Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Moaya on February 26, 2025, 03:52:59 pm
-
https://imgpile.com/p/JcNeBQm
Request for review refused.
Mr Anthony Chan acknowledges wrong legislation was cited by the adjudicator but then appears to proceed to review the case himself. Looks like it's end of the road now but interested to see what you guys think.
-
thanks Incandescent for picking up on that, I have amended.
tincombe I have reread and (in my lay opinion) find points 1 and 2 concern error in law. I think points 3 and 4 also touch on error in law but open to interpretation, and point 5 will omit.
Where you thinking only to keep it simple and put forward point 1?
-
The 2007 General Regulations were replaced by new ones in 2022, as were those for appealing.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/contents/made
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/contents
-
Pl re-read in this context:
..A review is NOT simply an opportunity for you to appeal again. You will not be granted a review just because you disagree with the adjudicator's decision.
IMO, you are straying into simply disagreeing with aspects of the adjudicator's decision. Stick to the issue of the adjudicator applying, and therefore misapplying, the law by virtue of using the incorrect legal tests etc. Don't give the reviewing adjudicator a simple opportunity to dismiss.
The 24/25 stats for ETA show that 409 out of 564 applications for review from appellants were unsuccessful and even of those that were 93 out of 154 were unsuccessful.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ETA%20Annual%20Parking%20Stats%202024-25%20final%20%28PWS%20version%29.xlsx
IMO, an application needs to be totally focussed and fall wholly within the grounds.
-
Thanks for your feedback tincombe.
I have drafted the following letter for review, what do you guys think?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to request a review of my decision as there an error in law made by the adjudicator as set out below.
1. Error of Law: The Adjudicator Applied the Wrong Legislation
My PCN was issued on street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, affixed to the vehicle. Such PCNs are governed by the Traffic Management Act 2004. However, the adjudicator analysed the case using, section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and incorrectly referred to this as a regulation. This Act applies only to postal PCNs issued by CCTV, not to on street PCNs. Applying the wrong legislation is a legal error and renders the decision flawed.
2. Error of Law: Failure to Apply the Correct TMA 2004 Requirements
Under the 2007 General Regulations, a PCN must state “the grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the penalty charge is payable.” The adjudicator did not apply this test. Instead, they applied a “subjective” test and relied on the CEO Handbook, neither of which form part of the TMA 2004 statutory framework.
3. Error of Law: Mischaracterising Statutory Grounds as “Mitigation”. The adjudicator stated “The matters raised amount to mitigating circumstances.” This is incorrect because I raised the following points, incorrect contravention, failure to consider representation, procedural impropriety. These are statutory grounds, not mitigation.
4. Procedural Impropriety: Failure to Consider Representations Under The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. The adjudicator held that the enforcement authority was not required to consider case law because it is not “supporting evidence”. This is a misunderstanding of the mentioned Regulation, which requires the authority to consider “the representations and any supporting evidence.” “Representations” include legal arguments, including references to tribunal decisions. In my representations I cited, Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (TPT) which concerned the use of an incorrect contravention code where phone or text payment is available. The adjudicator dismissed this case without addressing their reasoning. This is a failure to consider a material matter and the authority’s failure to consider the legal argument is itself a procedural impropriety. The adjudicator’s reasoning on this point is legally incorrect.
5. The Contravention Alleged Was Not Legally Capable of Occurring. The bay permitted payment by, phone, text and pay and display. Where payment can be made without displaying anything, alleging “parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and display ticket or voucher” (Code 06) is not a legally accurate ground. A motorist who pays by phone is not required to display anything. Therefore, the alleged contravention cannot occur, and the PCN does not satisfy Regulations and was not addressed by the adjudicator.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the decision be reviewed and set aside.
-
IMO, given that 'Regulation 4(8)(a)(i) of The London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003' is not a regulation, applied only to postal PCNs and for your contravention has in any event been repealed(the relevant legislation is the TMA which is stated clearly on the PCN) then this would suggest that the decision was 'plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator.' and that a review should be allowed!
-
I've been looking on the tribunal website about to ask for a review. Looks you can only request one based on certain conditions below. Can anyone advise if I have any grounds?
A review may only be granted in the following limited cases:
The decision was wrongly made because of an error by our administrative staff;
You failed to appear or be represented at a hearing for some good reason;
There is new evidence and the existence of this could not have been reasonably known of or foreseen before the decision;
The interests of justice require a review. You should note that an adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for review.
An adjudicator may also, on the application of a party, review and revoke or vary any interlocutory decision. For example. The adjudicator’s decision not to grant an extension of the period of time for bringing an appeal.
Please note that a review will only be granted if an adjudicator is satisfied that one or more of these applies. A review is not simply an opportunity for you to appeal again. You cannot ask for a review just because you disagree with the adjudicator's decision.
-
Is there anyway to get a tribunal decision reviewed? Or is this pretty much end of the road.
You can request one within two weeks after the decision.
-
Is there anyway to get a tribunal decision reviewed? Or is this pretty much end of the road.
-
Hi guys, had my hearing at 17:00 yesterday over teams, EA were not represented. It was a bit daunting. Adjudicator had not looked at the cases I had presented so told me will not make a decision on the call. Didn't seem convinced from the get go about the contravention code number and wording plus on the failure to consider argument as well. Just received the decision that appeal has been denied. I will paste the full decision below. She mentions mitigation which I had never argued so not sure what that was about. A bit disappointed all in all.
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and quality purposes
Adjudicator's Reasons
1. This is an appeal by Mr Abdul-Razzak (the Appellant) against a penalty charge notice (PCN)
issued by the Enforcement Authority (EA) for parking without clearly displaying a valid pay
and display ticket or voucher.
2. The appeal has been at a video hearing at which only the Appellant was in attendance.
3. The EA's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in Kingsbury Road in a pay and
display bay where parking is restricted Monday to Saturday between 08:00 and 18:30 hours
on 15 February 2025 at 12:20 hours. The EA has provided photographic evidence of vehicle
registration mark (VRM) KS15 FKU at the location of the contravention. They state that there
was signage to indicate the parking restrictions.
4. In response to the Appellant's representations, the EA states that whilst payment of the
parking charge could also have been made by telephone, no payment was made by phone or
text for the period of the alleged contravention for the vehicle in question. They also assert
that it is usual for contravention code 06 to be used where there is an option to use a pay and
display option and that contravention code 11 is usually only used where there is no element
to pay for parking at a pay and display machine and they are therefore satisfied the PCN is
compliant.
5. The Appellant's case is that there was no contravention because the incorrect contravention
code has been used. They state that as there was an option to pay for the parking charge by
telephone or text, the EA has denied them the defence of having purchased a parking charge
by phone or text.
6. The Appellant does not dispute that they were parked at the location recorded in the PCN
without payment of the parking charge.
7. The Appellant further states that the EA did not fully consider their representations in the
Notice of Rejection by not responding to the Appellant's representations that a precedent was
set in the case of Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (TPT) (PL00004-2401, 12 March
2024) and further relies upon a decision of this tribunal (case reference 2210280742) in which
they assert the adjudicator found that the failure by the EA to consider the representations of
the Appellant in that case, to be a procedural impropriety.
8. I am satisfied from the evidence that the contravention did occur. I have seen photographs of
VRM KS15 FKU parked at the location specified in the PCN. I am satisfied that there was
clear signage indicating that these were parking bays which required payment of a parking
charge between 8:00am and 6:30pm Mondays to Saturdays. The signage indicates that
payment can be made by telephone, text or pay and display.
9. Whilst not law, I note that contravention code 6 is described in The Civil Enforcement Officer's
Handbook as being suitable for a contravention where 'a vehicle waits in a pay and display
bay during controlled hours and a valid voucher or ticket has not been clearly displayed' and
contravention code 11 (which the Appellant asserts should have been used) 'where a vehicle
parks in a bay during controlled hours and fails to pay the parking charge (usually by mobile
phone)'. In this instance, I find that contravention code 6 used by the Civil Enforcement
Officer is compliant with the requirements of Regulation 4(8)(a)(i) of The London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 in that it states the grounds on which the EA
believes that the penalty charge is payable. I find that subjectively, a recipient of the PCN to
which this appeal refers, would have had a good understanding of the contravention to which
it relates, and that by using contravention code 6 and not contravention code 11, the
Appellant has not been denied a defence if that had of paid the parking charge by telephone
or text.
10. I am not bound by the decision of other adjudicators in this tribunal or those of the Traffic
Parking Tribunal. I find that the requirement under Regulation 6 (4)(a) of The Civil
Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
2007 is that the EA is to 'consider the representations and any supporting evidence which the
recipient provides'. I find that the Notice of Rejection dated 20 August 2025 states that the EA
has given the Appellant's representations full consideration. Whilst the EA does state in their
Notice of Rejection that they have been unable to locate the Traffic Parking Tribunal case to
which the Appellant referred in their representations, I do not find, in any event, that this is
'supporting evidence' to which the EA are obliged to give consideration. Evidence governs the
proof of facts, the case law which the Appellant argues was not considered by the EA, is the
Appellant's assertion that a legal precedent has been set, it is not in support of a proof of fact.
I do not therefore find that there has been any procedural impropriety on the part of the EA.
11. The matters raised by the Appellant amount to mitigating circumstances which have alread been considered by the EA. I find that no grounds of appeal or exemptions have been met.
An Adjudicator has no power to consider mitigation as decided by the Court of Appeal in
Walmsley v Transport for London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540.
12. I therefore refuse the appeal and find that the penalty charge is payable.
<ol></ol>
Louise Fisher
Adjudicator
12th February 2026
2250476433
BT24415109
-
Do I need to send the new defence to them before the hearing?
Yes. I think it needs to be in 3 days before.
-
Do I need to send the new defence to them before the hearing?
-
Looks OK. Your original reps will probably be included in the council evidence pack. Good luck with the adjudication.
-
can someone please give me feedback on the above, many thanks.
-
Please see below my new draft and kindly give me any feedback. Do I need to send this to the council or tribunal before the hearing?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I make representations on the following grounds the contravention did not occur and there has been a Procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcment Authority.
1. The contravention did not occur. As the authority will see from their evidence (the CEO's photos) the restriction in effect is given in the traffic sign which states: Pay by phone or Text or Pay at the machine and display ticket. Clearly, displaying a ticket is an optional matter for a motorist and therefore the contravention grounds of 'Parked without displaying a ...ticket or voucher' cannot be correct or even permissible contravention grounds because, among other matters, they deny the owner the defence of having purchased parking rights By Phone or Text. Contravention grounds must be correct and comprehensive in order to alert an owner to their possible applicable defences. If the authority believes that use of these grounds where payment By Phone or by Text or by purchasing and displaying a ticket are valid then they must explain the legal basis for this assertion when London Councils' Schedule of Contravention Descriptions already lists the correct grounds i.e. Parked
without payment of the parking charge. I would also like to draw your attention to a precedent in the following case of Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (PL00004-2401, 12 March 2024) which was argued on similar grounds and the adjudicator concluded the contravention did not occur. The council has indicated that case is irrelevant as there is no evidence of payment in my case. However one wonders if they have read the judgment in full which stated in point 15 that " the contravention alleged in the PCN did not occur because there was no requirement to, and it was not possible to, display a valid virtual pay & display ticket, even if Mr Russo had obtained one. "
2. Procedural impropriety. By the councils own admission in the Notice of Rejection they did not consider the Lydia Russo vs Plymouth case cited above as they were unable to access it which I find hard to believe as I was able to locate it a normal member of the public. I believe the council did not consider the evidence put forth to them as required by regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 which makes clear an Appellant is entitled to have the points they raise properly considered by the Enforcement Authority. I would like to refer to previous hearing number 2210280742 in which the adjudicator stated the following " In my judgment an Appellant is entitled to have the points they raise properly considered by the Enforcement Authority pursuant to its duty under regulation 5(2)(b). On this occasion the authority has failed to do this. "
Kind Regards,
-
You can either just say "I rely on my formal representations to the council", or you prepare new reps with our help based on your original reps.
-
Not familiar with parking and traffic law is an understatement. No I did not use AI to generate the letter.
In the councils notice of rejection they indicated they did not consider Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (PL00004-2401, 12 March 2024) with this statement" Furthermore, we note your reference a Traffic Parking Tribunal (TPT) case, but we are unable to view this on the TPT website. " . Is this not another point of appeal? Strangely they were able to find this case with no problem in the evidence pack they sent.
My intention was to find a case in which a case was thrown out due to the council not considering the evidence put forth to them. In my ignorance I used the legislation for moving contraventions as opposed to parking. I believe the relevant regulations I should have used to put my point across was, regulation 5(2)(b) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 which makes clear an Appellant is entitled to have the points they raise properly considered by the Enforcement Authority. I hope I am on the right track with this now.
Also in their statement they claim the Russo vs Plymouth City Council case is irrelevant to my own as in that case a payment was actually made and in my case no payment was ever made?
Do I need to submit anything to the tribunal before the hearing?
Appreciate all your feedback.
-
You wrote this in your original representations:-
Therefor as in the case of Ivan Bachkov v London Borough of Newham (2250079444, 20 June 2025) they have failed to consider all the evidence provided with the representations, so there has been substantial non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Clearly you never bothered to look at the top of your PCN/NtO where it clearly states the legislation under which the PCN was served, namely the Traffic Management Act 2004, so this clause of your reps needs removing. These things are important, because it shows you were not diligent enough in submitting your original reps. OK, you're not familiar with parking and traffic law and we understand this. Do you prepare the original reps using AI apps ?
-
Can anyone offer any guidance on my case please, it is on the 12th of February.
Many thanks in advance.
-
Ok thanks, I have attached the documents.
https://imgpile.com/p/zedQBMS
-
In the Evidence Pack there should be
a 2-3 page document saying why they think the appeal should be dismissed,
and
a list of contents.
Post these here and the experts here will let you know if they need to see anything else.
EDIT
https://imgur.com/a/tJSBX67
Imgur cannot be seen in the UK - please use
ibb.co (https://imgbb.com/) or https://imgpile.com/
for posting images.
Wherever possible, use the BBCode.)
-
Hello All,
I have received the evidence pack from the council. My tribunal hearing is on the 12th of February.
Can anyone advise on the next steps and what to expect?
Thanks.
-
Good Morning,
I have received a date for the hearing. This would be my first, so I would appreciate any advice on what to expect and what I need to prepare.
https://imgur.com/a/tJSBX67
Thanks
-
It looks like they have just got in before the 56 day limit.
I will send my appeal as below unless you good folk advise otherwise. Many thanks.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I make representations on the following grounds: The contravention did not occur. As the authority will see from their evidence (the CEO's photos) the restriction in effect is given in the traffic sign which states: Pay by phone or Text or Pay at the machine and display ticket. Clearly, displaying a ticket is an optional matter for a motorist and therefore the contravention grounds of 'Parked without displaying a ...ticket or voucher' cannot be correct or even permissible contravention grounds because, among other matters, they deny the owner the defence of having purchased parking rights By Phone or Text. Contravention grounds must be correct and comprehensive in order to alert an owner to their possible applicable defences. If the authority believes that use of these grounds where payment By Phone or by Text or by purchasing and displaying a ticket are valid then they must explain the legal basis for this assertion when London Councils' Schedule of Contravention Descriptions already lists the correct grounds i.e. Parked without payment of the parking charge. I would also like to draw your attention to the following case Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (PL00004-2401, 12 March 2024) which was argued on similar grounds and the adjudicator concluded the contravention did not occur.
In addition, by the councils own admission they did not consider the Lydia Russo vs Plymouth case cited above. Therefor as in the case of Ivan Bachkov v London Borough of Newham (2250079444, 20 June 2025) they have failed to consider all the evidence provided with the representations, so there has been substantial non-compliance with the requirements of paragraph 1(7) of Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Kind Regards,
-
Any further advice would be appreciated, can I tell them I've only just received it?
-
Sent the reps on 26th of June
-
Sorry I have been away for work and was just sent this by someone checking my post. That's why I asked them to send me the response by email.
Shall I make any changes to my original challenge? Is it possible to submit electronically?
-
I have been abroad for work. I specifically asked them to email me the response which they completely ignored.
Shall I submit what I have already sent with no changes?
-
What date did you send reps. Looks like they've just scraped in the 56 day limit.
-
No surprise...other than J Warr is given such authority.
Sorry OP, but what are you doing! NOR dated 20 AUGUST which you post now. Can you explain pl.
You have until THURS 18th to register your appeal.
Contravention did not occur;
Procedural impropriety.
-
Hi All,
Please see the notice of rejection.
Thanks.
https://imgur.com/a/FIUJRz2
FYI this was my challenge:
Dear Sir/Madam, I make representations on the following grounds: The contravention did not occur. As the authority will see from their evidence (the CEO's photos) the restriction in effect is given in the traffic sign which states: Pay by phone or Text or Pay at the machine and display ticket. Clearly, displaying a ticket is an optional matter for a motorist and therefore the contravention grounds of 'Parked without displaying a ..ticket or voucher' cannot be correct or even permissible contravention grounds because, among other matters, they deny the owner the defence of having purchased parking rights By Phone or Text. Contravention grounds must be correct and comprehensive in order to alert an owner to their possible applicable defences. If the authority believes that use of these grounds where payment By Phone or by Text or by purchasing and displaying a ticket are valid then they must explain the legal basis for this assertion when London Councils' Schedule of Contravention Descriptions already lists the correct grounds i.e. Parked without payment of the parking charge. I would also like to draw your attention to the following Traffic Penalty Tribunal case PL00004-2401 which was argued on similar grounds and the adjudicator concluded the contravention did not occur. Please respond via email as I have been having problem with post deliveries recently. Kind regards.
-
There's nothing wrong with your original reps, so send them in again. The correct contravention would have been 'parked without payment' but they can only serve one PCN, and if they get it wrong, that's their bad luck.
-
Can anyone please advise on what to do next?
-
https://imgur.com/a/Y2VFzUF
Hi,
I have received notice to owner. Shall I reply with the same response as I did with my initial challenge? Apologies I only have the front page I took a picture of it initially and now I have misplaced the letter.
Thanks
-
Sorry I meant with regards to the discounted penalty. Yes I am the registered keeper.
-
You are not asked for a reply. You either pay or wait for a NTO to be issued to the registered keeper.
Their argument is tosh, but what did you expect, their misunderstanding is systemic.
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
-
Any advice would be appreciated, I need to reply today. I am thinking to go ahead and appeal. Should I include examples of precedents such as Russo vs Plymouth?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WW83Desv43qE8aviq2wez1KRsivNCqME/view
Thanks.
-
This was my initial representation:
Dear Sir, I make representations on the following grounds: The contravention did not occur. As the authority will see from their evidence (the CEO's photos) the restriction in effect is given in the traffic sign which states: Pay by phone or Text or Pay at the machine and display ticket. Clearly, displaying a ticket is an optional matter for a motorist and therefore the contravention grounds of 'Parked without displaying a ..ticket or voucher' cannot be correct or even permissible contravention grounds because, among other matters, they deny the owner the defence of having purchased parking rights By Phone or Text. Contravention grounds must be correct and comprehensive in order to alert an owner to their possible applicable defences. If the authority believes that use of these grounds where payment By Phone or by Text or by purchasing and displaying a ticket are valid then they must explain the legal basis for this assertion when London Councils' Schedule of Contravention Descriptions already lists the correct grounds i.e. Parked without payment of the parking charge. Please respond via email as I have been having problem with post deliveries recently. Kind regards
-
Hi guys,
Please see the reply from the council and advise further.
https://imgur.com/a/OvU109O
Many thanks.
-
Send in reps today. Unsuccessful reps submitted within the 14-day discount would attract a further 14 days to pay the discount once you receive their response.
It is a no-risk move to submit reps today online as instructed in the PCN.
Dear Sir,
***all the PCN and VRM preamble...
I make representations on the following grounds:
The contravention did not occur.
As the authority will see from their evidence (the CEO's photos) the restriction in effect is given in the traffic sign which states:
Pay by phone
or Text
or Pay at the machine and display ticket.
Clearly, displaying a ticket is an optional matter for a motorist and therefore the contravention grounds of 'Parked without displaying a ..ticket or voucher' cannot be correct or even permissible contravention grounds because, among other matters, they deny the owner the defence of having purchased parking rights By Phone or Text.
Contravention grounds must be correct and comprehensive in order to alert an owner to their possible applicable defences.
If the authority believes that use of these grounds where payment By Phone or by Text or by purchasing and displaying a ticket are valid then they must explain the legal basis for this assertion when London Councils' Schedule of Contravention Descriptions already lists the correct grounds i.e. Parked without payment of the parking charge.
Wait for others but don't miss the deadline of today.
-
Any further input from anyone will be greatly appreciated.
I think I have by end of today to pay the discounted charge.
Thanks in advance.
-
Thank you for your reply.
What contravention ground do you think would have been more appropriate?
I will wait on others to reply.
-
Appears to be the wrong contravention grounds.
GSV shows a traffic sign requiring either that a ticket is purchased and displayed OR that the motorist pay by phone. A CEO would be required to check the car for a P&D ticket and their HHC for any payments by phone/text and if neither then issue a PCN for failure to pay the parking charge, not non-display....how can not displaying be a contravention in itself if it is only an option?
Wait for others.
-
Hi Guys,
I received a PCN for failing to display a ticket. I just had a moment and forgot to pay whilst rushing to an appointment. I know its a long shot but are there any technical grounds on which I can appeal this PCN.
I don't have any real mitigation and I have already consigned myself to accepting this is an expensive lapse in concentration.
https://imgur.com/a/3cph6xr - PCN front and back
Than you in advance.
Moaya