URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 97012--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medway Code 19  Meadowbank - Resident Parking Permit 
       Partially Displayed 
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: November 6, 2025, 3:29 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Sorry OP, but you MUST post actual documents, not your
       transpositions.
       Trying to progress in an informed and controlled manner without
       sight of docs is going to cause you extra work and more than
       likely misinform us.
       As regards what you've posted, I refer to this statement which
       you say is in their response:
       This statement is submitted in response to Jojo's appeal
       We need to know exactly what you submitted prior to their letter
       which, as you will see, makes no reference to the grounds of
       procedural impropriety.
       #Post#: 99001--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medway Code 19  Meadowbank - Resident Parking Permit 
       Partially Displayed 
   DIR By: JOJO1209
       Date: November 20, 2025, 8:28 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [member=7392]H[/member] C Anderson
       [member=2249]stamfordman[/member]
       [member=1]cp8759[/member]
       [member=6500]404BrainNotFound[/member]
       Just seen your message.
       I don't get notifications.
       The hearing is tomorrow afternoon.
       I will upload what I posted on my TPT Appeal.
       Thanks in advance for your help.
       #Post#: 99011--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medway Code 19  Meadowbank - Resident Parking Permit 
       Partially Displayed 
   DIR By: JOJO1209
       Date: November 20, 2025, 8:45 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [member=7392]H[/member] C Anderson
       [member=2249]stamfordman[/member]
       [member=1]cp8759[/member]
       [member=6500]404BrainNotFound[/member]
       Details on what I lodged and the Authorities Response
       MW92219104
       26/08/2025
       Meadowbank Road
       19
       30/12/2024 14:07
       Parked in a residents' or shared use parking place or zone
       either displaying an invalid permit or voucher or pay and
       display ticket, or after the expiry of paid for time
       £50.00
       Adjudicator's reasons for registering:
       The appeal is registered
       Grounds of Appeal:
       The penalty charge exceeded the relevant amount.
       The authority made a procedural error.
       The alleged parking contravention did not occur.
       Explanation:
       I will provide evidences and update my appeal submission below
       later.
       In the interim, I rely on my informal appeal and formal
       representation, in addition to the appeal submission below.
       I appeal this Penalty Charge Notice on three statutory grounds.
       First, the alleged contravention did not occur. The PCN was
       issued under contravention code 19, which concerns the display
       of an invalid permit. I was at all material times the holder of
       a valid residents permit issued by Medway Council. That permit
       was on my dashboard when the PCN was issued, albeit it had
       become partially obscured. An obscured permit is not an invalid
       permit. It was valid in substance and in law, as the council
       itself has acknowledged by accepting a copy of my permit in
       correspondence. Since the alleged contravention presupposes the
       permit was invalid, and it was not, the contravention cannot be
       sustained.
       Secondly, the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in
       the circumstances of the case. In the rejection of my informal
       challenge the council misstated the penalty level, asserting
       that the full penalty was £70 and the reduced penalty £35. The
       correct statutory amounts for contravention code 19 are £50 and
       £25. Regulation 4(4)(e) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking
       Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations
       2007 recognises this as a statutory ground. By demanding a
       greater penalty than prescribed, the council acted unlawfully
       and committed a procedural impropriety.
       Thirdly, there has been a further procedural impropriety in the
       handling of my formal representations. I attempted to make
       representations within the statutory 28 days of the Notice to
       Owner dated 8 July 2025. On 6 and 7 August 2025 I attempted to
       submit them online but the council’s electronic system failed
       repeatedly, generating error messages which I have preserved by
       screenshots. I attempted telephone contact, without success. On
       8 August 2025 I submitted my representations by email, attaching
       the screenshots and my valid permit. On 11 August 2025, after
       re-sending the same email when initially told it had not been
       received, I was informed the council did have both emails on
       file. Nevertheless on 11 August 2025 the council issued a Charge
       Certificate. This was unlawful. Regulation 5(2)(a) of the 2007
       Regulations imposes a duty on the authority to consider any
       representations made within the statutory period and to serve a
       notice of acceptance or of rejection. Issuing a Charge
       Certificate in the face of timely representations is a clear
       procedural impropriety.
       It is also relevant that a member of the council’s parking staff
       initially gave me an assurance that if I produced proof of my
       valid permit the PCN would be cancelled. I relied on that
       assurance, which reflects the council’s past practice of
       cancelling one PCN per year for residents upon proof of a valid
       permit. The subsequent reversal of that position is inconsistent
       with the principle of legitimate expectation, as recognised in R
       v North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan [2001]
       QB 213, where the Court of Appeal held that public authorities
       must honour substantive assurances absent overriding policy
       considerations.
       In summary, the contravention did not occur, the penalty
       exceeded the amount due, and there has been procedural
       impropriety. I therefore respectfully invite the adjudicator to
       allow this appeal and direct that the PCN be cancelled in full.
       Read less
       Authority Information▼
       Authority Summary:
       This statement is submitted in response to Ms Jo Wilson's appeal
       against the Penalty Charge Notice issued for parking in a permit
       space without displaying a valid permit during prescribed hours.
       Ms Wilson's argument that she had displayed, albeit partially
       obscured, and is the holder of a valid permit to park in a
       designated parking area, is not upheld by the photographic
       evidence taken at the time of the contravention as this permit
       was obscured to the point that no relevant details (expiry date,
       zone, vehicle registration) could be seen, by a permit for
       Croydon (not valid in Medway), the permit is not, therefore,
       clearly displayed for inspection by the Civil Enforcement
       Officer and becomes invalid.
       The terms & conditions of the permit clearly state ' The permit
       is only valid if displayed in a conspicuous position on the
       front windscreen of the vehicle for which it was issued. A
       Penalty Charge Notice will be issued for not displaying a valid
       permit or not displaying it clearly to enable verification'
       In summary, the contravention is clearly observed in the
       photographic evidence, specifically Item 2. The vehicle is
       clearly parked without claerly displaying a valid permit for the
       space where it was parked, which constitutes a breach of the
       relevant regulations. The explanations provided by the appellant
       do not align with the legal requirements or the evidence
       available.
       In conclusion, the contravention is supported by clear visual
       evidence, and no mitigating circumstances have been provided
       that would warrant cancellation of the Penalty Charge Notice.
       The Council respectfully requests that the appeal be refused.
       #Post#: 99033--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medway Code 19  Meadowbank - Resident Parking Permit 
       Partially Displayed 
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: November 20, 2025, 10:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       What you should do to bolster your argument re validity is to
       refer to, quote verbatim and shoot down their evidence.
       as this permit was obscured to the point that no relevant
       details (expiry date, zone, vehicle registration) could be seen,
       by a permit for Croydon (not valid in Medway), the permit is
       not, therefore,  clearly displayed for inspection by the Civil
       Enforcement Officer and becomes invalid.
       Clearly shows that the authority believe that a valid permit
       which is not 'clearly displayed' 'becomes invalid'...which
       totally conflicts with their later statement that 'A Penalty
       Charge Notice will be issued for not displaying a valid permit
       or not displaying it clearly to enable verification'..because
       these were not the contravention grounds under which the PCN was
       issued but rather '.....invalid..'.
       #Post#: 99048--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medway Code 19  Meadowbank - Resident Parking Permit 
       Partially Displayed 
   DIR By: JOJO1209
       Date: November 20, 2025, 12:22 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Should the CC have been CC16 instead of CC19?
       What should have been the correct CC based on their argument?
       Does anyone have any templates or guidance that I can use to
       prepare my bundle and a detailed script that I can use for the
       hearing?
       Thanks
       #Post#: 99052--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medway Code 19  Meadowbank - Resident Parking Permit 
       Partially Displayed 
   DIR By: H C Andersen
       Date: November 20, 2025, 12:45 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Codes are not mandatory, they're administrative.
       The regs require that a PCN must state 'the grounds'. The
       contravention description is a major part of these.
       This is not the Supreme Court, you don't need detailed written
       submissions, just put your argument forward in a personal and
       common-sense manner. IMO, use it as an aide-memoire.
       #Post#: 99072--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medway Code 19  Meadowbank - Resident Parking Permit 
       Partially Displayed 
   DIR By: JOJO1209
       Date: November 20, 2025, 3:53 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       [member=7392]H[/member] C Anderson
       [member=2249]stamfordman[/member]
       [member=1]cp8759[/member]
       [member=6500]404BrainNotFound[/member]
       Mitigating circumstances - Mobility Issues
       In my informal appeal, I explained that I have mobility issues
       which prevented me from returning to my car in time. The council
       rejected it, stating that the CEO had already given extra
       observation time (4 mins instead of 2). They did not ask for any
       evidence at that stage.
       Now, in their TPT case summary, they state: "In conclusion, the
       contravention is supported by clear visual evidence, and no
       mitigating circumstances have been provided that would warrant
       cancellation of the Penalty Charge Notice.”
       This seems to be their main argument. However, I do have
       evidence:
       • My mobility issue worsened around that time, and I attended
       A&E on 05.01.2025 for my lower limbs. I have the A&E report
       showing I had X-rays and was given medication.
       • I am also currently attending physiotherapy for this
       condition.
       My specific questions are:
       1. Should I explicitly address the council's "no mitigating
       circumstances" claim head-on in my submission?
       2. Is this A&E evidence strong enough to serve as the formal
       proof the council says is missing?
       3. What is the most effective way to present this? Should I just
       state the facts, or should I explicitly point out that the
       council is wrong?
       Any insights on how to frame this would be greatly appreciated.
       Thanks in advance
       Link to my informal appeal and the authorities' response
  HTML https://ibb.co/Z6bYCdJb
  HTML https://ibb.co/Rpb4p05p
       #Post#: 99079--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medway Code 19  Meadowbank - Resident Parking Permit 
       Partially Displayed 
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: November 20, 2025, 5:13 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       The tribunal has no power to allow an appeal based on mitigating
       circumstances, the most they can do is ask the council to
       reconsider but if the council still refuses to cancel, there's
       nothing the adjudicator can do about it. It doesn't matter how
       compelling the mitigation is.
       #Post#: 99144--------------------------------------------------
       Re: Medway Code 19  Meadowbank - Resident Parking Permit 
       Partially Displayed 
   DIR By: JOJO1209
       Date: November 21, 2025, 6:45 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Thanks for the clarification.
       *****************************************************
       Page 7 of 7
   DIR Previous Page