Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: scarter1 on July 18, 2026, 08:22:51 pm
-
OK. FGO, fatal procedural improprieties is a slam dunk in itself. Thanks
-
Continuous contravention has nothing to do with PCN1, for obvious reasons.
IMO, failure to consider representations is subjective. It is not a regulatory requirement to detail their reasoning in respect of every issue raised. While 'We have thoroughly considered and the answer is no' might be considered a tad terse, they do not have to detail every reason in respect of every decision.
The requirements mentioned in paragraph (3) [the authority's duty] are that enforcement authority must—
(a)consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the recipient provides, and
(b)serve on the recipient a notice of its decision (a “decision notice”) which states whether or not it accepts the representations made by the recipient.
Consider and serve notice of its decision. There is no requirement in the regs to set out chapter and verse but 'South Buckinghamshire District Council v Porter (No 2) [2004]' which is the definitive guide on statutory and common-law duty suggests that they should set out their reasoning in respect of the principal matters.
IMO, if you have trumps in your hand then......
-
Also wondering if it's worth raising as part of the appeal 1. Continuous contravention and 2. failure to to consider the representations.
-
Thanks.
Whats your opinion on the ruling, with just this. Say is it a slam dunk, 50/50, unknown, etc.
And does postal vs personal hearing type impact outcomes.
-
Thank you.
Fatal procedural improprieties IMO.
By virtue of the NOR stating
'You have 28 days from the date of this letter being served(delivered) to:
....
Appeal to the Parking Adjudicator...
and reinforcing this time period by stating:
If, after 28 days, you have taken no action we may send you a Charge Certificate increasing the charge from £160 to £240...
I submit that the authority has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Appeals Regulations as follows:
6(6)(a)(i), as regards the circumstances under which the authority may serve a Charge Certificate, specifically they have misstated the 28-day period and failed to state 'serve' but instead have used 'send'.
6(6)(a)(iii), as regards the form and manner in which an appeal to the adjudicator must be made. Specifically, they have misstated the 28-day period.
I ask that the adjudicator finds that these are procedural improprieties and therefore allows this appeal.
-
All posts have been checked for focus, with all but the first ones being at 600dp.
Now hosted on your preferred provider
Images from url
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/6IRNfby_xl.jpeg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/71UXQ8V_xl.jpeg)
Links from url
p1 (https://imgpile.com/m/6IRNfby)
p2 (https://imgpile.com/p/bjlPyGg)
-
All posts have been checked for focus, with all but the first ones being at 600dp.
Now hosted on the preferred provider
Images from url (can't preview but width is less than limit in README post)
(https://imgpile.com/p/bjlPyGg#cjrU6dr)
(https://imgpile.com/p/bjlPyGg#71UXQ8V)
Links from url
p1 (https://imgpile.com/p/bjlPyGg#cjrU6dr)
p2 (https://imgpile.com/p/bjlPyGg#71UXQ8V)
-
I give up.
If you're hosting externally, then check the focus yourself.
If you're posting directly into the thread, the forum asks that you do not:
See READ THIS FIRST at top of Forum main page.
You need to click on zoom, close the new window a couple of times to get round the adverts then eventually it opens to view clearly. ::)
-
I don't know what you mean. It's been scanned by a scanner with 600dp, and the hosted images are very much in focus to me.
-
I give up.
If you're hosting externally, then check the focus yourself.
If you're posting directly into the thread, the forum asks that you do not:
See READ THIS FIRST at top of Forum main page.
-
nor (https://postimg.cc/grZJSQQx)
-
Still out of focus.
-
> I note that you left your address visible on the NTO and I see that you live on the same street, so do you not have a valid permit to park in this area?
It had expired. I renewed when I got the ticket and realised it had expired.
-
Docs again
NtO (https://postimg.cc/k65ffnDR)
NOR first 2 pages (https://postimg.cc/7GDy6Jsw)
-
Pl post the flawed NOR in focus.
-
It's usual in the case of a continuous contravention that the second PCN is cancelled if it's issued without the vehicle being moved after the first one was issued. However, you have paid the second PCN, so I'm not sure how this would be handled. Others will be able to comment further on this aspect.
I note that you left your address visible on the NTO and I see that you live on the same street, so do you not have a valid permit to park in this area?
-
I'm looking for some opinions on whether I have grounds to pursue an appeal to London Tribunals.
My vehicle, registration **GD15 WKY**, was parked in a residents' bay and received two Code 12R PCNs (parked in a residents' or shared-use bay without a valid permit).
* **PCN ZN21418576** (unpaid): issued on **22/05/2026 at 17:20**
* **PCN ZN21525543** (paid): issued on **23/05/2026 at 10:41**
The two PCNs were issued only about **17 hours apart**, and the vehicle was not moved at any point between them. It remained in exactly the same parking space throughout. I only realised after making a notice of rejection? that the 2 pcns were within 24hours of each other.
I never knew about the first PCN. When I returned to the car, the first ticket was no longer on the windscreen, so I had no idea it had been issued. The only PCN I found was the second one, which I paid promptly.
Several weeks later I received a Notice to Owner for the first PCN, which was the first time I became aware that it even existed.
I made representations to Haringey explaining the above, excluding pointing out the hour difference between them, but they have now issued a **Notice of Rejection of Representations**.
I'm posting to seek your advice. I have till the 22nd to pay the reduced £80.
Notice to owner (https://i.postimg.cc/LhgrV3YK/Scanned-20260718-2001.png)
Notice of rejection of representations (https://i.postimg.cc/F7j8MFVb/Scanned-20260718-2003.png)