Agreed. I'd be firing off a subject data access request for all notes about the PCN if I was the OP.
It would be interesting to find out on what grounds the PCN was cancelled.
You are expert at obfuscation: simplicity is not your forte!
You are making formal reps to council officers, so I suggest simple and concise.
This is not the Scopes trial or a submission to the Supreme Court.
You keep asking about the likelihood of success expressed in percentage terms, but the answer is that no-one can foresee what could happen if the authority rejected your reps.
IMO, procedural improprieties abound in the PCN.
(7) A penalty charge notice given under this regulation must include the information set out in—
(a)Schedule 2, and
(b)regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.
Schedule 2
Particulars to be included in a penalty charge notice given under regulation 9
Para. 2
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
(f)that if the penalty charge is not paid within the period of 28 days referred to in sub-paragraph (d), a notice to owner may be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the vehicle.
2(f) Is NOT there.
Regulation 3(1):
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;
(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.
3(1)(c) is NOT there.
| Requirement | Legal Source | Compliance | Notes |
| Payment deadline (28 days from contravention) | Schedule 2, para 2(d) | ✅ Present | Clearly stated on front of PCN |
| Notice to Owner may be served if unpaid | Schedule 2, para 2(f) | ❌ Missing | No mention of NtO escalation if unpaid |
| Right to make representations after NtO | Reg 3(1)(c) | ❌ Missing | No info about formal reps post-NtO |
| Right to make informal representations before NtO | Reg 3(1)(b) | ✅ Present | Reverse side includes this right |
| Right to appeal if reps rejected | Reg 3(1)(a) | ✅ Present | Mentions adjudicator appeal process |
| Address for informal representations | Reg 3(1)(b) | ✅ Present | Solihull Connect address provided |
| Contravention details (code, location, time) | Schedule 2, para 2(a–c) | ✅ Present | Code 83, location, timestamp, vehicle info |
| Discount period (14 days) | Schedule 2, para 2(e) | ✅ Present | £25 if paid within 14 days |
| Clarity on date of service vs contravention | Reg 9(2) | ⚠️ Ambiguous | Uses “date of service” but doesn’t clarify it’s same as contravention date |
“...that if the penalty charge is not paid within the period of 28 days referred to in sub-paragraph (d), a notice to owner may be served…”
“...representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.”
Councils invariably reject all informal challenges, because they know that if they do, most people then just cough-up.
Why are you preparing formal reps, you don't have a NTO!
“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 if the authority deems it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.”
“Under general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act fairly and proportionately and are encouraged to exercise discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard to the public interest. Failure to act in accordance with the general principles of public law may lead to a claim for a decision to be judicially reviewed.”In this case, the contravention—if any—was minor, unintentional, and caused by accessibility barriers. The vehicle was parked lawfully, paid for, and caused no harm. The Council’s refusal to exercise discretion is disproportionate and contrary to public law principles.
“Authorities should formulate (with advice from their legal department) and then publish their policies on the exercise of discretion. They should apply these policies flexibly and judge each case on its merits. An enforcement authority should be ready to depart from its policies if the particular circumstances of the case warrant it.”
“The enforcement authority should have clear policies, instructions and training available on how to exercise such authority. These policies should form the basis for staff training and should be published.”To date, Solihull Council has not previously published any such discretionary policy, nor provided evidence that staff are trained to apply discretion fairly and flexibly. This omission undermines transparency, accountability, and the Council’s legal obligations under the guidance.