Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you.  There is a slight difference in the picture of the sign they admitted as evidence vs the Street View image - on Street View the 'past this point' appears to have been covered, but neither has any mention of residents.

No reason of relevance for parking in that location.



Both of the below are relevant in terms of location and contravention, but neither seems to have a clear outcome of any help.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-manchester-hibbert-street-code-12/msg31351/#msg31351

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/manchester-city-council-code-12-parked-in-a-'permit-parking-zone'-but-sign-block/msg41591/#msg41591

Good afternoon,

I recently received a PCN on Banff Street in Manchester.  I believe this specific street has actually been covered before.

https://imgpile.com/p/cjP1mu8

The area in question is covered by the Rusholme and Moss Side Past this Point Permit Scheme.  This scheme, as per the councils website, doesn't offer paper permits - only digital ones - and there is no option to Pay and Display at this location.

The PCN I received was listed as 'Code 12 - Parked in a residents or shared use parking place without clearly displaying either a permit or voucher or pay and display ticket'. 

This differs from the governments own definition of Code 12 which includes digital permits. 

I challenged the PCN on the grounds of them requiring something which wasn't possible - no valid permit can be clearly displayed if they are not supplied, nor can a P&D ticket be purchased.

The rejection I have received states that I was given a PCN for failing to display either a valid permit or e-permit, but this different from what is stated on the PCN.

A technicality I know, but they make the rules and should abide by them... any route to follow here?


Thank you

Correction from my earlier statement, it was a single yellow but during the middle of the day.  No specific loading restrictions in place (I drive an estate so people often assume I'm not loading).  I was there for long enough to be ticketed!

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8CNcqN6tUGSotb6DA

As I say, happy to continue the appeal on these grounds (obviously happy to take on board any input, but I've done so before with success) however I'm mainly wondering whether their skipping my appeal and moving to NtO is of any bearing.


Kind Regards

No reason of relevance for the delay in returning.


Thank you for the information.  On the rear of the PCN it does state that
"making an informal challenge does not prevent the owner from making formal representations upon receipt of the Notice to Owner"
and also in reference to the NtO
"The owner can either pay or make representations and may appeal to an independent adjudicator if their representations are rejected.  The NtO will contain instructions on how to do this".

Am I understanding correctly that they should have stated that representations MUST be made to the enforcement agency as directed in the NtO if received, as any informal representations would then be irrelevant? (e.g. if I were to submit an informal appeal after the NtO were generated but prior to reaching me, I would never have an appeal considered?)

If that is the case, would you consider the below be a suitable appeal?




Good afternoon,

The issued PCN does not contain the required statutory information as per The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 - Regulation 3(1)(c) and therefore does not confirm with rules required for a PCN to be valid.

I therefore reject the validity of this PCN and require confirmation that you have deemed it void.




Apologies for the extra questions, just ensuring I am fully understanding this before submitting anything.

b789, you're a star.  I've referred to 'relevant land' previously thanks to other posts of yours, but it never occurred to me that this would fall under the same bylaws.


Many thanks
LTL