DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 126415--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: July 31, 2026, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So I submitted the review request along with some explanation
for doing this after the 14 day deadline (seeking advice and
some other personal extenuating circumstances). I received the
standard auto reply so will wait to see whether the request is
accepted or not.
#Post#: 126434--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 31, 2026, 4:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks.
#Post#: 126525--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: August 1, 2026, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So... I got a result; the review was rejected. Here is the
complete (but redacted) decision letter:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/dpycJrx_xl.png
Is it worth taking this further?
Edit: The letter image in the post appears blurry but if you
right-click it and open it in a new tab it's clearer.
#Post#: 126528--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 1, 2026, 5:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yet another TPT decision siding with the council when the error
is de minimis, and also ignoring the fact that on number plates,
the 'O' and the '0' are the same.
TPT is frankly getting to be a Fob-Off tribunal in my view with
adjudicators totally unwilling to examine appellants arguments
in full, unlike London Tribunals, where the adjudicators are,
perhaps, more up-to-speed on council gaming of the system.
That's my view, anyway.
#Post#: 126530--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 1, 2026, 6:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
End of the line but tincombe may have thoughts.
#Post#: 126564--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 2, 2026, 6:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's out of focus on my ipad, I'm afraid.
#Post#: 126575--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: Hardwired7223
Date: August 2, 2026, 8:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve uploaded the redacted pdf to Dropbox here
HTML https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/ds286htho2xmbnysqv8da/2026-08-02-14.24.01.pdf?rlkey=2j4zfv4givwkyx7myhecsetia&st=65df728v&dl=0
#Post#: 126581--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 2, 2026, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There you go.
An adjudicator who doesn't understand the distinction between
what justifies a PCN being issued in the first place and the
authority's separate duty to consider representations.
Using their logic, NO reps for assisted alighting or boarding,
loading, delivering etc. when away from a vehicle would ever
succeed because the PCN was issued correctly in the context of
what was known to the CEO at the time.
But this isn't the issue.
It's whether a penalty may be pursued by the council in light of
all the facts, some of which only surface after the event.
But whereas these ideas could have been developed at the appeal,
it was difficult after the event and with this 'lip service'
approach to a thorough review doomed to fail.
C'est la vie!
#Post#: 126590--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: August 2, 2026, 12:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think related to this, adjudicator Carl Teper has gathered
this together in a couple of recent decisions. One below and
worth noting.
As he says, simply:
As explained in Susan Cook, the fact that a contravention has
occurred cannot be a reason not to exercise discretion to cancel
a penalty, on the contrary there must have been a contravention
in the first place or else there is nothing for the Authority to
consider at all.
---------
Case reference 2260333192
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Sutton
VRM LY25CYL
PCN Details
PCN SU75865093
Contravention date 07 Feb 2026
Contravention time 16:48:00
Contravention location Throwley Road
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date -
Decision Date 27 Jul 2026
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to
Owner.
Reasons The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was
parked in a suspended bay when in Throwley Road on 7 February
2026 at 16:48.
The Appellant denies the contravention and has submitted
substantial mitigation for the Authority to consider. Further,
that the bay was not in actual use for the suspended purpose.
I have allowed this appeal because I find that the Authority has
fettered its discretion by limiting it to “…emergency
situations…” in the Notice of Rejection.
The parties are referred to my decision in case 2250689988,
which I have copied below in full.
'In Susan Cook v Trafford Borough Council (TR05993K, 25 January
2013) Adjudicator Kennedy said as follows (all emphasis in the
original):
'A council must in each case decide if it is appropriate that
the penalty charge be waived either because:
(i) one of the statutory grounds applies and therefore no
penalty is payable; or
(ii) although there was a contravention in the particular
circumstances of the case no penalty should be payable.
It is this second point which reflects the discretion given to a
council to waive any penalty charge at any time. Discretion is
the power to act as one thinks appropriate in the circumstances,
but it is relevant in this context only when a penalty would
otherwise be due. Discretion is not necessary or relevant when
no penalty is due.
If there was no contravention then the Council’s discretion
would be irrelevant because if there was no contravention the
penalty must be cancelled regardless of the surrounding
circumstances. The case would end at the first of the two stages
above.
It follows that discretion cannot be refused because a
contravention has occurred; there must have been a contravention
otherwise there is nothing for the Council to consider.
A council will not be criticised for refusing to exercise
discretion favourably if it is clear that the individual
considering the case has acted sensibly, reasonably, fairly and
proportionately taking into account all the individual merits of
the case.
A council is entitled to be shrewd in its analysis, but must
avoid rigid or “blanket” policies. The words of the Operational
Guidance express the approach clearly and with considerable
wisdom:
"11.3 It is in the interests of the authority and the vehicle
owner to resolve any dispute at the earliest possible stage.
Authorities should take account of the CEO's actions in issuing
the PCN, but should always give challenges and representations a
fresh and impartial consideration.
11.4 An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at
any point throughout the CPE process. It can do this even when
an undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems
it to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case. Under
general principles of public law, authorities have a duty to act
fairly and proportionately’” and are encouraged to exercise
discretion sensibly and reasonably and with due regard for the
public interest.
11.5 Enforcement authorities have a duty not to fetter their
discretion, so should ensure that PCNs, NtOs, leaflets and any
other advice they give do not mislead the public about what they
may consider in the way of representations. They should approach
the exercise of discretion objectively and without regard to any
financial interest in the penalty or decisions that may have
been taken at an earlier stage in proceedings. Authorities
should formulate (with advice from their legal department) and
then publish their policies on the exercise of discretion. They
should apply these policies flexibly and judge each case on its
merits. An enforcement authority should be ready to depart from
its policies if the particular circumstances of the case warrant
it."
[...]
There are a number of points the Council have failed to observe
or practice in this case and, one suspects, this occurs also in
their approach to other cases. This letter, dated 15 March 2012,
epitomises their attitude to this Appellant:
"With respect to the above, your comments have been considered
however the penalty charge will not be waived on this occasion
as the vehicle was observed parked without a valid permit or
visitor card on display. I have checked our records and | can
confirm that a previous Penalty has been waived under Trafford
Councils 15 waiver policy for vehicles parked in a permit
holder's only as on that occasion the vehicle was also parked on
Normans Place without a valid permit or visitor card clearly on
display. When parking the onus does lie with the driver of the
vehicle to ensure that they display a valid permit or visitor
card clearly and securely to exempt from the restrictions in
place."
The first failure appears in the first paragraph and is the
refusal to waive the penalty because there was a contravention.
The fact of contravention cannot be a reason for refusing to
waive the penalty.
That case was decided under the 2007 Regulations but no
substantive changes were made by the 2022 regulations under
which this appeal is to be determined.
In Stanmore Quality Services Ltd v London Borough of Lambeth
(2220882479, 7 January 2023) Adjudicator Jack Walsh (as he then
was) held in similar circumstances that (my emphasis):
The response from the EA did not engage with the points made by
the appellant company or the evidence it had provided. It did
not refer to any applicable exemptions, or the lack of them. The
response said: "We have noted the circumstances explained in
your correspondence to us. It is unfortunate that you were
unfamiliar with the rules that were in force. However, it is
still up to drivers to be aware of signs and road markings and
obey them." The responsibility of the EA is not merely to 'note'
the representations, as the first sentence tends to suggest, but
to consider them. I find that the second sentence is
presumptuous and patronising. The third sentence is irrelevant
and is simply a statement of the obvious. The notice of
rejection did not provide a meaningful response to the
representations made by the appellant company, to which it had
clearly devoted some time and care. I am driven to the
conclusion, and find on the balance of probabilities, that the
EA, contrary to the bald assertion earlier in the notice of
rejection that it had 'carefully considered' what the appellant
company had said, had in fact done no such thing. I find that
the EA had indeed merely 'noted' the representations and failed
to consider them. This is a serious departure from the
requirements of the statutory scheme, as I explained in Jones v.
LB Havering (2190374806, 9 October 2019) a case cited by Mr.
Murray-Smith. The PCN is thereby rendered unenforceable.
I find that the Notice of Rejection does not address the
Appellant's representations at all. And can properly be
distinguished from the case of Halton
In this case the Appellant made detailed representations based
on compelling mitigation, the Notice of Rejection states that:
After carefully considering your Representations and any
mitigating circumstances, I am satisfied that the PCN was
correctly issued and that there is no reason for it to be
cancelled.
The fact that the PCN was correctly issued was not in dispute
and is besides the point: as explained in Susan Cook there must
be a correctly issued PCN or else there is no discretion for the
Authority to consider. This means that the only reason provided
by the Authority for why the PCN was not cancelled is that
"there is no reason for it to be cancelled".
Like Adjudicator Walsh in the case above, I am driven to the
conclusion that despite the assertion that the Authority has
"carefully considered" the representations, it has done no such
thing. I find as a fact that the Authority never considered at
all whether, notwithstanding the fact that a penalty was
correctly issued by the CEO, it should nonetheless exercise its
statutory power under regulation to accept representations made
under regulation 5(2)(b)(ii) of The Civil Enforcement of Road
Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022, which entitle an Authority to cancel a penalty
where, even when a penalty has been correctly issued, "there are
compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the
case, the enforcement authority should cancel the penalty charge
and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty
charge.".
In its case summary the Authority states that:
"While the Authority acknowledges the appellant’s need to attend
a court hearing, this does not exempt a motorist from complying
with parking restrictions. It remains the responsibility of the
driver to ensure that their vehicle is parked in accordance with
the prevailing terms and conditions, regardless of the purpose
of their journey. The availability of parking, or lack thereof,
does not override the restrictions in force.
The fact that the availability of parking, or lack thereof, does
not override the restriction in force, is completely besides the
point. The case summary confirms that the Authority never
contemplated with an open mind the question of whether, despite
a contravention of the restrictions in force, nonetheless the
penalty should be cancelled. As explained in Susan Cook, the
fact that a contravention has occurred cannot be a reason not to
exercise discretion to cancel a penalty, on the contrary there
must have been a contravention in the first place or else there
is nothing for the Authority to consider at all.
The case summary also states that:
"In light of the above, the Authority is satisfied that the
contravention occurred and that the Penalty Charge Notice was
issued correctly. Accordingly, the appeal is refused."
I take it that in the passage above the Authority means that the
representations are refused, as the determination of the appeal
is a matter for me. However this paragraph helpfully confirms
that the representations were refused because a contravention
had occurred and the PCN was issued correctly, which cannot be a
reason to refuse to exercise discretion, it is a pre-requisite
for the power of discretion to arise in the first place. As far
as failures to consider go, the Authority's case summary is
tantamount to a confession.
Like Adjudicator Kennedy, I find that an Authority cannot be
criticised for refusing to exercise discretion favourably if it
is clear that the individual considering the case has acted
sensibly, reasonably, fairly and proportionately taking into
account all the individual merits of the case. However, I find
as a fact that in this case the Authority has done no such thing
and has instead decided that because the contravention had
occurred no further consideration was required and that would be
the end of the matter.
I find that I am dealing with a complete failure to consider
within the meaning of Halton Borough Council, R (On the
Application Of) v Road User Charging Adjudicators [2023] EWHC
303 (Admin). I therefore find as a fact that the Authority
failed to consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel
the penalty and because this is a mandatory duty under the
regulations, I find that service of the Notice of Rejection
occurred otherwise than as authorised by the Regulations, which
is a procedural impropriety.
Regulation 7(5)(a) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations provides that
if the Adjudicator concludes that a ground specified in the
Regulations above applies, the Adjudicator must allow the
appeal. There is no discretion about this."
I find that the Authority in this case has fettered its
discretion by limiting its consideration of mitigation to
emergency situations only.
Finally, for the same reasons as stated in the case of Melanie
Green 2250689988 this appeal must be allowed.
#Post#: 126594--------------------------------------------------
Re: Manchester Council, PCN code 73, Wrong Registration Entered
(0/O) in Arndale Car Park
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 2, 2026, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
And throw in the SoS's Stat Guidance:
Authorities should take account of the CEO’s actions in issuing
the penalty charge but should always give challenges and
representations a fresh and impartial consideration.
An authority has a discretionary power to cancel a PCN at any
point throughout the process. It can do this even when an
undoubted contravention has occurred if the authority deems it
to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
my emphasis.
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page