DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 126429--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: flash2005
Date: July 31, 2026, 1:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I received the rejection letter from the council today. They
have offered reduced fee so is it worth paying or further appeal
is recommended ?
<br> Page 1 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/hmKGZLa.jpeg
<br>
<br> Page 2 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/8Gbfz0O.jpeg
<br>
<br> Page 3 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ubyQqmM.jpeg
<br>
<br> Page 4 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/fYrvQLA.jpeg
<br>
<br> Page 5 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/J0CuiwD.jpeg
<br>
<br> Page 6 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/zV0LhQp.jpeg
<br>
<br> Page 7 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/jJZ9Yfc.jpeg
<br>
<br> Page 8 <br>
<br>
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/ZyFTiYv.jpeg
<br>
#Post#: 126433--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 31, 2026, 4:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'd appeal.
Rely upon your reps and add further procedural improprieties.
The law provides:
Duties of an enforcement authority to which representations are
made under regulation 5
.......
(8) If the enforcement authority does not accept that there are
compelling reasons of a kind mentioned in regulation 8(5)(b) or
that any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply, the
enforcement authority’s decision notice must—
(a)inform R of the right to appeal to an adjudicator under
regulation 10,
b)may contain such other information as the enforcement
authority considers appropriate.
...
Appeal to an adjudicator against enforcement authority’s
decision to reject representations
10.—(1) A person (“P”) may appeal to an adjudicator against an
enforcement authority’s decision not to accept that—
(a)any of the grounds specified in regulation 8(6) apply, or
(b)there are compelling reasons of the kind mentioned in
regulation 8(5)(b).
(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 9(4)(b) informing P of P’s
right to appeal to an adjudicator under this regulation, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
Not only does the NoR omit reference to 'such longer period..'
this error is compounded by their bespoke statement (using their
'other information that the authority considers appropriate'
power) that after 28 days and if a CC is served then 'at this
stage you would have no further opportunity to appeal'
B******s. They couldn't be more wrong if they tried.
#Post#: 126487--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 1, 2026, 9:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
+1. Also, the 14 day period is conflates "served/delivered" so
one can reasonably assume that applies to the 28 day period too.
So this is another problem for them.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-avenue-bus-gate-westbound/msg125486/#msg125486
#Post#: 126497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: Glitch
Date: August 1, 2026, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
This looks useful and applicable to my current case. Has it
been proven at Tribunal yet? Be handy to quote a case.
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> [quote author=flash2005 link=topic=10921.msg119921#msg119921
date=1779979380]
> Is any member able to help with this please ?
>
--- End Quote ---
There is an issue with the PCN which uses the old 2007
legislation re "served" rather than "occurred". I will dig out
my skeleton argument. It is worth using as they may well mess up
their reply or fail to consider.
The PCN
This states the old 2007 wording re served rather than
“occurred” as provided at Schedule 2 of The Civil Enforcement of
Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging
Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022
Particulars to be included in a penalty charge notice given
under regulation 9
2. The information to be included in a penalty charge notice
served under regulation 9 is—
(a)the date on which the notice is served,
(b)the regulatory matters,
(c)the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer issuing
the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable,
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28
days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention
occurred,
(e)that if the penalty charge is paid no later than the
applicable date, the penalty charge will be reduced by the
amount of any applicable discount, and
(f)that if the penalty charge is not paid within the period of
28 days referred to in sub-paragraph (d), a notice to owner may
be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the
vehicle.
Further, I do not believe the meaning of the highlighted part is
sufficiently expressed on the PCN as provided at Part 2 para. 3
of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the
following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in
accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the
enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those
representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations
against the penalty charge are received at such address as may
be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations
will be considered by the enforcement authority;
(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the
representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations
against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement
authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in
the notice to owner.
[/quote]
#Post#: 126568--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: flash2005
Date: August 2, 2026, 7:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here is the London tribunals appeal with all points included.
Please provide feedback
London Tribunals Appeal
PCN:
Vehicle Registration:
I rely upon all representations previously made to the
enforcement authority, together with all supporting evidence
previously supplied. Those representations are repeated and
incorporated into this appeal.
Without repeating those submissions in full, I make the
following additional submissions arising from the enforcement
authority’s rejection of my formal representations.
1. The alleged contravention did not occur
The allegation is that the vehicle was “Parked without payment
of the parking charge.”
That allegation remains incorrect.
The parking charge was paid in full using the RingGo cashless
parking system. The only error was that the incorrect vehicle
registration was inadvertently selected within the RingGo
application.
The authority has suffered no financial loss whatsoever.
The authority has never disputed that payment was made.
Accordingly, the allegation that the vehicle was parked without
payment is not established.
If the authority contends that payment must be linked to the
correct vehicle registration, that is a different issue from the
contravention alleged on the PCN.
⸻
2. Failure to properly consider the representations
The enforcement authority was under a statutory duty to properly
consider my representations.
Instead, the Notice of Rejection consists largely of standard
wording and fails to engage with the principal issues raised,
namely:
* that payment had in fact been made;
* that the council suffered no financial loss;
* that the alleged contravention specifically alleged
non-payment;
* the procedural impropriety arguments concerning the wording of
the PCN.
The rejection gives no proper reasons explaining why those
submissions were rejected.
A failure to genuinely consider representations is itself a
procedural impropriety.
⸻
3. The Notice of Rejection misstates the statutory right of
appeal
Regulation 9(4)(b) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022 requires that where representations are
rejected, the decision notice must inform the recipient of the
right to appeal under Regulation 10.
Regulation 10 provides that an appeal must be made:
“(a) within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of
service of the decision notice; or
(b) such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.”
The Notice of Rejection fails to inform me of this statutory
right.
Instead, it omits entirely the statutory wording permitting the
adjudicator to accept a late appeal.
That omission is material because Parliament has expressly
conferred that discretion upon the adjudicator.
The authority has therefore failed to comply with the mandatory
requirements of the Regulations.
⸻
4. The Notice of Rejection compounds the error
The defect is compounded by the authority exercising its
discretion under Regulation 9(8)(b) to include additional
information stating, in effect, that:
after 28 days, and once a Charge Certificate is served, there
would be no further opportunity to appeal.
That statement is inaccurate.
The legislation expressly provides that an adjudicator may allow
an appeal outside the 28-day period.
Rather than accurately informing the motorist of their statutory
rights, the authority has stated the opposite.
This is capable of discouraging or deterring a motorist from
exercising statutory appeal rights and is therefore a procedural
impropriety.
⸻
5. The PCN does not comply with the 2022 Regulations
As submitted previously, the Regulation 9 PCN states:
“The Penalty Charge must be paid no later than the last day of
the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the PCN
was served.”
However, Schedule 2 to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and
General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 requires the PCN
to state that payment must be made within 28 days beginning with
the date on which the alleged contravention occurred.
This point was raised in my representations but has not been
properly addressed.
⸻
6. The PCN fails to include the mandatory information required
by Regulation 3
As previously submitted, the Regulation 9 PCN also fails
properly to convey the mandatory information required by
Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022 concerning:
* pre-Notice to Owner representations;
* the authority’s duty to consider them; and
* the position should a Notice to Owner nevertheless be served.
Again, this point was not properly addressed.
⸻
7. Contravention not proven
The authority bears the burden of proving the contravention.
The photographs relied upon do not establish the alleged
contravention.
In particular:
* no photograph shows the vehicle together with the relevant
sign;
* no photograph demonstrates the relationship between the
vehicle and the applicable parking sign;
* no photograph shows the extent of the parking bay or the
applicable restriction.
The evidence therefore fails to establish that the vehicle was
parked subject to the restriction alleged.
Where photographic evidence is relied upon, it should
demonstrate both the vehicle and the applicable restriction. It
does not do so in this case.
Accordingly, the contravention has not been proved.
⸻
8. The Notice to Owner misstates and conflates the statutory
time periods
The Notice to Owner states:
“If you do not pay the penalty charge in full, or if you have
not made representations to the authority, within the period of
28 days beginning with the date on which this Notice to Owner is
served, the authority may increase the penalty charge by 50% to
£165 and may take steps to enforce payment of the increased
charge.”
This wording is capable of misleading the recipient.
The legislation requires the Notice to Owner to clearly explain
the statutory time limits applicable to payment and to the
making of representations. Instead, the authority has combined
both matters into a single sentence connected by the word “or”.
A reasonable recipient could read this as meaning that a Charge
Certificate may be issued where either:
* payment has not been made; or
* representations have not been made,
without appreciating how those statutory rights interact.
The wording therefore lacks the clarity expected of a statutory
notice.
Furthermore, by compressing two distinct statutory requirements
into a single composite sentence, the Notice to Owner fails to
accurately and transparently explain the legal position.
Statutory notices are required to communicate legal rights and
obligations with clarity. Where ambiguity exists, it should not
be construed against the recipient.
For these reasons, the Notice to Owner is procedurally
defective.
⸻
For all of the reasons previously advanced, together with the
additional procedural improprieties identified above, I
respectfully request that the Adjudicator allows the appeal and
directs the London Borough of Redbridge to cancel the Penalty
Charge Notice.
#Post#: 126627--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 2, 2026, 5:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-code-47j-stopped-on-a-restricted-bus-stop-clayhall-avenue/msg126626/#msg126626
#Post#: 126663--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: flash2005
Date: August 3, 2026, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
>
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-code-47j-stopped-on-a-restricted-bus-stop-clayhall-avenue/msg126626/#msg126626
>
--- End Quote ---
ok
#Post#: 126666--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: Bladester
Date: August 3, 2026, 5:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting arguments, looking forward to the results here!!
Rooting for you flash! Cannot believe this authority bypasses
common sense in matters such as this when honest mistakes are
evidently made yet the Redbridge push for cash in any case!...
Unbelievable!!
Good luck Flash!
#Post#: 126698--------------------------------------------------
Re: Redbridge Council, Parked without payment, George Lane,
DIR By: tincombe
Date: August 3, 2026, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I would amend slightly:
That allegation remains incorrect and is not supported if a
purposive interpretation is given to the relevant traffic order
when read as a whole
The amendment would allow you to make supplementary points once
you've seen the TMO. Following on from another recent thread,
the issue of what constitutes evidence of non-payment should be
tested at adjudication. Councils are creatures of habit and tend
to use standard foundations with orders, all they change is the
specifics. What constitutes evidence of non-payment tends to be
a foundation item and I'm pretty sure it will allow the council
to take into account whether in fact payment was made,
irrespective of VRM which IMO is purely an administrative tool
and not proof that payment was not made.
AND add to the procedural improprieties:
Failure to comply with the Secretary of State's Statutory
Guidance
The NOR makes it clear that the authority have not properly
considered my formal representations because their statement
that the PCN having been issued correctly is determinative of
the contravention is improper having regard to the TMO and their
duty which is summarised in the Guidance as follows:
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 penalty
charge but should always give challenges and representations a
fresh and impartial consideration.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page