Free Traffic Legal Advice

I don't know...my daughter wrote in without telling me. Is there a way to appeal again?

What grounds would you have to appeal?

#5. Pedantically, there is no “present” council. Same council, different administration.

As an RBK resident, I wish you luck.

The log confirms which of the 6 cars registered to the Company are being driven by which person.

Clearly it does not, or you would not be in this position.

You should be aware that "Where a body corporate is guilty of an offence under this section and the offence is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or a person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, is guilty of that offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly."

This means that (1) you personally may be charged with the offence of failing to provide driver details, and (2) you need a better logging system.

For the present, does the log for the day list a single person? If so, I'd suggest you nominate him (or her) as the person keeping the vehicle.

Others may have different suggestions.

Hi there, thanks again. What you say makes surely sense. My original point, though, was that where I parked is not a Highway verge, technically, as Ipswich Counsel itself define a verge as the area between the carriageway and the pavement (and so do all the other documents I have found online) - am I completely wrong here?

The charge is "parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours". No mention of a verge, however defined, so it is completely irrelevant.

Quote from: andy_foster on January 29, 2026, 10:20:56 am

There were potentially two separate potwntial defences - whether it was reasonably practicable to provide the required information, and whether you had complied with the substance of the requirement.

As you had a facsimile of the first page of the NIP/s.172 it would be difficult to argue that it would not have been reasonably practicable to name the driver in the form of a signed letter, or indeed an email for that matter. Whether the police would have "accepted" either of those has little bearing on the law - the police are entitled to make reasonable requirements as to the information to be provided, and you as the addressee are required to satisfy the substance of such requirements. For example, if you were the driver, they would need a signed response from you (in writing), as that would then become admissible evidence in a potential speeding prosecution. As you were not the driver, your nomination is merely information to direct the next notice, and also to enable the nominated person to be sufficiently identified to instigate a prosecution if they failed to satisfy the requirements of their notice.

Typically, the police ask for the name, address, date of birth and driving licence number of the driver. You started this thread 2 hours ago and, despite the amount of dentistry required, now you know what information would have been "required" - so unless the bench are sufficiently aggravated by the police's apparant incompetence, reasonable practicability still seems like a long shot as regards the "missing" details.

That still leaves the question of substantial compliance. Was her full name, with a presumption that she resides at the same address, sufficient? I would suggest that a quick PNC/DVLA search would show that there was only one Mrs Josephine Bonaparte living at that address, and fill in the blanks.

Whether a bench would agree on the day 8s another matter, but your options are either to defend the s.172 or somply take the 6 points on the chin. The speeding charge us about as relevant as ehat ypu had for breakfast.

If someone can dig up Jones v DPP(2004) that might assist the OP

Substantial Compliance: I named the driver (my wife) and provided my address as her place of residence as early as August. This gave the police everything they needed to issue a fresh notice to her.

Reasonable Diligence: My timeline proves I did everything within my power to comply. I attempted to use the portal (which was broken), called the office, and sent multiple emails. The 'failure' to provide the information on the specific physical form was a direct result of the police failing to send a replacement as promised, despite my repeated requests.

Compliance. In your earlier post you said "I didn't provide an address", and subsequently suggested that the police should have assumed co-habitation.

Diligence: there is no requirement to use the specific form. A letter suffices.

I'd be minded to play this with a straight bat - you can appeal as the keeper pointing out that due to snow, the end bay was entirely unusable. Their enforcement therefore had no commercial justification. Add in to that the fact that the PCN fails to contain a period of parking, and as such they have neither proved the vehicle remained there for longer than the mandatory consideration period, nor have they specified a valid period of parking as required to hold the keeper liable under PoFA. When I've more time I can draft something up, unless someone beats me to it.

Quote from: 666 on January 22, 2026, 12:44:48 pm

Not so. If everyone parked like that, only the bays at ether end of each row would be unusable. The capacity would be reduced, but not halved.

Fair point. Perhaps you can help the OP with their appeal?

Not on that point, but other possible angles.

Since the car park does not require payment, (a) there can be no commercial justification, and (b) can there even be a contract to enforce?

The site founders decided to keep this secret by putting it at the top of the Home page.