Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: AJT on January 20, 2025, 01:08:54 pm
-
It seems ridiculous. It seems that they won’t reverse a decision even if they acknowledge that the previous decision was probably wrong.
-
Needless to say, this is a decision of London Tribunals adjudicator.
-
Good idea. But I think this may be about the tribunal and not traffic law.
I saw this case where the review was requested by a council and was refused. I've bolded the key sentence.
------------
Case reference 2250028421
Appellant Michael Tanner
Authority London Borough of Wandsworth
VRM WX59LZR
PCN Details
PCN WA91117341
Contravention date 03 Oct 2024
Contravention time 14:22:00
Contravention location Pulborough Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Mar 2025
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant has attended for his appeal via video link, the Authority did not attend.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid physical permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place where required, or without payment of the parking charge when in Pulborough Road on 3 October 2024 at 14:22.
The Appellant's case is that the bay markings were too worn and degraded to be enforceable and that the Traffic Management Order does not support a Penalty Charge Notice at the location where his vehicle was parked.
I have considered the evidence in this case and, whilst I find the bay markings are just about sufficient, I find that the second point advanced by the Appellant to be well founded.
I find that the Authority has not proved that the Traffic Management Order, The Wandsworth (Southfields) (Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2002, supports a restriction at the location where the Appellant's vehicle was parked in Pulborough Road.
The appeal is allowed.
Decision Date 02 May 2025
Adjudicator Gerald Styles
Previous decision Appeal allowed
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
A video hearing was arranged for the review application by the Council on 2 May. The appellant attended the hearing. No Council representative attended it.
There is a limited and discretionary power for the adjudicator to re-open an appeal that has been decided in this tribunal.
The application received is in these terms:
"The Council request a review for this appeal.
The adjudicator has allowed the appeal on the basis that the The Wandsworth (Southfields) (Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2002 does not support a restriction at the location. The adjudicator found that the bay markings were sufficient.
The Wandsworth (Southfields) (Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2002 is the original parent order which did not specify this location as it had not yet been implemented. The original parent order was included with the evidence because this Council have previously lost an appeal for not providing the original parent order for reference.
The Council included under Evidence Type B (within parts 3 and 4) the subsequent TMO (2004 No.18 Item 280) introducing this location and the London Tribunals Forms Version 8 amendment TMO (2007 No.57 Item 249) under Evidence Type B (within part 5).
The Council believe that the TMO’s that we supplied support this restriction
and that the contravention occurred."
This was in response to a passage in the decision of the original adjudicator's decision that reads:
"I find that the Authority has not proved that the Traffic Management Order, The Wandsworth (Southfields) (Parking Places) (No. 1) Order 2002, supports a restriction at the location where the Appellant's vehicle was parked in Pulborough Road. The appeal is allowed."
The application today can only qualify for a review if I am persuaded this is in the interests of justice.
These include regard to the character of the allegation and the interests of judicial finality.
Assuming as I am for present purposes the original adjudicator may have made an error of law by misreading or incompletely reading a document before him, that does not in itself provide sufficient ground for re-opening a decided case in this tribunal.
The adjudicator's ruling in this case has no wide general application. It relates to the legal status of a bay in residential street and having regard to the interests of finality and the character and limited scale of the issues I have seen in dispute, I am refusing this application.
The result in short is that the appeal remains allowed and no penalty charge is payable.
-
I've written to the TPT to ask them to add my case to the Traff-iCase website and to change their own website where it talks about statutory time limits.
----------
Hi
My case BG00005-2504 has now been decided by the TPT and, while I don't agree with the outcome, I abide by the rulings and have paid the PCN.
Please can I request that my case be uploaded to the Traff-iCase website as a key case, as I think it is really important that the public are aware of the implications of my case - i.e. that the Statutory Time Limits for service of a PCN or a Notice to Owner are not mandatory and that an authority failing to meet these time limits won't lead to the cancellation of a PCN. All of the information I was able to find suggested that this wasn't the case, so it would be really helpful for this ruling to be publicised so that future visitors to the website are made aware of this.
Also, please can I request that the wording on the Traff-iCase website be updated to remove the time limits for service of a NtO, saying it "may not be served" after 6 months (https://www.keycases.info/legislation-and-regulations/).
It was this information on the Traff-iCase website that led me to feel that I had grounds to submit an appeal to the PCN, and also request a review, but this information is incorrect - a NtO can be served after this date as my ruling states. So I think it would be really helpful if this information is either removed or updated to let the public know that these time limits are just general guidelines and that not meeting them won't actually lead to the PCN or NtO being cancelled. If I had known this beforehand I would not have taken several hours preparing an appeal!
I think publication of my case and updating the information on the Traff-iCase website is really important to clarify the law on parking and also to help the public make a decision on whether to submit an appeal or not.
Many thanks
-
Hard to believe they are saying the law set out by parliament is optional because it had no prejudicial impact and in any case an error in law even if so doesn't matter. This is surely a binary yes/no in a date established by legislation.
The case referred to is nothing like this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MPD7J_bXc-wxUUyfvdoUaaBc67LH-JD1/view
-----------
I would complain to the council CEO and council leader about their unreasonable refusal to use discretion on the car park names and copy it to the local newspaper(s).
-
I initially appealed this PCN because I thought that, through explanation of the facts, the council would see sense and see that we’d paid in good faith.
Everything else since then, including the process with the adjudicators, has left me with a strong feeling of injustice. I’m not allowed to make a mistake when paying but the council are allowed to make mistakes in their process, even when it’s written in law.
Sadly I just have to put this behind me now. Thanks everyone for the advice.
-
I am more and more convinced that the TPT is heavily biased in favour of the councils, and this decision further confirms my view. Just look at their Key Cases; virtually all of them failed appeals.
They say one can go to Judicial Review, knowing this costs thousands for a private citizen.
-
I’m officially at the end of the road. My request for review has been rejected. I don’t actually believe that they read my request properly because once again they’ve made no attempt to discuss statutory time limits. I think this group should take note of this decision and warn people that statutory time limits basically don’t protect anyone any more.
——————-
Here is the rejection:
1. Mr Thompson applies for the review of the appeal decision, dated 24 April 2025, in the interests of justice.
2. The appeal adjudicator’s costs decision will be final unless one of the limited grounds for review set out in paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (the Appeals Regulations) applies. A review application does not entail a fresh reconsideration of the appeal; only a decision whether there is sufficient reason within terms of paragraph 12 for the appeal to be reconsidered.
3. The review application concerns the adjudicator’s decision that the alleged procedural impropriety in the late service of the Notice to Owner identified by Mr Thompson does not invalidate the enforcement process because no real prejudice arose.
4. Mr Thompson does not dispute the appeal adjudicator’s finding of fact that no real prejudice arose from late service of the Notice to Owner by one day.
5. He applies for review on the basis that the adjudicator erred in law in following the decision of the Scottish Court of Session in Glasgow City Council v The Upper Tribunal for Scotland (2025)CIH2 in taking into account whether any procedural unfairness arose as a result of a failure to comply with a requirement of the statutory enforcement scheme in determining whether there had been a procedural impropriety in this case.
6. Mr Thompson distinguishes the Glasgow City Case on the basis that it concerns a Scottish statutory civil enforcement scheme, not the English civil enforcement scheme; and concerns the method of service of the PCN.
7. That the Glasgow case concerns the Scottish statutory civil enforcement scheme and a different procedural issue is acknowledged. Nevertheless, there is recent authority in English case law that there is no procedural impropriety, which is the relevant statutory ground for appeal in this case, where a failure to comply with a requirement of the English statutory civil enforcement scheme causes no prejudice or unfairness - R(Bedi) v Traffic Adjudicator [2022] EWHC 1795 (Admin).
8. I do not, therefore, find any obvious error of law in the appeal adjudicator taking into account the absence of prejudice in this case in relation to service of the Notice to Owner.
9. In any event, even if the appeal adjudicator erred in law in taking into account the absence of prejudice and procedural unfairness in this case, the High Court has held that errors of law do not fall within the scope of the ground for review that “the interests of justice require such a review” ; and that if a party wishes to challenge a decision on the basis that it is wrong in law the correct route is by application for judicial review to the High Court (see R(Transport for London) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) and others [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin)).
10. For these reasons I find that the ground for review that the interests of justice require such a review is not made out in this case.
11. I refuse this review application and the decision remains refused for the reasons given to the parties on 24 April 2025.
-
I think we might be missing an important angle or two here. The Scottish ruling says "Mr Hamilton has lost nothing of significance so far as the statutory regime is concerned" - ie that he was not disadvantaged because the letter was delivered by a different method (or as we would say round here, the issue was de-minimis). This is not the case with statutory time limits on enforcement, the principle of there being statutory limitations on enforcement is not a trivial matter like a choice of postal service, it's one of the pillars on which our justice system is founded.
Secondly, the appellant was blindsided by the adjudicator's novel reasoning. The idea that statutory deadlines might be dismissed in this manner is highly surprising. The tribunal has indicated through the size of it's costs awards what it considers to be a reasonable amount of preparation for an appellant to undertake, and this would clearly not extend to being both cognisant of the Scottish case and sufficiently prepared to present compelling arguments that they were actually disadvantaged in this case. At the very least the interests of justice require appellant should be given time to prepare a rebuttal to a legal argument that they could not have reasonably expected.
-
@H C Andersen
Please can I ask for clarification on this sentence:
“ That decision concerned whether the procedural timeframe was mandatory or directory and, if the latter, whether despite a prima facie breach, the purpose of the provision was affected and the defendant's position jeopardised.”
The Scottish court of session decision didn’t appear to consider the ‘timeframe’ directly, but rather the method of service - therefore is ‘timeframe’ the correct term to use here?
-
@H C Andersen
Thank you for the suggestion on the wording - I appreciate the time that you’ve taken to put this together. It certainly makes the point more succinct and I will definitely base my request for review on it.
I may add a little bit onto it just to request a hearing so I can further explain the other points if necessary, but I think you’ve made the point very clearly and objectively. Thanks
-
IMO, you can shorten further, perhaps as follows:
I note from the adjudicator's decision that they drew upon a Scottish ** Tribunal decision(give the citation). However, I believe that this has been misapplied.
That decision concerned whether the procedural timeframe was mandatory or directory and, if the latter, whether despite a prima facie breach, the purpose of the provision was affected and the defendant's position jeopardised. This was in the context of a wholly civil law case. As you will be aware, the distinction between 'mandatory' and 'directory' provisions is well established in English law and no doubt has been considered regularly by the Tribunal.
In this case, as in every other Tribunal case I have been able to research, when Regulations state that a particular action may not be taken after or before a specified time period, in this case serving a NTO under the Traffic Management Act 2004 beyond 6 months from the 'relevant date', but it would also apply to a response to formal representations( 56 days) or service of a postal PCN(28 days), then failure by the authority to comply is procedurally fatal.
I respectfully submit that this applies in this case and it did not lie with the adjudicator to determine otherwise.
Some thoughts.
-
I have tried to shorten and reword my request for review - here it is:
-----------------
1. I am requesting a review of this case on the grounds of the "interests of justice require a review".
2. I believe that the case ruling which was used in the judgement by the adjudicator has been misinterpreted and incorrectly used in deciding my case. I therefore contend that the adjudicator has erred in law and their decision should be reviewed.
3. The ruling Glasgow City Council v Decision of Upper Tribunal Scotland (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/uikbqxn4/2025csih2-appeal-to-the-court-of-session-by-glasgow-city-council-against-a-decision-of-the-upper-tribunal-for-scotland-dated-14-may-2024.pdf) sought to establish whether a PCN was valid if it was not sent by recorded or registered mail. It found that this ‘technicality’ was a directory rule (i.e. good practice) and not one that was intended to be mandatory (i.e. must be adhered to), and therefore failure to comply would not necessarily be fatal to the enforcement of the penalty charge.
4. The ruling in Scotland also states that previous cases where the authority had made this same mistake previously could not be looked at again because the statutory time limits had been exceeded (see paragraph 3 of the ruling). This indicates that timely service within the statutory time limits is key to the enforceability of a PCN.
5. I believe that the adjudicator has misinterpreted this ruling in deciding my case, as its meaning appears to have been arbitrarily extended by the adjudicator to determine that any and all procedural requirements in the English legislation are merely directory rules that can be ignored without consequence. However, it is very clear that the statutory time limits are mandatory requirements in the legislation. The requirement for prejudice to be demonstrated is only valid where directory rules are not adhered to, it does not need to be demonstrated for mandatory rules.
6. The requirements set out in the English parking legislation have clearly defined mandatory rules for time of service of the NtO, which must be within 6 months of the service of the PCN: "(2) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date". This not only gives a time limit but also a consequence to this time limit not being adhered to – the time limit is 6 months from the date of service of the PCN, the consequence of failing to adhere to this time limit is that the notice to owner may not be served. This is clearly intended to be fatal to the enforcement of the penalty charge. This is not open to interpretation. Indeed, it is backed up by the clear and unambiguous wording in the Statutory Guidance: "The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO". The wording "ultimate time limit" is very clear as to its intentions here. The authority has not provided any reason whatsoever for exceeding the statutory time limit for service of the NtO, in fact they did not even attempt to reference it in their evidence. The tribunal did not appear to consider this point in their decision.
7. If this ruling is used by the tribunal to determine that the statutory time limits in legislation are not mandatory rules that are not binding on authorities, this risks undermining the entire purpose of having statutory time limits set in legislation. It raises the question: at what point does the authority failing to comply with a legally mandated time limit become relevant? 1 day late? 2 days late? 1 week late? 1 month late? 1 year late? At what point does a statutory time limit set out in legislation actually become relevant for the purposes of law? The legal time limits laid out in legislation for the service of a PCN and the service of a NtO are clearly intended as mandatory, "bright-line" requirements with no room for interpretation. If they are not met it is clearly intended that this is fatal to the penalty charge procedure. I do not believe that the adjudicator has the authority to determine where failing to comply with mandatory statutory time limits in the legislation is acceptable or not acceptable. If Parliament had not intended that time limits were absolute requirements for legal compliance, why would they be so clearly laid out in legislation and given clear consequences for failing to meet them? Ignoring the statutory time limits set in legislation and determining them as mere ‘technicalities’ makes a clear and unambiguous legal requirement subject to inconsistency and unfairness.
8. There are multiple time limits laid out in the regulations, on both the authority and the motorist. Are all of these to be considered as null and void? This is clearly not the intention of the legislation. How can there be any possible fairness and consistency if statutory time limits are considered flexible?
9. In my case, the time limit for service of a notice to owner is very clearly written as a mandatory rule in law. This is an absolute time limit for legal compliance and not a technicality such as sending the PCN by normal mail in the case ruling in Scotland. It is both written clearly in the Statutory Instrument and also backed up by the Statutory Guidance. There is no room for interpretation here, or flexibility for the authority to miss these deadlines without consequence. The use of the Scottish ruling as a broad brush to justify any and all non-compliance with legislation on the authority’s part, whether directory or mandatory, is a dangerous precedent which harms motorists and effectively denies one of the statutory grounds of appeal (Procedural impropriety by the authority).
10. I would therefore request that the original adjudicator’s decision be reviewed and overturned, and that the NtO be cancelled for failing to be served within the mandatory statutory time limits.
11. I would like to request a telephone or video hearing as part of this review.
-
@H C Andersen
Thanks for the information. I will try and rewrite to use this info and include the mandatory and directory parts.
I felt that I needed to explain the Scottish decision because it added substance to the case (and also showed that I had read the ruling in detail!). However, I will consider cutting the content out of the Scottish case without reducing the message behind it.
Thanks
-
IMO, your application is too long and seeks to evaluate the reasoning behind the Scottish decision. I wouldn't bother.
This is a case (in the adjudicator's mind) of the distinction between 'mandatory' and 'directory' in law - look them up, there are useful online links especially the Lord Hailsham judgment.
But IMO 'a NTO may not..' is clearly a strict condition, mandatory and failure to comply with such a condition is procedurally fatal.
-
This is so wrong it's absurd. I'd add that if the review is not granted, you ask that the council be directed to accept payment at a 50% discount, since fairness requires that statutory deadlines should be ignored in your favour as well as in theirs.
-
TPT's decision is wrong IMO.
Apply for a review.
Not just wrong, it's off the scale !
-
TPT's decision is wrong IMO.
Apply for a review.
-
A very good point.
-
I have done further research into the case ruling that the TPT have quoted, and have come up with this as an addition to the request for review:
-----------
The court in Scotland did not consider any aspects of legislation governing England when deciding their case. They were only considering Scottish legislation, in particular the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, The Low Emission Zones (Emission Standards, Exemptions and Enforcement (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI No 177) and the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. To quote the judgement:
"The court is not able to identify any bright-line rule to that effect from a reading of the 2019 Act, the 2021 Regulations and the 2010 Act."
This clearly shows that this judgement has not been made based on the current legislation in England - both the Traffic Management Act 2004 and The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (England) Regulations 2022. Therefore the ruling in Scotland should not be assumed to be applicable to English legislation or used as a basis to overrule, ignore or change the statutory time limits set out in English legislation.
To suggest that the findings of the Scottish court should apply to any legislation that it has not considered in the judicial process is a dangerous assumption and risks treating motorists in England and Wales unfairly and incorrectly based on applicable legislation in their region.
-
Your text requesting a review looks good to me, and is the same as my thinking. I think the adjudicator at the TPT is so wrong that I do wonder why he/she is still working at the TPT, as his ruling is a complete disgrace and puts the TPT to shame.
-
Thanks @John U.K. I had assumed “timeous” was legal speak! Will change that.
-
Timeous (I had to look it up!) is Scots for timely. I wouldn't be putting the Adj to the task of looking it up :)
Use timely.
-
Here is the request for review that I have put together. I'd appreciate feedback on this please.
----------------
1. I am requesting a review of this case on the grounds of the "interests of justice require a review".
2. I believe that the case ruling which was used in the judgement by the adjudicator has been misinterpreted and incorrectly used in deciding my case. I therefore contend that the adjudicator has erred in law and their decision should be reviewed.
3. It should be noted that the ruling quoted (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/uikbqxn4/2025csih2-appeal-to-the-court-of-session-by-glasgow-city-council-against-a-decision-of-the-upper-tribunal-for-scotland-dated-14-may-2024.pdf) has only very recently been made, was only binding in Scotland, and did not relate to parking in England which comes under separate legislation (The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022). All references in the ruling are made with regards to traffic offences in Scotland - specifically the contraventions relating to contraventions of a LEZ.
4. The ruling in Scotland was about whether a PCN was valid if it was not sent by recorded or registered mail. The reason for the ruling was to establish whether this technicality proved that the PCN had not been delivered to the motorist within the statutory time limits set in legislation. The case looked to determine whether service of the PCN by a means other than by recorded delivery was a "bright-line" rule - one that is clearly defined and leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. It did not discuss statutory time limits as being a "technicality".
5. The reasoning behind the ruling in Scotland was that it was considered that Parliament had not intended that the PCN should be invalidated by the failure to comply with a technicality in the legislation (i.e. the method of service not being by registered mail). The ruling also discusses how the Council had 'largely' complied with the process, including “timeous” service. It also states that previous cases where the authority had made this same mistake previously could not be looked at again because the statutory time limits had been exceeded (see paragraph 3 of the ruling). This indicates that timeous service within the statutory time limits is key to the enforceability of a PCN.
6. However, I believe that misinterpretation of this ruling has been used to decide my case, as its meaning appears to have been arbitrarily extended by the adjudicator to also cover statutory time limits as well as other technicalities (such as the method of posting of the PCN). The requirements set out in the parking legislation have clearly defined "bright-line" rules for time of service of the NtO, which must be within 6 months of the service of the PCN: "(2) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date". This is not open to interpretation. Indeed they are backed up by the clear and unambiguous wording in the Statutory Guidance "The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO". The wording "ultimate time limit" is very clear as to its intentions here. If the ruling in Scotland is used to effectively overrule this clear and unambiguous legislation it risks attempting to completely circumvent the law, both in terms of time limits for service but also in terms of the statutory rights of appeal.
7. If this ruling is used by the tribunal to justify that the time limits in legislation are not binding on authorities, this risks undermining the entire purpose of having time limits set in legislation. It raises the question: at what point does the authority failing to comply with a legally mandated time limit become relevant? 1 day late? 2 days late? 1 week late? 1 month late? 1 year late? The legal time limits are clearly intended as "bright-line" requirements with no room for interpretation. I do not believe that the adjudicator has the authority to determine where failing to comply with legislation is acceptable and not acceptable where that involves ignoring a statutory time limit. If Parliament had not intended that time limits were absolute requirements for legal compliance, why would they be so clearly laid out in legislation? Ignoring the time limits set in legislation makes a clear and unambiguous legal requirement subject to inconsistency and unfairness.
8. The statutory guidance for parking enforcement clearly states that the expectation is that the authority serves an NtO within 56 days, and that 6 months for issuing a NtO is the “ultimate time limit”, and that the authority should have a “very good reason” for waiting this long to serve a NtO. The authority has not provided any reason whatsoever for exceeding the time limit for service of the NtO. The tribunal did not appear to consider this point in their decision.
9. If we look at the other time limits, such as the 56 days limit for a council to respond to representations, then what would happen if the council responded a day late. Or two? Or three? At what point does a time limit set out in legislation actually become relevant for the purposes of law? There are multiple time limits laid out in the regulations, on both the authority and the motorist. Are all of these to be considered as null and void? How can there be any possible fairness and consistency if time limits are considered flexible?
10. In my case, the time limit for service of a notice to owner are very clearly written in law. This is an absolute time limit for legal compliance and not a technicality such as sending the PCN by normal mail in the case ruling in Scotland. It is both written clearly in the Statutory Instrument and also backed up by the Statutory Guidance. There is no room for interpretation here, or flexibility for the authority to miss these deadlines without consequence. The use of the Scottish ruling to justify any and all non-compliance with legislation on the authority’s part is a dangerous precedent which harms motorists and effectively denies one of the statutory grounds of appeal (Procedural impropriety by the authority).
11. If time limits clearly written in legislation are unenforceable, as this tribunal decision suggests, then effectively all time limits stated in legislation are null and void, including those which apply to the motorist.
12. The prejudice against me in this case is that allowing the authority to miss legal deadlines denies me the right to be treated consistently and fairly according to legislation, and in a timeous manner, and effectively denies my right to appeal under one of the statutory grounds.
13. I would like to request a video hearing as part of this review.
-
Here is the ruling for reference:
https://www.keycases.info/glasgow-city-council-appellant-v-decision-of-upper-tribunal-for-scotland/
-
@Incandescent
The issue was that the council served the NtO outside the statutory time limit of 6 months, rather than rejecting representations outside of the 56 day limit.
However, I think that I will put together a request for a review because this potentially opens up a whole can of worms about time limits when it comes to PCNs.
-
Scottish parking legislation is the original 1991 Act, whereas England (& Wales) is the Traffic Mananagement Act 2004 which introduced the statutory grounds of "procedural impropriety" . By serving a rejection to formal representations against a Notice to Owner outside the 56 day statutory limit, the council have committed a procedural impropriety, so it would seem the adjudicator has erred in law, so a request for a review is essential.
God knows where TPT are getting their adudicators from ! Maybe they employ only those with 3rd class degrees in law to cut the cost. A 3rd class degree basically means, "if we had done our duty we would have failed you".
-
Worryingly, the case ruling in Scotland that the adjudicator refers to appears to suggest that authorities can make procedural irregularities without it affecting the validity of the PCN.
That ruling is based on a driver who appealed on the basis that their PCN was sent by normal mail rather than recorded delivery, but it seems the court may have made a much bigger general ruling which effectively states that the authority’s failure to comply with legislation doesn’t matter as long as they’ve mostly done it right.
-
You can ask for a review - one of the grounds is:
The interests of justice require the review.
https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/after-the-adjudicators-decision/
I think the car park name issue also went beyond mitigation but the 6 month is surely a binary decision based on the legislation.
-
So it appears that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal believe that having a 6 months time limit in legislation for the service of the NtO is not relevant and that I had to demonstrate "prejudice" in order for it to be a factor. It doesn't say this in legislation but apparently that is irrelevant too.
I'm flabbergasted actually - I assume this means that councils can basically ignore every other time limit written in legislation? Such as the 56 days to respond to representations?
Well, I wish I'd just paid £25 now at the time if I knew this process was so skewed - I wouldn't have wasted countless hours of my life and an additional £25 if I knew that I'd actually come of the other end of it feeling even more unjustly treated.
Thanks everyone on here who gave advice, but just a warning to anyone reading this and considering an appeal based on time limits - it appears that councils can do whatever they like and the tribunal won't overturn it.
-
UPDATE - Appeal rejected by Traffic Penalty Tribunal.
1. Mr TXXX submitted that the Council served the Notice to Owner too late and not in accordance with the time limits stated in the Regulations.
2. The Penalty Charge Notice was issued on 10 September 2024.The Notice to Owner was served on 11 March 2025.
3. He contends that the Council did not give adequate consideration to representations and did not have an up-to-date policy to deal with matters arising from payment by phone.
4. The driver did not have their reading glasses when paying. The RingGo app selected ‘Castons Cark Park’ instead of Castons Yard Car Park’.
5. According to https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/20
‘Notice to owner
20.—(1) Where—
(a)a penalty charge notice has been given with respect to a vehicle under regulation 9, and
(b)the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired without that charge being paid,
the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (a “notice to owner”) on the person who appears to it to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.
(2) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date…….
(4)For the purposes of this regulation, the relevant date—
(d)in any other case, is the date on which the relevant penalty charge notice was served under regulation 9.’
6. The case concerns a Regulation 9 penalty charge notice, issued and served on 10 September 2024.
7. The Notice to Owner was issued on Friday 7 March 2025.
8. Mr Thompson identifies no prejudice caused to him by the deemed service date being 1 day late.
9. Glasgow City Council v Decision of Upper Tribunal Scotland https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/livestream/court-of-session/case-xa38-24/ underlines that a failure to follow regulations or a procedural irregularity that causes no prejudice is not fatal to the enforcement of the penalty charge notice.
10. No real prejudice arose. Accordingly, any lateness of service by 1 day does not invalidate the enforcement process as a whole.
11.The Council adequately considered the pre-appeal representations including the mitigation in accordance with its discretionary policy. For instance, its Rejection of the informal representations stated:
‘We have checked our cashless payment system, which allows us to search for all the payments made by motorists. We can see that there is a record of a payment matching your details ….. covering the time of the contravention.
However the location which you have selected is incorrect (1908). The correct location where your vehicle was observed is 1914. It is the driver's responsibility to ensure that payment is made for the correct, date, time and location.
Instructions signposted where you parked, explain how the system works and gives the location details which you need to select when making payment. You may now pay the reduced penalty charge of £25.00, which will be accepted as settlement providing payment is received by the council within 14 days of the date of this letter. After this period, the reduced payment will no longer be available and the full penalty charge of £50.00 will be payable.’
12. The Civil Enforcement Officer’s notes and photographs establish that the vehicle was parked in the adequately signed Castons Yard Car Park without payment made for this location.
13. The matters raised by the Appellant are noted but these are mitigating circumstances that do not amount to a statutory ground of appeal. The Adjudicators have no power to take such mitigation into account.
14. I find that the Council has established that the vehicle was parked as alleged in the Penalty Charge Notice. The penalty charge remains payable to the Council.
-
As an update to this, I have today appealed to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. I will update you on the outcome. Here is the text of my appeal:
--------
I would like to appeal the PCN BG02146886 on the grounds that the enforcement authority (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council (BDBC)) have made procedural errors:
1) BDBC failed to comply with the legal requirements for service of the Notice to Owner.
The Notice to Owner was served over 6 months after the date of issue of the PCN. This is in contravention of both “The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 – PART 5” and “Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions”.
The PCN was issued on 10th September 2024, the Notice to Owner was served on 11th March 2025 (6 months and 1 day later).
Please see the attached evidence, which includes a timeline of the relevant dates from issue of PCN onwards.
As this requirement is very clearly set out in legislation, I believe that this should be sufficient reason to cancel the PCN and NtO on its own.
2) BDBC have not acted fairly and reasonably in consideration of the informal and formal challenges submitted to them, and do not have any up-to-date policies which enable them to exercise discretion for users of pay-by-phone apps.
The case in question was a case of a minor keying error on the RingGo phone app, where the device geolocation had preselected an adjacent car park with a very similar name (please see Formal Representations letter for details). The driver did not have their reading glasses with them at the time and had acted in good faith to make a payment for 2 hours parking, but did not realise that the app had pre-selected “Castons Car Park” instead of “Castons Yard Car Park”. The parking charges are the same for both car parks and no revenue was lost by the council and payment had been made in good faith.
The council’s unwillingness to exercise discretion in this case, when they have admitted that they have received payment through their cashless payment system covering the date and time of the contravention, and considering the similar name and location of the car parks, is inconsistent with the Statutory Guidance which states “An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any point throughout the process. It can do this even when an undoubted contravention has occurred” (extracts attached). The fact that the Notice of Rejection of Representations states that "As this is a driver error, I regret that the charge must stand" suggests that the parking officer would have liked to cancel the PCN but were not sufficiently aware of their ability to use discretion as laid out in the statutory guidance.
The guidance also states that the authority should "approach the exercise of discretion objectively and without regard to any financial interest in the penalty" - which raises the question why BDBC still wish to enforce the PCN when they have already received the correct payment and understand that it was only a minor error in the payment process.
BDBC also far exceeded the statutory guidance to respond to the first informal challenge “with care and attention and in a timely manner” – the Secretary of State recommends 14 days, whereas BDBC took over 4 months. Even then the letter was sent with the phrase “We can see that there is a record of a payment matching your details on DATE, covering the time of the contravention”, indicating that little care or attention had been taken in the writing of the letter (even though it took 4 months to send!). In the Notice of Rejection of Representations it also says “We have considered your representations about the penalty charge issues on the &DOFFC”, which further indicates that BDBC have not taken the care and attention that they should in dealing with any of this matter.
BDBC do not have an up-to-date policy for dealing with parking enforcement, which has not been updated since 2017. This means that there is no guidance on how discretion should be handled by their parking officers with regards to using pay-by-phone apps. Therefore it is not possible for BDBC to demonstrate that they are dealing with cases such as this in a fair and consistent manner.
Summary
I believe that BDBC have have not complied with relevant legislation and have acted unfairly and unreasonably throughout this process.
As their opinion appears to be that no discretion can be made for a minor error, I do not believe that they should have any discretion applied to their own errors. Therefore I request that the PCN and NtO are cancelled.
-
Can I raise the fact that the NtO was delivered to me 6 months and 1 day after the PCN was issued as part of the tribunal appeal, or can I only appeal based on what I put in my representations?
At adjudication you fire off all your ammunition ! As a private citizen, not expected to be up-to-speed on the minutaie of the parking regulations, you unfortunately did not make this point in your reps against the NtO, but it doesn't matter. As HCA has said, issuing the NtO after 6 month is a clear, unequivocal, and undeniable procedural impropriety that is sure to get the PCN cancelled by the adjudicators.
Basingtoke have acted quite disgracefully throughout. Their response to your informal challenge took them 3 months to send to you, and then they compound this tardiness with sending the NtO outside the legal limit of six months. Councils are under a legal duty to act promptly and fairly.
This is what the Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions 2022 says on the NtO: -
The NtO may be issued 28 days after serving the penalty charge, and we expect authorities to send them within 56 days. The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO. The regulations set out the information that the NtO must give.
This is law in this set of regulations, (Regulation 20)
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/regulation/20/made
-
Notice of Rejection of Representations (not all pages included)
(https://i.imgur.com/zmK0cGR.png?1)
(https://i.imgur.com/M3dWAXU.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/WplGJjK.jpg)
-
Notice to Owner (not all pages included)
(https://i.imgur.com/h8ZPAte.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/cVIsQmO.jpg)
-
Unfortunately I never saw the latest reply on this case by H C Andersen, and so I had already submitted representations.
Today I have received a rejection of representations letter which says that as it is a driver error, the charge must stand. I will try to upload pictures of the letters soon.
I'm honestly surprised at how completely unreasonable they are being about this, and I will take this to the tribunal.
Can I raise the fact that the NtO was delivered to me 6 months and 1 day after the PCN was issued as part of the tribunal appeal, or can I only appeal based on what I put in my representations?
-
Don't send anything.
Confirm the sequence of events and correspondence pl.
Challenge - Sept. 2024
Their response: Jan. 2025
NTO dated 7 March.
Date of contravention: 10 Sept. 2024.
Date of service of NTO: 11 March 2025.
The regs:
Notice to owner
20.—(1) Where—
(a)a penalty charge notice has been given with respect to a vehicle under regulation 9, and
(b)the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired without that charge being paid,
the enforcement authority concerned may serve a notice (a “notice to owner”) on the person who appears to it to have been the owner of the vehicle when the alleged contravention occurred.
(2) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date.
....
(4) For the purposes of this regulation, the relevant date—
.....
(d)in any other case, is the date on which the relevant penalty charge notice was served under regulation 9.
10 Sept. to 11 March is 6 months and 1 day.
The NTO is void and you owe nothing IMO.......
-
Yes you've gone to town on that with the proverbial kitchen sink.
RingGo has a second cap G.
Maybe say hadn't got their reading glasses.
Can't see the relevance of running late - why wouldn't you use RingGo.
-
Looks OK to me.
-
Hi everyone,
I've now received the NtO in the above case, and have drafted a formal appeal letter. I would be grateful if someone would review and offer any advice on whether I've covered everything I need to.
Thanks!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This council's policy is too old to reference pay by phone stuff but I would go on with this as if they use very similar names and these apps often geolocate the wrong nearby code this will probably go beyond mitigation for an adjudicator.
It's also petty and I would ask them if they think this meets government guidance to act fairly (and where there has been no loss to them).
+1
More than just guidance, I think; more a duty as a public body given penal powers by Parliament.
-
This council's policy is too old to reference pay by phone stuff but I would go on with this as if they use very similar names and these apps often geolocate the wrong nearby code this will probably go beyond mitigation for an adjudicator.
It's also petty and I would ask them if they think this meets government guidance to act fairly (and where there has been no loss to them).
-
Thanks for uploading the pictures John - I was struggling with that!
I will try and get hold of the challenge that my wife submitted - as I mentioned she did it online and so I haven't seen it. I have asked her to check her emails to see if they sent an acknowledgement email with the text of her challenge. I will post here if she finds it.
-
Please also post a copy of your challenge.
For convenience:
(https://i.imgur.com/Q68DiDK.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NuhI3gv.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/OCxzgso.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/mYahcYV.jpeg)
-
Hello, thanks in advance for any advice support.
On 10th Sept 2024, my wife parked in a council-run car park in Basingstoke town centre. She was running late for a meeting and so used the Ringgo app to purchase 2 hours of parking (£2.30 plus £0.20 Ringgo fee) as she was walking to the meeting. On her return to the car (within the 2 hours she paid for) she found a PCN on her windscreen. She assumed that this was a mistake as she had paid, so when she got home she followed the instructions on the PCN to challenge it online. She stated that she had paid for the parking on Ringgo and that she had receipts. I don't know whether she sent copies of the receipts as I don't have a record of her challenge as it was online.
Last week she received a response to her challenge (which we naively thought would be a letter to say that the PCN had been cancelled!). It stated that there were no grounds for the cancellation of the PCN. The reason given was that they could see on their cashless payment system that a payment matching her details and corresponding to the date and time of the contravention had been received, but the incorrect car park had been selected. My wife parked in Castons Yard Car Park (1914) but accidentally paid for parking in Castons Car Park (1908), which was the pre-selected option in the Ringgo app. This was the first time she realised that she had made a mistake with the payment.
Castons Yard Car Park and Castons Car Park are on opposite sides of the same road, approximately 30 metres apart. The parking rates are the same (although Castons Yard actually has a 1 hour free parking option which Castons Car Park does not). She parks in Castons Yard regularly and has never done this before, but on the day in question she just saw the word "Castons" and the familiar price for parking and paid on the app.
We were extremely surprised that the council could see that parking had been paid for but still rejected the claim, simply for selecting the wrong car park with a very similar name and the same charges, especially when the council had not lost any revenue from this mistake.
Therefore, please can someone help me with the next steps of formally appealing this PCN?
1) Do we have much of a case or should we just give in and begrudgingly pay up in order to prevent the PCN going from £25 to £50?
2) Do we have to wait for the NTO to arrive before we appeal, or can we just contact the council now?
3) Please can someone help with any key wording that should appear in the appeal?
I've tried to attach relevant images below. Hopefully that works OK.
https://imgur.com/a/PXrbKdN
[attachment deleted by admin]