to you, so the postal PCN is a procedural impropriety and must be cancelled.
-
Hi all, will appreciate any advice.
I have received a postal PCN from Thurrock. The allegation is parking in an EV charging bay without charging. I spoke directly to the CEO. The PCN states the vehicle was driven away before service, but I remained at the location and subsequently connected the vehicle to the charger. The CEO photographed the vehicle at 13:15. The driver's door and boot are open, I am present at the vehicle, and shortly afterwards I connected the vehicle to the charger as shown in my photographs. Before making representations I intend to request the CEO notes and TRO. Any observations welcome.
https://ibb.co/WS0F8mV
https://ibb.co/wrQ95pwp
https://ibb.co/rKLgD07t
https://ibb.co/rKLgD07t
https://ibb.co/4wDhHK5m
https://ibb.co/hFgGMKMp
https://ibb.co/4g5c2357