Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: NJChambers on October 27, 2025, 08:55:35 pm
-
See also the below.
We had someone recently with more than 10 PCNs in a similar position - I'll see if I can find the thread and any outcome.
---------------
Case reference 2250139320
Appellant Tom Allin
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM FY12OBT
PCN Details
PCN IZ33335996
Contravention date 04 Dec 2024
Contravention time 14:44:00
Contravention location Dove Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 28 May 2025
Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons This appeal was conducted over the videolink. I spoke to the Appellant. The Enforcement Authority relied on the evidence submitted in advance.
The agreed facts are that the vehicle was at the stated location and a Penalty Charge Notice was issued; the Appellant says, and I accept, that he did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice. That however does not invalidate the charge.
The vehicle was parked in a permit bay and the Appellant’s permit expired on 28 November 2024, 6 days before this Penalty Charge Notice was issued, citing Code 12. Code 19 attracts a lesser penalty.
The Civil Enforcement Handbook says this for Code 19:
“The contravention occurs when a vehicle waits in a residents’ or shared use parking place or zone displaying an invalid permit voucher or pay and display ticket that would have been valid for that parking scheme at some time or after the expiry of paid for time”.
The Civil Enforcement Handbook says this for codes 12 and 19:
“If a previously valid permit has expired then code 19 should be issued”.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued citing a wrong code and it is for this reason that I allow the appeal.
I note that the Appellant has paid several PCNs for this contravention; the Authority may wish to consider issuing a refund for some or all of the payments he has made.
-
Amazing, I think it's worth a go then. Is it worth referencing this case directly?
-
this is a very relevant case in these circumstances
Case Details
Case reference 2110189461
Appellant James George Gibson
Authority London Borough of Haringey
VRM P844KKU
PCN Details
PCN HY64567480
Contravention date 06 Jan 2011
Contravention time 09:12:00
Contravention location Lausanne Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention In resident shared use place with invalid perm
Referral date -
Decision Date 18 May 2011
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents' parking place or zone displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011 at 09.00.
The Appellant's case is that the permit had not been renewed because they had not received a renewal notice from the authority. The Appellant and his wife were on holiday from 31 December 2010 until 23 January 2011 during which period the Penalty Charge Notices were incurred.
I have considered the evidence and I find that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a residents parking place displaying an invalid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4 January 2011. It is the Appellant's responsibility to renew their permit and they are not entitled to rely on the courtesy renewal letter, which may not have been received.
However, I find that the Appellant's vehicle committed one contravention of parking in a residents' permit bay without clearly displaying a valid permit when in Lausanne Road on 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 21 January 2011.
I find that one continuous contravention has occurred; the vehicle remains at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. Further, I have taken into account that the residents' bay is operational from 8am to 6.30pm Monday to Saturday and I find that the situation would be the same if the residents' bay was operational 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal.
-
This is a difficult situation as with the penalties so high it's risky to go on.
With the NTOs you've just sent reps on you could try follow-up reps on the code 19 issue and remind them of their duty to follow London Councils guidance.
An FOI on whether the CEO's device shows a recently expired permit comes to mind.
But really they should cancel some of them. I'll see if I find a tribunal case on multiple static parking PCNs.
-
I did a formal representation and sent the following:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notices and respectfully request their cancellation on the grounds of fairness, proportionality, and legitimate expectation.
I am a long-standing Newham resident and have held a valid resident parking permit for several years. Unfortunately, my permit expired on [insert expiry date] and I was not sent an email reminder to renew it. I became aware of the lapse only after finding a PCN on my vehicle and renewed the permit immediately on [insert renewal date] (permit reference: [insert if known]).
During the intervening period, my car remained parked lawfully outside my property in the same location and was not moved.
Grounds for Cancellation
1. Continuous Contravention
The vehicle remained stationary in the same permit bay throughout the period in question. Under established parking adjudication precedent, only the first PCN may be validly issued in such circumstances, as the alleged contravention is continuous. I therefore ask that all subsequent PCNs after the first (PN23729748) be cancelled on this basis.
2. Legitimate Expectation – Missed Renewal Reminder
I have always relied on Newham’s renewal reminder emails, which I have received in previous years. This year, no reminder was sent to my registered address or email (I have checked spam folders and permit account settings). I remained opted-in for communications and therefore had a legitimate expectation that I would be notified before expiry. The lack of this usual reminder was the sole reason for the short lapse.
3. Immediate Compliance and Good Record
As soon as I became aware of the expiry, I renewed my permit straight away. I have held a resident permit for [x years] and have always complied with Newham’s parking rules. This was an isolated administrative oversight, not deliberate non-payment.
4. Request for Exercise of Discretion
Under the statutory guidance issued pursuant to Section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004, local authorities are expected to consider mitigating circumstances and apply discretion where appropriate. In this case—given my good compliance history, prompt renewal, and the lack of reminder—cancellation would be a fair and proportionate outcome.
Requests
Please cancel all PCNs after the first (PN23729748) as continuous contraventions.
Please exercise discretion to cancel the first PCN as well, considering the lack of reminder and immediate renewal.
If any PCN is not cancelled, please re-offer the 14-day discounted rate from the date of your response so that I can make an informed decision about whether to appeal to London Tribunals.
Please also provide CEO notes, photographs, and evidence of signage if any PCN is upheld.
Thank you for taking the time to review my representations. I trust that, in light of the facts, the council will view this as an honest administrative oversight rather than multiple contraventions, and cancel the notices accordingly.
-
In the post:
PN23616865
PN23710182
So you have two NTOs?
Have you sent anything for them?
-
So far I've just had notice of rejection on the following PCN's:
PN23754290 - received 28.10.25
PN23825093 - received 28.10.25
PN23876323 - received 28.10.25
PN23852937 - received 28.10.25
PN23895226 - received 28.10.25
PN23729748 - received 27.10.25
PN23815613 - received 27.10.25
The rest are yet to come through.
8 of the PCN's were on the car when I found it, they were all in the one pouch. 2 of them have come through the post.
On the car:
PN23895226
PN23876323
PN23852937
PN23825093
PN23815613
PN23764013
PN23754290
PN23729748
In the post:
PN23616865
PN23710182
-
When did you get a rejection for PN23616865.
This is a pic from the last one PN23895226 - where are all the PCNs? How did you know about them?
(https://i.ibb.co/k6qPMDDK/n3.jpg)
-
Yeah sent by email yesterday, I've had multiple rejections via email for each PCN, all worded identically.
-
OK so code 12 v 16 is also an issue as it's a permit only bay. But really code 19 trumps that IMO.
Also this is a 2 hour commuter restriction apart from event days.
This PCN is showing £160 is owed so you may as well wait for the NTOs on any with no discount on the table.
What is the date of the rejection letter. Was it sent by email?
(https://i.ibb.co/5WQ6SkFS/n2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/6RCfvGSx/n1.jpg)
-
Traffic Management Act 2004
Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) Number: PN23754290
Date and Time of Contravention: 24 September 2025 at 11:07
Location: Bisson Road,
VRM: HN12UHD
Dear Mr Chambers,
Thank you for your correspondence received on 11 October 2025 regarding the
above penalty charge notice (PCN). Your comments and the notes of the Civil
Enforcement Officer (CEO) have been considered.
Your vehicle was observed at 10:59 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 in Bisson Road outside house 110.
You have stated you are a long-standing resident permit holder in Stratford SW RPZ
and have always parked lawfully with a valid resident permit. Unfortunately, your
permit recently expired without you realising, and you did not receive the usual email
reminder from Newham Council to renew it. As soon as you became aware of this,
you renewed your resident permit today (11 October 2025) under permit reference
RP143975427, and you are now fully compliant once again. During the period in
question, your vehicle remained parked in the same residents’ bay outside your
property and was not moved. You also stated only the first PCN may properly be
enforced. You therefore request that all PCNs issued after PN23729748 be
cancelled on this basis.
You were issued a PCN for parking in SSW permit holders only Mon - Fri 10am -12
noon, and on event days 8am - 9pm, without a permit at a time when restrictions
were in force.
Please note that at the time of issuing this PCN, your vehicle did not have a valid
resident permit on MiPermit. It is the owner/keeper’s responsibility to ensure their
permit is renewed when it expires. Although we send out permit reminders to
residents before the expiry date, our records show that an email reminder regarding
your permit expiry was sent to you on 12/08/2025. It remains the responsibility of the
owner to ensure their permit is successfully processed by following up.
The applicant is solely responsible for renewing the permit, as stated in the permit
terms and conditions. As you have failed to renew it, any Penalty Charge Notices
(PCNs) issued after the permit expired are considered valid.
For more information about the Newham permit terms and conditions, you can visit:
www.newham.gov.uk/downloads/file/9563/mipn-terms-and-conditions-april-2024
It is the driver's responsibility to ensure they have their permit activated before
leaving the vehicle unattended. Failure to meet that obligation lies with the driver and
does not provide adequate defence.
In conclusion, having taken all aspects of this matter into consideration, no
justification for cancelling the penalty charge notice has been found.
The discounted payment of £80.00 will be accepted in full and final settlement
if paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the
date of service of this letter.
You can view evidence of the contravention online at parking.newham.gov.uk by
selecting ‘View a PCN.’ You will need your PCN number and vehicle registration
mark (VRM).
If payment is not received within this time, the full penalty amount of £160.00 will
become payable.
Payment should not be made if you wish to pursue this and want to make formal
representation, as payment is seen as an acceptance of liability and will close the
case.
If payment is not received as detailed, I shall assume that you wish to pursue the
matter and shall arrange for a Notice to Owner to be sent after the period of 14 days
to the registered keeper of the vehicle so that formal representations may be made.
Should these be rejected, the registered keeper of the vehicle will then be offered the
opportunity to appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators. I should point out
that, should you decide to take this course of action, after the discount period has
expired, you will forfeit the right to pay the Penalty Charge at the lower rate and the
full charge of £160.00 will be due.
If you are not the registered keeper of the vehicle, for example the vehicle is a
company or lease/hire vehicle, or being used with the owner`s consent, I suggest
you advise the keeper that a Notice to Owner will be issued.
Please note that Newham Council is unable to consider any further
correspondence at this stage regarding this penalty charge notice.
Payment can be made as follows:
Online: Visit parking.newham.gov.uk and select "Pay a PCN".
By post: Cheques, postal orders or bank drafts should be made payable to `London
Borough of Newham`. Please write the PCN number and the vehicle registration
mark on the back and send it to: London Borough of Newham, Parking
Correspondence, PO Box 71575, London E6 9LY.
Yours sincerely,
H Akorede
Customer Relations Team
Parking Services
Environment & Sustainable Transport
London Borough of Newham
-
My view is that if the CEO can see an expired e-permit code 19 (a lower level £110 penalty) should be used according to London Councils guidance.
It's hard to know what to do know because penalties are so high.
Let's see one of the rejection letters.
The below is a recent case in Camden - it was refused but the CEO did issue code 19s.
--------------
Case reference 2250492699
Appellant Jason Stewart
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM BX67YUY
PCN Details
PCN CU71116448
Contravention date 08 Aug 2025
Contravention time 13:27:00
Contravention location Gascony Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked res/sh use - invalid permit/after paid time
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Oct 2025
Adjudicator Kavita Kumar
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against four Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued by the London Borough of Camden Council, the Enforcement Authority, in respect of a parking contravention namely, parking in an resident’s only parking bay without a valid permit.
2. The appeal was determined as a postal appeal, as per the Appellant’s preference.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
3. The Enforcement Authority states the vehicle was observed by a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) parked within a resident’s only parking bay as follows;
a. 30th July 2025 – Gascony Avenue
b. 4th August 2025 – Smyma Road
c. 8th August 2025 - Gascony Avenue
d. 11th August 2025 – Smyma Road
4. The Enforcement Authority have provided copies of the PCN’s issued along with photographic evidence that the PCN was attached to the vehicle. The photos also show the signage in place at the location confirming the restrictons in place.
5. Notwithstanding this, the Enforcement Authority have provided a copy of the Traffic Management Order which confirms the restrictions in place. They have also provided information obtained from the DVLA which confirms the Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
6. I have also been provided with information from the Enforcement Authority’s system which confirms that although the Appellant was in possession of the relevant resident’s permit, that permit expired on 1st July 2025.
7. The Enforcement Authority have provided evidence which confirms that a permit renewal letter was sent to the Appellant, via email on 23rd May 2025, followed by a permit expiry letter on 25th June.
Appellant’s Case
8. The Appellant accepts that the vehicle was parked in the resident’s only parking bay as alleged. The Appellant states that he lives nearby and as such, was in possession of the relevant permit.
9. However the Appellant goes on to say that when he tried to renew his parking permit, the system would not let him and there was an overlap. The Appellant states he renewed his parking permit as soon as possible.
Findings and Conclusion
10. I find (and it is agreed) that the Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle, which was parked within a restricted, resident’s only parking bay on the dates alleged. There is no dispute that the restrictions exist and are in place.
11. However, the Appellant appeals on the basis he had a resident’s permit.
12. Whilst I accept the Appellant’s representations, the evidence provided by the Enforcement Authority shows that the Appellant had a permit, which expired on 1st July. I accept the Appellant subsequently applied for and was given a resident’s permit however, at the time of the contravention, no permit was in place.
13. Further, I am satisfied that the Enforcement Authority sent out two pre-warning letters to advise the Appellant that his permit was due to expire. One of those letters was sent on 23rd May 2025, giving the Appellant 40 days notice to renew his permit.
14. I understand that from time to time, system errors occur which prevent online functions from completing. In this instance however, the Appellant had sufficient time to re-apply and raise concerns about the system prior to the expiry of his permit.
15. I am therefore satisfied that no permit was in place for the Appellant’s vehicle at the time of the contraventions. Whilst I accept there may have been issues with the renewal process, this is not a ground of appeal but rather, mitigation which Adjudicators cannot take into consideration when determining an appeal.
Decision
16. The appeal is therefore refused
-
The first PCN is PN23616865, issued on 13 September. The vehicle registration is HN12 UHD.
Permit was renewed on 11 October. Number RP143975427.
-
Code 12 v 16 is a different issue.
OP - what are the PCN number and VRM for the first PCN.
Have you now got a permit and from what date.
-
Stamf is quite correct re the code this can win
Case reference 2210295739
Appellant S Lieberman
Authority London Borough of Haringey
VRM LK59VJF
PCN Details
PCN HP29565961
Contravention date 29 Mar 2021
Contravention time 11:06:00
Contravention location Elm Park Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Aug 2021
Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The agreed facts are that the vehicle was at the stated location and a Penalty Charge Notice was issued. The signage states that this bay is for permit holders only during restricted hours. No permit was seen.
The Appellant makes several points. The first is that the wrong contravention code has been used as this is not a shared use bay.
Contravention Code 12 is for parking in a shared use bay. Code 16 is for parking in a permit bay. The Enforcement Authority says the codes are interchangeable.
The authority’s position is not correct in law. There are two distinct contravention codes. This is not a shared use bay. That the bay can be used for visitor’s or business permits does not make it a shared use bay such that Code 12 can be used.
I allow the appeal as there has been a procedural impropriety.
-
Yes Newham are all E permits now, they moved across about 4 years ago.
-
Just two days after really should be code 19 - is this an e-permit?
(https://i.ibb.co/Y7hJk2tb/code-19.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/3Y7JsY3s/code-12.png)
-
The permit expired on the 11th of September.
I generally do check the car once a week but I had a particularly busy month at work and didn't get a chance.
-
When did the permit expire.
You must check car every 2-3 days as bays are often suspended in London.
-
The car is parked a 5 minute walk away from the high rise I live in as it's the nearest available road to the block. I'd not been over to the car in quite a while as I'd not needed it.
PN23616865 – 13 September 2025 Code 12
PN23710182 – 20 September 2025 Code 12
PN23729748 – 22 September 2025 Code 12
PN23754290 – 24 September 2025 Code 12
PN23764013 – 26 September 2025 Code 12
PN23815613 – 30 September 2025 Code 12
PN23825093 – 2 October 2025 Code 12
PN23852937 – 8 October 2025 Code 12
PN23876323 – 9 October 2025 Code 12
PN23895226 – 11 October 2025 Code 12
-
You didn't check on the car for a few weeks?
They are right that it isn't a continuous contravention but they have the remedy to impound (and storage is now £55 a day).
What are the dates and codes of the PCNs. Under London Council's guidance an invalid (expired) permit should attract only a lower level code 19 penalty.
-
My onw view is the same as yours, it is a continuous contravention, and they could have towed your car instead of just serving PCNs, The daily storage charge of £40 is less than a PCN per day. Of course, like all London Tribunals, Newham are venal and rapacious, and if it were me, I'd take them to London Tribunals for this obviously money-grubbing exercise.
The main point here is that you only realise your permit had run out when you received the first PCN yet there were another 10 served. So it is a disproportionate penalty. But clearly the Hearts of Stone in Newham are made of grantie, specially imported from Cornwall!
However, as well as following the process, you should contact your local councillor to explain matters and point out the huge amount they want you to pay for what is a minor infraction.
-
Hi everyone,
I’m hoping for some advice on a run of parking tickets I’ve received from Newham Council. I live in Stratford and have a resident parking permit for the Stratford SW RPZ zone. I’ve held the permit for years and have never had an issue before.
In September this year my permit expired and, unfortunately, I didn’t realise. I usually get an email reminder before it runs out, but I didn’t notice one this time. I’ve since found out that Newham did actually send one on 12 August 2025, but it must have slipped past me completely.
My car stayed parked outside my home in the same residents’ bay for the whole period while the permit had lapsed. I don’t think it moved once during that time. When I finally discovered the first penalty notice at the beginning of October, I renewed my permit immediately on 11 October 2025 (permit reference RP143975427).
By that point, though, I had already been issued about ten separate PCNs, all for the same thing – parking in a permit bay without a valid permit, all at the same location and over a few weeks. The dates run roughly from 13 September through to 11 October 2025.
I wrote to the council explaining that this was clearly one continuous period of parking – the car hadn’t moved – and that I believed only the first PCN should be enforceable. They’ve rejected that and said each day is treated as a separate offence, even if the car hasn’t moved. They also mentioned that a reminder email was sent in August, so in their view the tickets were correctly issued.
So far I’ve had two formal rejection letters, both identical in wording, offering to settle at £80 or face £160 if I lose. In total I’m looking at roughly £800 if I paid all at the discounted rate, or £1,600 if I take them all to tribunal and lose.
I’m now considering appealing to London Tribunals on the basis that the car was unmoved and this should be treated as one continuous contravention, supported by tribunal cases like Swinnerton v Islington and Brown v Waltham Forest. I’d also like to argue proportionality – that issuing ten penalties for the same lapse is excessive and unfair, especially as I’ve held a valid permit for years and renewed immediately once I realised.
My question is really whether anyone has had any success challenging Newham on similar grounds, or if there’s any known precedent where the adjudicator has sided with the driver in a “continuous contravention” case like this.
Any thoughts or experience with Newham or similar London councils would be really appreciated. I’m not trying to wriggle out of something legitimate – I just feel like being fined ten times for one honest mistake is unfair and not what the system is supposed to achieve.
Thanks in advance for any advice or insight.
Nathan