Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thanks for your help everyone - my review was denied. It was worth a shot! Case number LQ00032-2501

---

1.        Mr LamboTech applies for the review of the appeal decision, dated 4 February 2025, in the interests of justice.
2.        The appeal adjudicator’s costs decision will be final unless one of the limited grounds for review set out in paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (the Appeals Regulations) applies. A review application does not entail a fresh reconsideration of the appeal; only a decision whether there is sufficient reason within terms of paragraph 12 for the appeal to be reconsidered.
3.        The review application concerns the adjudicator’s decision that the alleged procedural impropriety in the Notice of Rejection identified by Mr LamboTech in (a failure to follow a requirement of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 relating to the time it gave to pay or appeal to the adjudicator) was not procedural impropriety because caused Mr LamboTech no procedural unfairness to his detriment.
4.        The appeal adjudicator gave cogent reasons for his finding of fact that the wording of the Notice of Rejection did not cause Mr LamboTech any detriment at paragraph 5 of the written decision. Mr LamboTech does not dispute that finding of fact.
5.        He applies for review on the basis that the adjudicator erred in law in following the decision of the Scottish Court of Session in Glasgow City Council v The Upper Tribunal for Scotland (2025)CIH2 in taking into account whether any procedural unfairness arose as a result of a failure to comply with a requirement of the statutory enforcement scheme in determining whether there had been a procedural impropriety in this case.
6.        Mr LamboTech distinguishes the Glasgow City case on the basis that the Scottish statutory civil enforcement scheme does not have the statutory ground for appeal of procedural impropriety. He argues that English case law (I assume a reference to the High Court decision in R(London Borough of Camden) v Parking Adjudicator [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin)) has established that prejudice is irrelevant to that statutory ground of appeal.
7.        That procedural impropriety is not a ground for appeal in the Scottish statutory civil enforcement scheme is acknowledged. Nevertheless, whilst I note Mr LamboTech's reference to the English case law, there is recent authority in that there is no procedural impropriety where a failure to comply with a requirement of the English statutory civil enforcement scheme causes no prejudice or unfairness  -  R(Bedi) v Traffic Adjudicator [2022] EWHC 1795 (Admin).
8.        I do not, therefore, find any obvious error of law in the appeal adjudicator taking into account the absence of prejudice in this case. That the contravention occurred and the vehicle is Mr LamboTech's is not in dispute. It would be a surprising outcome if an inconsequential error in the Notice of Rejection were to affect his liability to pay the penalty charge.
9.        In any event, even if the appeal adjudicator erred in law in taking into account the absence of prejudice and procedural unfairness in this case, the High Court has held that errors of law do not fall within the scope of the ground for review that “the interests of justice require such a review” ; and that if a party wishes to challenge a decision on the basis that it is wrong in law the correct route is by application for judicial review to the High Court (see R(Transport for London) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) and others [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin)).
10.        For these reasons I find that the ground for review that the interests of justice require such a review is not made out in this case.
11.        I refuse this review application and the decision remains refused for the reasons given to the parties on 4 February 2025.
12.        Should Mr LamboTech wish to contest the outcome of his appeal, his remedy at law now rests in an application to the High Court for the judicial review of the decision that he seeks to challenge. 

---

I have no intention of going to the courts so I will pay it now. It honestly seems silly to me that they don't just allow someone the opportunity to pay the lower price. Sure it will be abused but so what, I have now wasted far more than the £35 in their time on this.
Next time I'm going to be late to an appointment rather than rush and park somewhere without checking.

Thanks again.

I lost the appeal with the tribunal.

1.       Mr LamboTech appeals on two grounds. Firstly, he argues that the penalty charge notice was not sufficiently securely fixed to his motorcycle, and it was not there when he returned. He was therefore unaware of the penalty charge notice, and unable to pay at the discounted rate. Secondly, he argues that the wording of the Notice of Rejection is procedurally improper, as it misstates the legally required information regarding the time limit for payment of the penalty.

2.       Mr LamboTech points out that the penalty charge notice was fixed to his vehicle by wrapping the adhesive envelope around the handlebar. This is smooth rubber, and it was likely to come off. He points out that in the ‘second photograph’ (presumably referring to the two photographs contained within the of Notice of Rejection) it is no longer on the handlebar. However, the timed photographs taken by the civil enforcement officer show that the photograph with the PCN wrapped around the handle was the last photograph to be taken. The other photographs were taken earlier. There is therefore nothing about the officer’s photographs which suggests that the penalty charge notice had in fact slipped off. The PCN is validly served when it is fixed to the vehicle. In this case, the adhesive envelope would have been fixed not merely to the handlebar, but also to itself, as it was wrapped round the handlebar.   I therefore find that it was sufficiently fixed to the vehicle, and remained served, even if, for example, a third party removed it before Mr LamboTech returned to the vehicle.
3.       The appropriate regulations require the Notice of Rejection to state that a Charge Certificate may be served by the Authority unless either payment of the penalty, or an appeal application is made, within 28 days of the date of service of the notice, service being presumed to occur after 2 working days. In the Notice of Rejection in this case, the first reference to payment of the penalty does mention 28 days including service, but the second mention of payment does not. The question is whether this potential procedural impropriety is sufficient to justify allowing the appeal, and the consequent cancellation of the penalty charge notice.
4.       Following the highly persuasive decision of the Scottish Court of Session in the case of Glasgow City Council -v- The Upper Tribunal for Scotland (2025) CIH2, I do not find that this error in the wording in the Notice of Rejection assists Mr LamboTech. When interpreting the apparently strict provisions of the appropriate regulations, I must consider what the intention of Parliament is likely to have been. Did Parliament intend that such a minor error would result in the Council not being able to enforce the penalty? In particular, I must consider whether Mr LamboTech suffered any procedural unfairness as a result. In other words, did the wording of the Notice of Rejection lead him to do something, or cause him to fail to do something, contrary to his interests?
5.       If a Notice of Rejection gives an ambiguous impression in relation to a time limit in relation to payment of the penalty, and the recipient of the Notice of Rejection is thereby led to miss the deadline, resulting in the service of a Charge Certificate, which would increase the amount owed by 50%, then procedural unfairness would have resulted. However, this Notice of Rejection was dated 20 January, and was thereby deemed served on 22 January. On 25 January Mr LamboTech commenced the process of applying to the Tribunal against the decision of the Council to issue a Notice of Rejection. It is therefore clear that he did not intend to pay the penalty in any event, and did not therefore suffer any procedural unfairness to his detriment.
6.       I therefore dismiss this appeal on the basis that the contravention did occur, the penalty charge notice was validly served, and minor failure to follow the requirements of the appropriate regulations did not amount to any procedural impropriety which would enable this appeal to be allowed. The penalty of £70 must be paid within 28 days.

If the tribunal decide I still have to pay, would that then mean I have to pay the further increased price of £105? Or is that specifically only if I don't action it.
I may as well give it a go if it doesn't increase, thank you.

Haha yes red handed!

Thank you I will submit that to them.

Please see missing pages here:







Their info on submitting representations is pretty sparse, more in the NtO:


Appreciate the help.