DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 128316--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 20, 2026, 6:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You've lost the discount unfortunately as they probably reckon
they weren't going to consider discretion twice. You can appeal
this but the tribunal can't consider mitigation.
Tincombe may see something on the NOR though.
#Post#: 128467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: ReflectoR
Date: August 21, 2026, 8:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there nothing to be said on the PCN observation time being
wrong?
Happy to take it tribunal, because I lost the discount anyway.
#Post#: 128474--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: ReflectoR
Date: August 22, 2026, 3:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the all the pages they've sent for this, I don't
think they sent a verification code this time for the tribunal.
Does this mean I need to do it via post?
Argh! This is what I get for leaving it so last minute.
Edit: I've submitted reps again on the PCN portal, asking them
for a verification code, and to consider my previous reps again.
Status changed to on hold, and email confirming as such.
#Post#: 128494--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 22, 2026, 6:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Code is 73G614 and is in the body of the NOR under Appeal.
IMO, one of your appeal grounds:
Procedural impropriety
I refer the adjudicator to the council's decision notice which,
because my representations were not accepted, is a Notice of
Rejection which must contain information warning the recipient
that they must either pay the penalty charge within a specified
period or appeal to the adjudicator:
(6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the
representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the
recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the
date of service of the decision notice—
(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or
(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty
charge,
(ii)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award
costs, and
(iii)describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an
adjudicator must be made
The 'form and manner in which an appeal ..must be made' is given
in Regulation 7 as follows:
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a
recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an
enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their
representations.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of
the decision notice under regulation 6(4)(b) which states that
the enforcement authority does not accept the recipient’s
representations, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
Regulations 7(2)(a) and 7(2)(b) are complementary and both
vitally important as regards compliance with the authority's
regulatory burden under Regulation 6. Both must be stated
clearly in a NOR.
However, in this case 7(2)(b) is omitted entirely. I ask the
adjudicator to find that this is a material failure by the
enforcement authority to observe a requirement imposed on it by
the Appeals regulations and is therefore a 'procedural
impropriety'.
I would add that this duty could not be discharged by a vague
reference to the tribunal's website and publications as here
because:
1. The duty does not fall to the tribunal but to the enforcement
authority;
2. In any event, the tribunal's website is provided to guide and
assist prospective appellants; it includes matters prescribed by
regulations and which represent tribunal policy and practice but
which is some respects are a departure from the regulations e.g.
references to 28 days from date of service for submission of an
appeal etc. But of course no detriment should be suffered by an
appellant by reading such documents provided the authority's NOR
has set out the legal position as required.
But the enforcement authority has not.
#Post#: 128501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: ReflectoR
Date: August 22, 2026, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you tincombe.
How did you find the code??
Edit: nevermind, I reread what you said, and feel a bit stupid
now.
#Post#: 128502--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: ReflectoR
Date: August 22, 2026, 8:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify, I did leave out 2 pages from my post, only
because I thought they may not be relevant.
I can post them here, in case they contradict the argument
you've made.
#Post#: 128505--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 22, 2026, 9:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to clarify, I did leave out 2 pages from my post, only
because I thought they may not be relevant.
??
#Post#: 128536--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: ReflectoR
Date: August 22, 2026, 5:26 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
These 2 pages. I'm sorry, I didn't realise they might be
relevant. But I should know better by now.
HTML https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202608222321432.jpg
HTML https://u.cubeupload.com/rtx/202608222321542.jpg
#Post#: 128554--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 23, 2026, 5:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
No problem.
It's what my draft referred to:
I would add that this duty could not be discharged by a vague
reference to the tribunal's website and publications as here
because:
1. The duty does not fall to the tribunal but to the enforcement
authority;
2. In any event, the tribunal's website is provided to guide and
assist prospective appellants; it includes matters prescribed by
regulations and which represent tribunal policy and practice but
which is some respects are a departure from the regulations e.g.
references to 28 days from date of service for submission of an
appeal etc. But of course no detriment should be suffered by an
appellant by reading such documents provided the authority's NOR
has set out the legal position as required.
That leaflet is awfully misleading without a context, but then
again if authorities do what they're supposed to do(as in convey
the mandated regulatory info) then no harm's done.
#Post#: 128555--------------------------------------------------
Re: Islington Contravention Code 11 Parked without payment of
the parking charge
DIR By: ReflectoR
Date: August 23, 2026, 6:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ooh, I see now. Well at least I think I do.
The extra two pages are just copy pasted from the tribunal site,
in a sense, and Islington made no attempt at explaining it
properly.
So your original draft is okay to send?
Can nothing be said about the mismatch of the PCN timings?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page