Free Traffic Legal Advice

It seems ridiculous. It seems that they won’t reverse a decision even if they acknowledge that the previous decision was probably wrong.

I initially appealed this PCN because I thought that, through explanation of the facts, the council would see sense and see that we’d paid in good faith.

Everything else since then, including the process with the adjudicators, has left me with a strong feeling of injustice. I’m not allowed to make a mistake when paying but the council are allowed to make mistakes in their process, even when it’s written in law.

Sadly I just have to put this behind me now. Thanks everyone for the advice.

@H C Andersen
Please can I ask for clarification on this sentence:
“ That decision concerned whether the procedural timeframe was mandatory or directory and, if the latter, whether despite a prima facie breach, the purpose of the provision was affected and the defendant's position jeopardised.”

The Scottish court of session decision didn’t appear to consider the ‘timeframe’ directly, but rather the method of service - therefore is ‘timeframe’ the correct term to use here?

I have tried to shorten and reword my request for review - here it is:

-----------------
1.   I am requesting a review of this case on the grounds of the "interests of justice require a review".
2.   I believe that the case ruling which was used in the judgement by the adjudicator has been misinterpreted and incorrectly used in deciding my case. I therefore contend that the adjudicator has erred in law and their decision should be reviewed.
3.   The ruling Glasgow City Council v  Decision of Upper Tribunal Scotland (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/uikbqxn4/2025csih2-appeal-to-the-court-of-session-by-glasgow-city-council-against-a-decision-of-the-upper-tribunal-for-scotland-dated-14-may-2024.pdf) sought to establish whether a PCN was valid if it was not sent by recorded or registered mail. It found that this ‘technicality’ was a directory rule (i.e. good practice) and not one that was intended to be mandatory (i.e. must be adhered to), and therefore failure to comply would not necessarily be fatal to the enforcement of the penalty charge.
4.   The ruling in Scotland also states that previous cases where the authority had made this same mistake previously could not be looked at again because the statutory time limits had been exceeded (see paragraph 3 of the ruling). This indicates that timely service within the statutory time limits is key to the enforceability of a PCN.
5.   I believe that the adjudicator has misinterpreted this ruling in deciding my case, as its meaning appears to have been arbitrarily extended by the adjudicator to determine that any and all procedural requirements in the English legislation are merely directory rules that can be ignored without consequence. However, it is very clear that the statutory time limits are mandatory requirements in the legislation. The requirement for prejudice to be demonstrated is only valid where directory rules are not adhered to, it does not need to be demonstrated for mandatory rules.
6.   The requirements set out in the English parking legislation have clearly defined mandatory rules for time of service of the NtO, which must be within 6 months of the service of the PCN: "(2) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date". This not only gives a time limit but also a consequence to this time limit not being adhered to – the time limit is 6 months from the date of service of the PCN, the consequence of failing to adhere to this time limit is that the notice to owner may not be served. This is clearly intended to be fatal to the enforcement of the penalty charge. This is not open to interpretation. Indeed, it is backed up by the clear and unambiguous wording in the Statutory Guidance: "The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months from the ‘relevant date’.  There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO". The wording "ultimate time limit" is very clear as to its intentions here. The authority has not provided any reason whatsoever for exceeding the statutory time limit for service of the NtO, in fact they did not even attempt to reference it in their evidence. The tribunal did not appear to consider this point in their decision.
7.   If this ruling is used by the tribunal to determine that the statutory time limits in legislation are not mandatory rules that are not binding on authorities, this risks undermining the entire purpose of having statutory time limits set in legislation. It raises the question: at what point does the authority failing to comply with a legally mandated time limit become relevant? 1 day late? 2 days late? 1 week late? 1 month late? 1 year late? At what point does a statutory time limit set out in legislation actually become relevant for the purposes of law? The legal time limits laid out in legislation for the service of a PCN and the service of a NtO are clearly intended as mandatory, "bright-line" requirements with no room for interpretation. If they are not met it is clearly intended that this is fatal to the penalty charge procedure. I do not believe that the adjudicator has the authority to determine where failing to comply with mandatory statutory time limits in the legislation is acceptable or not acceptable. If Parliament had not intended that time limits were absolute requirements for legal compliance, why would they be so clearly laid out in legislation and given clear consequences for failing to meet them? Ignoring the statutory time limits set in legislation and determining them as mere ‘technicalities’ makes a clear and unambiguous legal requirement subject to inconsistency and unfairness.
8.   There are multiple time limits laid out in the regulations, on both the authority and the motorist. Are all of these to be considered as null and void? This is clearly not the intention of the legislation. How can there be any possible fairness and consistency if statutory time limits are considered flexible?
9.   In my case, the time limit for service of a notice to owner is very clearly written as a mandatory rule in law. This is an absolute time limit for legal compliance and not a technicality such as sending the PCN by normal mail in the case ruling in Scotland. It is both written clearly in the Statutory Instrument and also backed up by the Statutory Guidance. There is no room for interpretation here, or flexibility for the authority to miss these deadlines without consequence. The use of the Scottish ruling as a broad brush to justify any and all non-compliance with legislation on the authority’s part, whether directory or mandatory, is a dangerous precedent which harms motorists and effectively denies one of the statutory grounds of appeal (Procedural impropriety by the authority).
10.   I would therefore request that the original adjudicator’s decision be reviewed and overturned, and that the NtO be cancelled for failing to be served within the mandatory statutory time limits.
11.   I would like to request a telephone or video hearing as part of this review.

I have done further research into the case ruling that the TPT have quoted, and have come up with this as an addition to the request for review:

-----------

The court in Scotland did not consider any aspects of legislation governing England when deciding their case. They were only considering Scottish legislation, in particular the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019, The Low Emission Zones (Emission Standards, Exemptions and Enforcement (Scotland) Regulations 2021 (SSI No 177) and the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. To quote the judgement:

"The court is not able to identify any bright-line rule to that effect from a reading of the 2019 Act, the 2021 Regulations and the 2010 Act."

This clearly shows that this judgement has not been made based on the current legislation in England - both the Traffic Management Act 2004 and The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (England) Regulations 2022. Therefore the ruling in Scotland should not be assumed to be applicable to English legislation or used as a basis to overrule, ignore or change the statutory time limits set out in English legislation.

To suggest that the findings of the Scottish court should apply to any legislation that it has not considered in the judicial process is a dangerous assumption and risks treating motorists in England and Wales unfairly and incorrectly based on applicable legislation in their region.

Here is the request for review that I have put together. I'd appreciate feedback on this please.

----------------

1. I am requesting a review of this case on the grounds of the "interests of justice require a review".

2. I believe that the case ruling which was used in the judgement by the adjudicator has been misinterpreted and incorrectly used in deciding my case. I therefore contend that the adjudicator has erred in law and their decision should be reviewed.

3. It should be noted that the ruling quoted (https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/media/uikbqxn4/2025csih2-appeal-to-the-court-of-session-by-glasgow-city-council-against-a-decision-of-the-upper-tribunal-for-scotland-dated-14-may-2024.pdf) has only very recently been made, was only binding in Scotland, and did not relate to parking in England which comes under separate legislation (The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022). All references in the ruling are made with regards to traffic offences in Scotland - specifically the contraventions relating to contraventions of a LEZ.

4. The ruling in Scotland was about whether a PCN was valid if it was not sent by recorded or registered mail. The reason for the ruling was to establish whether this technicality proved that the PCN had not been delivered to the motorist within the statutory time limits set in legislation. The case looked to determine whether service of the PCN by a means other than by recorded delivery was a "bright-line" rule - one that is clearly defined and leaves little or no room for varying interpretation. It did not discuss statutory time limits as being a "technicality".

5. The reasoning behind the ruling in Scotland was that it was considered that Parliament had not intended that the PCN should be invalidated by the failure to comply with a technicality in the legislation (i.e. the method of service not being by registered mail). The ruling also discusses how the Council had 'largely' complied with the process, including “timeous” service. It also states that previous cases where the authority had made this same mistake previously could not be looked at again because the statutory time limits had been exceeded (see paragraph 3 of the ruling). This indicates that timeous service within the statutory time limits is key to the enforceability of a PCN.

6. However, I believe that misinterpretation of this ruling has been used to decide my case, as its meaning appears to have been arbitrarily extended by the adjudicator to also cover statutory time limits as well as other technicalities (such as the method of posting of the PCN). The requirements set out in the parking legislation have clearly defined "bright-line" rules for time of service of the NtO, which must be within 6 months of the service of the PCN: "(2) A notice to owner may not be served after the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning with the relevant date". This is not open to interpretation. Indeed they are backed up by the clear and unambiguous wording in the Statutory Guidance "The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months from the ‘relevant date’.  There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO". The wording "ultimate time limit" is very clear as to its intentions here. If the ruling in Scotland is used to effectively overrule this clear and unambiguous legislation it risks attempting to completely circumvent the law, both in terms of time limits for service but also in terms of the statutory rights of appeal.

7. If this ruling is used by the tribunal to justify that the time limits in legislation are not binding on authorities, this risks undermining the entire purpose of having time limits set in legislation. It raises the question: at what point does the authority failing to comply with a legally mandated time limit become relevant? 1 day late? 2 days late? 1 week late? 1 month late? 1 year late? The legal time limits are clearly intended as "bright-line" requirements with no room for interpretation. I do not believe that the adjudicator has the authority to determine where failing to comply with legislation is acceptable and not acceptable where that involves ignoring a statutory time limit. If Parliament had not intended that time limits were absolute requirements for legal compliance, why would they be so clearly laid out in legislation? Ignoring the time limits set in legislation makes a clear and unambiguous legal requirement subject to inconsistency and unfairness.

8. The statutory guidance for parking enforcement clearly states that the expectation is that the authority serves an NtO within 56 days, and that 6 months for issuing a NtO is the “ultimate time limit”, and that the authority should have a “very good reason” for waiting this long to serve a NtO. The authority has not provided any reason whatsoever for exceeding the time limit for service of the NtO. The tribunal did not appear to consider this point in their decision.

9. If we look at the other time limits, such as the 56 days limit for a council to respond to representations, then what would happen if the council responded a day late. Or two? Or three? At what point does a time limit set out in legislation actually become relevant for the purposes of law? There are multiple time limits laid out in the regulations, on both the authority and the motorist. Are all of these to be considered as null and void? How can there be any possible fairness and consistency if time limits are considered flexible?

10. In my case, the time limit for service of a notice to owner are very clearly written in law. This is an absolute time limit for legal compliance and not a technicality such as sending the PCN by normal mail in the case ruling in Scotland. It is both written clearly in the Statutory Instrument and also backed up by the Statutory Guidance. There is no room for interpretation here, or flexibility for the authority to miss these deadlines without consequence. The use of the Scottish ruling to justify any and all non-compliance with legislation on the authority’s part is a dangerous precedent which harms motorists and effectively denies one of the statutory grounds of appeal (Procedural impropriety by the authority).

11. If time limits clearly written in legislation are unenforceable, as this tribunal decision suggests, then effectively all time limits stated in legislation are null and void, including those which apply to the motorist.

12. The prejudice against me in this case is that allowing the authority to miss legal deadlines denies me the right to be treated consistently and fairly according to legislation, and in a timeous manner, and effectively denies my right to appeal under one of the statutory grounds.

13. I would like to request a video hearing as part of this review.

@Incandescent

The issue was that the council served the NtO outside the statutory time limit of 6 months, rather than rejecting representations outside of the 56 day limit.

However, I think that I will put together a request for a review because this potentially opens up a whole can of worms about time limits when it comes to PCNs.

So it appears that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal believe that having a 6 months time limit in legislation for the service of the NtO is not relevant and that I had to demonstrate "prejudice" in order for it to be a factor. It doesn't say this in legislation but apparently that is irrelevant too.

I'm flabbergasted actually - I assume this means that councils can basically ignore every other time limit written in legislation? Such as the 56 days to respond to representations?

Well, I wish I'd just paid £25 now at the time if I knew this process was so skewed - I wouldn't have wasted countless hours of my life and an additional £25 if I knew that I'd actually come of the other end of it feeling even more unjustly treated.

Thanks everyone on here who gave advice, but just a warning to anyone reading this and considering an appeal based on time limits - it appears that councils can do whatever they like and the tribunal won't overturn it.