Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

hope you're enjoying your bank holiday weekend!

@HC Andersen, thanks for your input, i've updated my notice to include your response, i'll get it sent out today.

thanks again!

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to formally contest the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 19/12/23, for contravention code 62, based on procedural improprieties linked to both the initial appeal process as outlined by Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, and the subsequent actions required in relation to a Notice to Owner (NTO).

Firstly, the PCN falls short of the detailed requirements set forth in Regulation 9, specifically failing to provide comprehensive guidance on how to contest the charge through all stages of the process, particularly if a Notice to Owner (NTO) is issued following initial representations. This lack of clarity undermines the procedural fairness of the enforcement process and impairs my ability to exercise my rights to appeal effectively.

Upon reviewing the initial PCN, it states, “...the registered owner/keeper will be entitled to make representations to the council against the penalty charge and may appeal to an independent adjudicator if those representations are rejected.” However, this wording does not adequately convey the obligatory nature of the actions required upon receiving an NTO. It is crucial for recipients to understand that, irrespective of any informal representations made prior to the NTO issuance, they must comply with the directives of the NTO—either by making payment or by submitting formal representations as instructed. The use of "entitled" significantly dilutes the imperative to comply, which could mislead recipients regarding their legal obligations and affect their ability to safeguard their rights.

The combined effect of these deficiencies not only compromises the procedural integrity of the PCN issuance but also significantly hampers the rights of individuals to navigate the appeals process with a full understanding of their obligations and entitlements.

Given these procedural and informational shortcomings, I respectfully request the reconsideration and subsequent cancellation of this PCN.

Yours sincerely

Hi All,

any thoughts on the response? or should I stick to the original?

thanks

Thanks for the advise, i will re-write the appeal focusing only on the procedural deficiency. I'll put a draft response up later on today.

thanks

Hi All,

i've finally received a notice of rejection from Newham council. they have rejected my appeal but have still offered the £65 discount or to take it to tribunal.

@cp8759, you've already mentioned this is worth challenging at Tribunal level.

I've attached it for your advice.

Shall I make the challenge online? I have until circa 27th March to get my response in.

thanks again!



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Morning All,

hope you're well,

Just received my rejection letter from Barking and Dagenham for my "wheels on the footpath" PCN. They've not addressed all the points in my response and have stated that the "other points" do not justify a cancellation.

I've attached their response.

what do you think, is there a strong enough case to challenge the PCN?

thanks for all your help.



[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

ahh yes, of course. i'll wait.

thanks again

I've updated the response to include regulation 9, I'll get this sent off tonight.

thanks for all your help.

I'll keep you all updated.



Draft Representation:
Dear Sir/Madam,

RE: Formal Representation Against PCN
I am writing to formally contest the Penalty Charge Notice referenced above, issued on 19/12/23 for contravention code 62, which denotes parking with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway.
My challenge is based on the following points:

1.   Clarity of Signage and Parking Zone: the signage within the area where I was parked clearly indicated a "Restricted Parking Zone Mon-Fri 8 am to 6:30 pm". My vehicle was stationed in the land between these two signs, where the indications were explicit that enforcement is not applicable outside these hours. Parking within the confines of this clear signage, during a period that falls outside of the enforcement hours, I had every reason to believe that my actions were in compliance with the parking regulations set by the local authority.

2.   Established Pattern of Non-enforcement: I have regularly parked in this area for a number of years without receiving a PCN, leading to a legitimate expectation that parking as I have done would not result in enforcement action. The sudden issuance of a PCN, without any apparent change in enforcement policy or notification thereof, represents a departure from the established pattern of non-enforcement that the council has previously demonstrated.

3.   Indistinct Footpath: The area in question does not resemble a conventional footpath, and there is no clear indication that parking is prohibited, which misleads motorists regarding the legality of parking in that location. Further, the section of the carriageway where my vehicle was parked was constructed with the same materials and using the same methodology as the carriageway, lacking the paving slabs that are typically expected in a footway. This uniformity in construction within the restricted zone does not provide the clear visual differentiation that is required for drivers to discern the beginning of a footpath. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that outside the restricted parking zone, the construction material and methodology of the footpath changes, aligning with the typical build-up of a footway. This stark contrast in construction leads to a reasonable expectation that the zone where I was parked did not constitute a footpath and was, therefore, permissible for parking.

4.   Omission of Key Information as per Regulation 9 (penalty charge notices and enforcement notices): The PCN does not fully comply with the requirements outlined in Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. It fails to explicitly include information that if a Notice to Owner is served following initial representations, any further representations must adhere to the specific requirements set out in the Notice to Owner, including the form, manner, and timeline for response. This lack of comprehensive information in the PCN about the process for contesting the charge at all stages, particularly post-issuance of a Notice to Owner, is a notable procedural deficiency. It hinders my ability to fully understand and exercise my rights in the appeal process, as required by the regulation.

Given these points, including the procedural deficiency due to the omission of key information as per Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, and in light of the longstanding practice of non-enforcement in the area, I respectfully request that the PCN be reconsidered and subsequently cancelled.