DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69996--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 4, 2025, 4:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jamran link ---
>
> Does anyone have advice on whether I have a chance with the
adjudicator please?
>
--- End Quote ---
As you asked in your initial post, "do I have a chance", I would
say yes, because when you parked you did what you were required
to do. However, we can never predict what an adjudicator will
decide, so it would be something of a gamble. The adjudicator
decides on the civil law test of "the balance of probabilities",
therefore your appeal narrative must be credible.
#Post#: 85042--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: Jamran
Date: August 10, 2025, 3:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
LT hearing tomorrow. Wish me luck! Any further advice would be
much appreciated.
#Post#: 85148--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: Jamran
Date: August 11, 2025, 10:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just got off the meeting with adjudicator. Sadly, I lost the
appeal. I’ll update the post with the decision asap. Really
frustrating
#Post#: 85151--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 11, 2025, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The 16.15 hrs one?
#Post#: 85154--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: Jamran
Date: August 11, 2025, 11:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> The 16.15 hrs one?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes
#Post#: 85157--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 11, 2025, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'll send the number to [member=1]cp8759[/member] tomorrow when
it is published and he will do the honours.
#Post#: 85256--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: August 12, 2025, 1:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
2250258476
This is an appeal by Mr Khan (the Appellant) against a
penalty charge notice (PCN) issued by the Enforcement Authority
(EA) for parking in a restricted street during prohibited hours.
This was decided at a video hearing.
The EA states the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in Warley
Street on 27 December 2024 at 09:33 hours. They state that the
yellow line restrictions at the location apply from Monday to
Friday 08:30 hours to 17:30 hours. The Civil Enforcement
Officer’s (the CEO) evidence states that the PCN was issued
after observing the vehicle parked with no activity between
09:28 hours to 09:33 hours. The CEO’s contemporaneous notes also
state that they looked for a Blue Badge and none could be seen.
The EA has produced photographic evidence of the vehicle and
the PCN affixed to the vehicle. They have also produced
correspondence with the Appellant dated 23 January 2025 and 29
April 2025.
It is the Appellant’s case that no contravention occurred.
In their representations the Appellant stated that their mother
is a Blue Badge holder, of which they have provided evidence,
and resides with the Appellant. They state that the Blue Badge
was displayed correctly on the dashboard when they parked the
car, but that the car was hit in the rear and the Blue Badge was
displaced and fell on the floor. The Appellant has provided an
invoice dated 12 April 2025 in relation to the repair of the
damage caused.
The Appellant further asserts that it is unfair that the
discounted penalty was not reoffered with the Notice to Owner,
which they consider is procedural impropriety.
I am satisfied from the evidence that the contravention did
occur. The Appellant’s vehicle was parked with no activity, and
no Blue Badge was displayed on the vehicle.
I further find that the EA has responded to the Appellant
within the appropriate timescales and there has been no
procedural impropriety on their part. The photographic evidence
taken by the CEO when they issued the PCN shows the PCN affixed
to the Appellant’s vehicle and therefore the PCN was served for
the purposes of Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Road
Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines
and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022. The EA also
extended the time for paying the discounted penalty on 23
January 2025 in their Notice of Rejection. In any event, I find
that there is no requirement on the EA to offer the discounted
penalty for any period beyond the time indicated in the PCN.
The matters raised by the appellant amount to mitigating
circumstances, which have already been considered by the EA.
They do not amount to a ground of appeal, or an exemption. An
Adjudicator has no power to consider mitigation as decided by
the Court of Appeal in Walmsley v Transport for London [2005]
EWCA Civ 1540.
I therefore refuse the appeal and find that the penalty
charge is payable.
#Post#: 85258--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 12, 2025, 2:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, this has not been an easy thread but at least
[member=280]Jamran[/member] tried.
#Post#: 85259--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: mrmustard
Date: August 12, 2025, 2:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unbeatable PCNs are beatable and I have lost unloseable cases.
The ebst chance for a poor case is that the council decide to
DNC (do not contest it).
A 50% gamble though.
The council had to pay a £30 tribunal fee. They hate those.
#Post#: 85286--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN appeal rejected
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 12, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Outcome
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_CFARa556rcxLIeVF36CbiOYDM-b3QTh/view.
--- Quote ---
>
> The matters raised by the appellant amount to mitigating
circumstances, which have already been considered by the EA.
They do not amount to a ground of appeal, or an exemption. An
Adjudicator has no power to consider mitigation as decided by
the Court of Appeal in Walmsley v Transport for London [2005]
EWCA Civ 1540.
>
--- End Quote ---
Many litigants in person get this in their decisions, and this
is a good illustration of why it's really advisable to seek
representation especially in tricky cases. We are far from
infallible, but at least none of us put mitigation to the
adjudicator.
*****************************************************
Page 7 of 9
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page