The authority were not permitted to use address B therefore IMO your primary grounds are:
Procedural Impropriety:
Failure to serve the Notice to Owner using relevant particulars obtained from DVLA as regards the owner at the 'material time'.
As the authority will see, the NTO was addressed as follows:
Your name
********(address B).
The regulations define 'material time' as follows:
“the material time” means the time when the contravention giving rise to the penalty charge is said to have been committed.
Therefore the 'material time' was 7 November 2024 at which time your 'relevant particulars' held by DVLA were:
You..
******* (address A)
Your relevant particulars were amended by DVLA on ****(enclose a copy of your V5C and highlight the 'docref' date) following your change of address on 26 Nov.
The authority were obliged by virtue of Regulations 6 and 20 of the General Regulations to use ******* (address A) for the purposes of serving the NTO and this failure constitutes a procedural impropriety.
The contravention did not occur
**essentially the arguments given in your previous representations.
As per cp's post, put these together yourself and post a draft here.
Hi thank you. This is what i am thinking of sending. Pls can you have a read and let me know if its good to go or if i need to make any changes.
Subject: Formal Representation Against Notice to Owner for PCN BF55509843
Dear Bedford Borough Council / Parking Services,
I am writing to formally challenge the Notice to Owner (NTO) issued on 27/12/2024 for the alleged contravention of "parking with one or more wheels on any part of an urban road other than a carriageway (footway parking)." I believe the NTO is invalid, and I request its cancellation based on the following:
1. The Contravention Did Not Occur
a) Vehicle Was Not Parked on a Footway or Verge
The council’s photographic evidence shows that my vehicle was parked entirely on the tarmac hardstanding of the Swan Hotel’s car park. None of the wheels were fully positioned on a footway, verge, or non-carriageway area.
b) De Minimis Encroachment
Even if the council contends that a portion of the vehicle (e.g., bumper or part of a wheel) marginally overhung the verge or grassed area, this is a minor encroachment falling under the principle of de minimis non curat lex ("the law does not concern itself with trifles"). Such a trivial encroachment caused no obstruction or harm and cannot reasonably justify enforcement.
c) Ambiguity in Boundaries and Signage
The "No Parking on Verge" sign visible in the council's photographs applies to the grassed areas beyond the sign, not the tarmac where my vehicle was parked.
There is no clear demarcation between the hotel’s private car park and council-controlled land.
The sign does not indicate that parking on the tarmac before the sign is prohibited.
This lack of clarity makes enforcement unreasonable and the contravention unenforceable.
d) Misapplication of Contravention Code
The alleged contravention under Code 62 applies specifically to parking with wheels fully on a footway, verge, or non-carriageway area. This code does not apply to the location in question, as my vehicle was parked predominantly on tarmac. If the council believed a different restriction applied, a different contravention code should have been used.
2. Procedural Impropriety
a) Failure to Serve the NTO Using Relevant DVLA Details at the Material Time
The council has failed to comply with its statutory duty to serve the NTO using the DVLA-registered address of the vehicle’s keeper at the material time, as required by Regulations 6 and 20 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007.
The regulations define "the material time" as:
“the material time” means the time when the contravention giving rise to the penalty charge is said to have been committed.
The alleged contravention occurred on 07/11/2024, at which time my registered address with the DVLA was:
[My Name]
[Address A]
I moved to my current address on 26/11/2024, and my vehicle’s DVLA records were updated on 01/12/2024 (see enclosed copy of my V5C logbook, highlighting the ‘DocRef’ date). The NTO was issued to:
[My Name]
[Address B]
This demonstrates that the council improperly relied on my updated DVLA details (post-01/12/2024) instead of using the registered keeper’s details at the material time (07/11/2024).
b) Breach of Statutory Obligation
By failing to serve the NTO using the DVLA-registered address at the material time, the council has breached its statutory duty. This constitutes procedural impropriety, rendering the NTO invalid and unenforceable.
Request for Cancellation
Given the procedural impropriety and the fact that the contravention did not occur, I respectfully request that the NTO and associated PCN be canceled.
I look forward to your confirmation that this matter has been resolved. If the council does not agree with my representations, I am prepared to escalate the appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal .
Show Posts