Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: gregn on August 15, 2025, 02:55:25 am

Title: Re: Informal Challenge ignored
Post by: mrmustard on August 15, 2025, 09:31:58 am

Don't be shy, follow this guidance or I doubt you'll get a response

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

Title: Informal Challenge ignored
Post by: gregn on August 15, 2025, 02:55:25 am

Is it allowed or does it fall under "Procedural Impropriety" when a enforcement authority ignores the first challenge made within the first 14 days.

I took a screenshot of the challenge on their website and sent the same evidence and letter by PDF via email to them at the same time.

This is a timeline of events:

• On June 28th I went to pay for to renew the residents permit which was expiring that day.  I could not access the system due to a "system upgrade" that we were formally warned earlier via email would occur but with no particulars to say I could not renew on the expiry date.
• I could not access the system from at least this time until July 03, 2025 15:54 after which the system must have started working again.
• On July 01, 2025 17:17 I received an automatic email from A London Council about system upgrades.
• On July 03, 2025 15:40 I received an automatic email to say my account had been migrated.
• On July 03, 2025 15:54 I responded to A London Council to inform them my account was not operational as it was not able to be logged into.
  
• On July 04, 2025 01:26 I received this automatic email after not being able to sleep and checking the account again and finding the system available and successfully applying for a new permit PT1234567.
• On July 04, 2025 10:06 I received an automatic email to say the application was being held because I needed to upload the V5C front page from the vehicle registration form.  It appears my account was not migrated correctly and evidence of previous 2 years of resident permits for the car were not taken into account. The key information I understood from the email is that the permit would be cancelled after 30 days if I did not provide the documentation requested.
• On July 08, 2025 15:06 I received a personal reply to my email to A London back on July 03, 2025 15:54.  This email confirmed that I was unable to access the system to review my expiring permit and I was unable to renew it until July 4th.  The email also confirmed the data migration had taken place. I understood this to mean my previous residents permit history was now available and the council now had access to information that proves the car has been registered with the council on previous residents permits at the same address since Oct 2023.
• On July 28th I was served a penalty charge notice XY12345678 for the parking contravention 12r A: Parked in a residents or shared use parking place or zone without either clearly displaying a valid permit or voucher or pay and display ticket issued for that place or without payment of the parking charge.
• On July 28th I uploaded the V5C form requested as it did not appear to have been migrated.
• On July 29, 2025 07:05 I received an automated email to say the paperwork supplied meant that permit PT1234567 was changed to active. It was backdated to July 4th.
• I have a receipt from A London council stating the parking permit was from a period beginning July 4th.
• On Aug 7th I entered an informal appeal into their website.  I seemed to be doing some strange behaviour however the system did tell me I had challenged the PCN and the website showed my PCN was in challenged status with the timestamp of when I submitted the challenge.  Just in case, I also emailed them a PDF version of my challenge.

[/i]



Today I have checked and they appear to have reset the challenge pending and it now has no record of a challenge.  There is however still a value of £80 outstanding which I believe to be only available for 14 days so this should have changed to the full value on the 11th/12th Aug.

I get that for nearly all informal appeals they fail however, is it a case of further "procedural impropriety" to just ignore an informal appeal?