Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: JackFB on September 21, 2025, 01:47:18 pm
-
Look at the contravention description on the PCN.
Then look at the NTO!
Here's the mandated version:
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
-
H C Andersen:
Its one PCN for the NtO.
They sent another but they waivered it as I said. And one last year.
stamfordman:
Noted.
We paid for the parking at £150 for three weeks, five days a week. There's an example in the folder link. The other thirteen days were fine.
The attachment here doesn't seem to work for me, so I've included a link to a DropBox folder.
Let me know if you need further clarification. Cheers guys
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xkwx4xrcv1rkdfzfq4ksa/APgpTmdKJYClRX8WJshlijc?rlkey=j5j3do0eupltdtiti5eevsbxw&st=t4gn8n3r&dl=0
-
How many PCNs?
Have you already challenged and received replies, if so pl post;
Who is the registered keeper of the car and are their DVLA details current;
-
Forget the BPA - that's for private parking companies not public authorities such as councils.
If they've let you off two but not a third that looks reasonable and not really 'fettering discretion' by not considering each PCN afresh as you do have a part to play.
What do you mean 'parted with £150' and presumably you've challenged the PCN at informal stage. and received a rejection.
Let's see the challenge and rejection, and the PCN.
-
Hi Guys
I stayed up at my sisters and she paid the parking through her account.
Between us we managed to get the reg wrong three times.
Once last year and twice recently. Wandsworth Council waivered the original and the subsequent mistake but are not willing to waiver the third, which considering the arguments seems too arbitrary and harsh. You would have thought the wardens have access to the record of payment and could see that out reg was ONE LETTER out. An R instead of an L.
We sent the council screenshots of the account they already monitor to show them that we paid for parking. The car was actually there for three weeks - I was admitted to hospital during this time - and we parted with a hundred and fifty quid. We asked for leniency, goodwill and common decency and even sent them a reply to their office below, serving as a pre-emptive response to the imminent NtO. In it we offered to cover their admin fees or whatever they think takes that much money.
My question is: do I just send my reply for their official NtO, or is there something else I should be doing? And what boxes do I tick? I can attach the NtO if you need to see it, Thank you. Here was our reply:
Dear
I'm pre-empting the NtO and trying to reduce stress as I am currently in recovery after leaving hospital.
I write to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). I do not dispute that my vehicle was parked at the stated location, but I submit that the penalty is disproportionate and unjust in circumstances where valid payment for parking had in fact been made, and the error was limited to a single-character registration mark mistake.
1. Payment Was Made
On the relevant dates, my sister activated visitor permits for my car. Unfortunately, due to a single-character mistake (“L” entered as “R”), the system did not match the registration precisely. Nevertheless, the Council received the correct payment for parking on the relevant dates (28 July – 1 August 2025).
For the avoidance of doubt, my sister subsequently activated and paid for permits for the second and third weeks of my stay (2 August – 15 August and 16 August – 22 August 2025), all of which were entered correctly. During the third week (16–22 August) I was in St George’s Hospital, Tooting, having been admitted critically ill due to stress-related complications. Parking was correctly covered during that week and the Council can verify those transactions.
2. Minor Keying Error – Industry Standards
The British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice distinguishes between minor and major keying errors. A one-character discrepancy is expressly defined as a minor keying error, for which the Code requires cancellation at the first stage of appeal, provided evidence of payment is shown.
BPA Code of Practice, January 2020, para. 17.4–17.5.
POPLA (Parking on Private Land Appeals) has also consistently ruled that even major keying errors should not result in full penalties, but instead a reduced charge of up to £20 should be offered.
I respectfully submit that if private operators are required to adopt this standard of fairness, it would be wholly disproportionate for a public authority — bound also by the Secretary of State’s Statutory Guidance — to act more harshly.
3. Proportionality and Statutory Guidance
The Statutory Guidance on Civil Parking Enforcement (DfT, 2022) makes clear that enforcement authorities must act fairly, proportionately, and not as a source of revenue. In this case:
The Council has not suffered any loss, as the parking was fully paid.
The enforcement of a £70 (or £140) penalty is therefore punitive, not compensatory.
The High Court in R (Hackney Drivers Association Ltd) v Parking Adjudicator & Lancashire CC [2012] recognised that a payment must match the correct vehicle registration. However, councils also have discretion in enforcement. Where the motorist can demonstrate payment was made, discretion should be exercised to avoid disproportionate penalties.
4. Mitigating Circumstances
At the time, I was staying with my sister during a period of recuperation from stress. She was also travelling abroad (Spain) during this period and activated the permits remotely using her Wandsworth Council account. Unfortunately, in the midst of this, both she and I overlooked the registration character error.
By the third week, I was admitted to St George’s Hospital in Tooting with stress-related complications, where I remained critically ill. The additional stress caused by this PCN has compounded the situation, although it should be emphasised again that all parking for the period of my stay was properly paid for.
5. Goodwill Offer
In line with the BPA Code’s treatment of keying errors, I would be willing to pay £20 as a show of goodwill to cover any administrative costs. This would be consistent with industry standards and would recognise the error without imposing a disproportionate penalty when full payment had already been made.
6. Request for Cancellation
I therefore respectfully request that Wandsworth Council cancel this PCN on the following grounds:
Parking was fully paid for, with only a minor keying error.
The Council has not suffered any loss.
BPA Code and POPLA case law support cancellation or, at most, a nominal charge (£20).
The penalty demanded is disproportionate in light of the statutory guidance and mitigating personal circumstances.
I trust that the Council will exercise its discretion in a fair and proportionate manner and cancel this PCN.
Yours faithfully