Show Posts - Moaya

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?

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 LegislationMy 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((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 RequirementsUnder 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.

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.

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 appealsEnvironment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London CouncilsCalls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and quality purposesAdjudicator's Reasons1. 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((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 FisherAdjudicator12th February 20262250476433BT24415109

Thank you all for your suggestions, the signage looked suspect against the regulations but I am not great at interpreting it. I have drafted the following letter, what do you guys think. Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to make representations against the PCN on the following grounds.The signage used to indicate the end of the permitted footway‑parking area is not compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The sign contains non‑prescribed wording about vehicle weight and does not specify that parking is only permitted within marked bays, meaning the markings have no legal effect. These defects fall foul of Schedule 7, Part 1 paragraph 1 and Part 2 Items 12 and 14.Given this, it is unclear whether the statutory prohibition under the GLC (General Powers) Act 1974 has been lawfully disapplied at this location. Please therefore provide a copy of the footway parking resolution for Costons Avenue, including the exact lengths of road to which it applies. If no valid resolution exists for the location where the vehicle was parked, the contravention did not occur. If a resolution does exist and it applies to the whole road, then footway parking is permitted at my location and the contravention did not occur. The authority must refer to the resolution when considering these representations, a copy of which should be included within any response. Failure to do so would be a procedural impropriety.In light of the above, I kindly ask that the PCN be cancelled.Kind Regards

Ok thanks fir your feedback, we shall see if Stamfordman or anyone else have any other input.What do you make of the sign, do you think its complies with regulation? The fact that it has a weight restriction which also covers the sign which indicates no footway parking is allowed, so the weight limit is irrelevant.

So sorry here is the link for the PCN and GSV. https://imgpile.com/p/rnQMcoIhttps://maps.app.goo.gl/3PSkBQzQZPwWX51aA?g_st=ac

Hello, My other half received a PCN in Ealing for parking on the footpath, I have attached the PCN and some pics of the location. The blue square (3rd image) is where she was parked and the blue arrow shows the direction she was coming from. There was a sign (4th image) which was obscured by a tree so she did not see it. The 5th image shows the first sign she saw from her direction of travel.I was reading another topic in which @cp8759 helped another user by requesting a footway parking resolution from the council which they could not provide, would that be useful in my case?https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-parked-on-footpath/many thanks

Do I need to send the new defence to them before the hearing?

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. Parkedwithout 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,

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.

Can anyone offer any guidance on my case please, it is on the 12th of February. Many thanks in advance.

Apologies I forgot to add the linkhttps://imgpile.com/p/H3zumctUnfortunately I don't have any of the original letters they sent.