DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119728--------------------------------------------------
Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street, Hainault
Avenue
DIR By: timoteus
Date: May 26, 2026, 4:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Vehicle was issued a PCN shortly before 8am on 25th May,
Contravention Code 01 Parked in a restricted street during
prescribed hours - see scans below:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/vbFEe5A.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/E23uD1b.jpg
Vehicle was parked on the pavement with adjacent double yellows
in Hainault Avenue, Westcliff-on-sea. Photos below are of its
position as parked when the PCN was issue:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/LR0e0c8.jpg
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/THr2755.jpg
Google maps link
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/BCZLw9wYm9GKv5Ge9
Are there any grounds to contest this?
Many thanks in advance
#Post#: 119732--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street,
Hainault Avenue
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: May 26, 2026, 4:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yellow lines cover the whole road not just the carriageway so
you have no chance with this unless you were loading or
alighting/boarding someone.
In London and other places now you would have got a footway
parking PCN.
I'm assuming the PCN is correct - someone may check it for you.
#Post#: 119736--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street,
Hainault Avenue
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 26, 2026, 5:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've had a look and it is not compliant with Regulation 3 (1)(c)
of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022
--- Quote ---
> Information about right to make representations or appeal to
be included in regulation 9 penalty charge notices and
enforcement notices
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
Of course this may not win an adjudication at the TPT, as
adjudicator seem to have fallen in love with the words
"substantial compliance", but for me, it is important to warn a
PCN recipient that even if he submits represenations against a
PCN, he must respond to the NtO despite having already submitted
representations. This PCN does not make that clear.
I have to say I'm surprised to see this error, because it's been
around in these and previous regulations for over 20 years. Why
can't councils just copy and past the clause into the PCN ?
#Post#: 119769--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street,
Hainault Avenue
DIR By: timoteus
Date: May 26, 2026, 10:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Great, thanks for this.
As a next step I shall submit the following to
HTML https://southend.gov.uk/viewpcn
HTML https://southend.gov.uk/viewpcn
(as per PCN instructions) as an
informal appeal:
--- Quote ---
> The PCN received (see attached) is not compliant with
Regulation 3 (1)(c) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
>
> The relevant section states:
>
> "3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the
following information—
>
> (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."
>
> This is not made clear in the instructions provided by the PCN
--- End Quote ---
Is there anything else I should add at this stage?
Assuming this fails, I am more than happy to attempt this at
Tribunal (assuming the most I am risking by doing so is the
additional £35 for not paying the discounted rate within the 14
days)
#Post#: 119811--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street,
Hainault Avenue
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 27, 2026, 2:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What have 'Marston Holdings' got to do with this?
Do you understand why the PCN is not compliant?
The PCN states:
'If the penalty charge is not paid or challenged
before...28-days from the date this penalty charge is
issued..the Council may serve a Notice to Owner..'
This is materially incorrect in 2 respects.
Serving a NTO on the owner is NOT contingent upon whether it is
'challenged', the only condition is that a 28-day period has
elapsed beginning with the date of service. Councils were making
this mistake with PCNs years ago but after numerous adverse
adjudication decisions(and you could probably throw in case
law), PCNs served by CEOs have, where they've referred to the
matter at all, used the phrase 'or successfully challenged'.
So this part of the PCN, which is mandated under the regs, is
defective IMO.
But would the council cancel, in effect admitting their error?
Can you give them any other reason to cancel e.g. been doing it
for ever without issue, common practice in this road, you have a
clean PCN record and won't do it again etc.
If the location is local you might want to take photos of any
other large-scale contraventions in support.
#Post#: 119818--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street,
Hainault Avenue
DIR By: timoteus
Date: May 27, 2026, 4:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> What have 'Marston Holdings' got to do with this?
--- End Quote ---
Lol no idea where that came from - that was supposed to just
link to the council website to submit the appeal
HTML https://southend.gov.uk/viewpcn
--- Quote ---
> Do you understand why the PCN is not compliant?
--- End Quote ---
Based on Incandescent's earlier response, because the PCN
suggests that responding to the NtO may not be necessary if
informal appeals to the council had previously been made. I
think that's effectively what you're saying as well? I'm not
sure what the 2nd respect in which it is materially incorrect is
though.
--- Quote ---
> Can you give them any other reason to cancel e.g. been doing
it for ever without issue, common practice in this road, you
have a clean PCN record and won't do it again etc.
--- End Quote ---
Many other vehicles regularly park on this section of the
pavement when the street is full (which it always is from around
6pm - 9am the following morning). But as was already mentioned,
the double yellows are clear and apply to the entire carriageway
so I can't see that being a helpful defence. The only reason
most other drivers can park there without issue is that the
street is very rarely patrolled (parking otherwise unrestricted
on both sides). I wouldn't want to second guess exactly why that
stretch of pavement has been widened, or indeed what purpose is
served by adding the DYLs, but it does seem pointless (no access
of any kind is blocked by parking there).
In any case, I will re-write the appeal so that the wording is
more clear and post the new version here before submitting.
#Post#: 119835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street,
Hainault Avenue
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 27, 2026, 8:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
These procedural improprieties are separate.
3(1) of the Appeals Regs -
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564
Mine relates to 2(d) and 2(f) of Schedule 2 to the General Regs:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
#Post#: 119893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street,
Hainault Avenue
DIR By: timoteus
Date: May 28, 2026, 6:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for clarifying.
Below is my latest draft for an informal appeal:
--- Quote ---
> The PCN issued is not compliant with the following
regulations:
>
>
> * Regulation 3 (1)(c) The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and
General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022
>
> The regulation states
>
> "3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the
following information—
> (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."
>
> The PCN states "The owner will then have the right to make
formal representations to the Council".
> It is not clear that formal representations in the form and
manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner must be
made even when a previous challenge was made, only that there is
an option to do so.
>
>
> * Schedule 2 (2) (d)/(f) The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and
General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022
>
> The regulation states
>
> "2.-(2) The information to be included in a penalty charge
notice served under regulation 9 is—
> (d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of
28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged
contravention occurred,
> (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."
>
> The PCN states "If the penalty charge is not paid or
challenged on or before the end of the 28 day period, from the
date this penalty charge is issued".
> This is misleading and suggests that challenging the PCN,
whether successful or not, would be enough to prevent the
serving of a notice to owner after the 28 day period has expired
>
--- End Quote ---
I'd be very grateful if someone could review this before it is
submitted
#Post#: 119908--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street,
Hainault Avenue
DIR By: tincombe
Date: May 28, 2026, 8:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The PCN states "If the penalty charge is not paid or challenged
on or before the end of the 28 day period, from the date this
penalty charge is issued".
This is misleading and suggests that challenging the PCN,
whether successful or not, would be enough to prevent the
serving of a notice to owner after the 28 day period has expired
The PCN is materially defective in 2 respects:
1. It misstates the 'payment period' which without exception is
specified in the regulations as '28 days beginning on the date
of service'. Your PCN refers to 'date of issue' and 'from' which
is procedurally improper in both regards.
2. The power available to the council to serve a Charge
Certificate is NOT contingent upon whether a challenge has been
made and this procedural impropriety takes on greater
significance in the context of the council's failure regarding
the owner's obligations.
I would also preface your challenge by acknowledging the
contravention because you have not suggested an arguable
defence.
I accept that ******** but as can be seen in the attached
photos(yours of motorists still parking there and any GSV in
support) this is a regular occurrence. Until now I had not
received a PCN despite repeatedly parking at the location. I now
know this is a contravention but as this is my first PCN I would
ask that the council exercises its discretion to cancel. If it
is not minded to do so then I should be grateful if you would
not belabour this point but instead deal with the following
issues of procedural impropriety. ....
I know these are only informal reps, but it you can get them to
cancel at this stage, so much the better.
#Post#: 120328--------------------------------------------------
Re: Southend-on-sea, Code 01 Parked in a restricted street,
Hainault Avenue
DIR By: timoteus
Date: June 1, 2026, 11:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for clarifying - I hope I've understood this correctly!
Here is an updated draft:
--- Quote ---
> I accept that a contravention of parking restrictions did
occur on the specified date.
> However I would like to bring to the council's attention that
parking in the same manner as my vehicle was found is a regular
occurrence in this street (see attched Google Street View
snapshot from Jun 2024 which demonstrates this).
> Until now I had not received a PCN despite repeatedly parking
at the location.
> I now know this is a contravention but as this is my first PCN
I would ask that the council exercises its discretion to cancel.
>
> If it is not minded to do so then I should be grateful if you
would not belabour this point but instead deal with the
following issues of procedural impropriety:
>
>
> * Regulation 3 (1)(c) The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and
General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022
>
> The regulation states
>
> "3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the
following information—
> (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."
>
> The PCN states "The owner will then have the right to make
formal representations to the Council".
> It is not clear that formal representations in the form and
manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner must be
made even when a previous challenge was made, only that there is
an option to do so.
>
>
> * Schedule 2 (2) (d)/(f) The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and
General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022
>
> The regulation states
>
> "2.-(2) The information to be included in a penalty charge
notice served under regulation 9 is—
> (d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of
28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged
contravention occurred,
> (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."
>
> The PCN states "If the penalty charge is not paid or
challenged on or before the end of the 28 day period, from the
date this penalty charge is issued".
>
> Firstly, the payment period described is incorrect - as per
sub-paragraph (d) above it should state "28 days beginning with
the date on which the alleged contravention occurred" but
instead describes a period starting "from" and involving "date
of issue" and is thus procedurally improper on both these
grounds.
> Secondly, the power available to the council to serve a Charge
Certificate is NOT contingent upon whether a challenge has been
made. The quoted section of the PCN above is misleading and
suggests that challenging the PCN, whether successful or not,
would prevent the serving of a notice to owner.
>
--- End Quote ---
and below is the GSV screenshot I intend to upload alongside:
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/VzkrHwr.png
Again, grateful if someone could review and confirm before I
submit.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page