DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 108901--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: Moaya
Date: February 6, 2026, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
can someone please give me feedback on the above, many thanks.
#Post#: 108918--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 6, 2026, 8:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks OK. Your original reps will probably be included in the
council evidence pack. Good luck with the adjudication.
#Post#: 108924--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: Moaya
Date: February 6, 2026, 8:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Do I need to send the new defence to them before the hearing?
#Post#: 108940--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 6, 2026, 11:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Moaya link ---
>
> Do I need to send the new defence to them before the hearing?
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes. I think it needs to be in 3 days before.
#Post#: 109659--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: Moaya
Date: February 12, 2026, 9:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi guys, had my hearing at 17:00 yesterday over teams, EA were
not represented. It was a bit daunting. Adjudicator had not
looked at the cases I had presented so told me will not make a
decision on the call. Didn't seem convinced from the get go
about the contravention code number and wording plus on the
failure to consider argument as well. Just received the decision
that appeal has been denied. I will paste the full decision
below. She mentions mitigation which I had never argued so not
sure what that was about. A bit disappointed all in all.
An independent tribunal for environment, parking and traffic
penalty appeals
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators are supported by London
Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and
quality purposes
Adjudicator's Reasons
1. This is an appeal by Mr Abdul-Razzak (the Appellant) against
a penalty charge notice (PCN)
issued by the Enforcement Authority (EA) for parking without
clearly displaying a valid pay
and display ticket or voucher.
2. The appeal has been at a video hearing at which only the
Appellant was in attendance.
3. The EA's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in
Kingsbury Road in a pay and
display bay where parking is restricted Monday to Saturday
between 08:00 and 18:30 hours
on 15 February 2025 at 12:20 hours. The EA has provided
photographic evidence of vehicle
registration mark (VRM) KS15 FKU at the location of the
contravention. They state that there
was signage to indicate the parking restrictions.
4. In response to the Appellant's representations, the EA states
that whilst payment of the
parking charge could also have been made by telephone, no
payment was made by phone or
text for the period of the alleged contravention for the vehicle
in question. They also assert
that it is usual for contravention code 06 to be used where
there is an option to use a pay and
display option and that contravention code 11 is usually only
used where there is no element
to pay for parking at a pay and display machine and they are
therefore satisfied the PCN is
compliant.
5. The Appellant's case is that there was no contravention
because the incorrect contravention
code has been used. They state that as there was an option to
pay for the parking charge by
telephone or text, the EA has denied them the defence of having
purchased a parking charge
by phone or text.
6. The Appellant does not dispute that they were parked at the
location recorded in the PCN
without payment of the parking charge.
7. The Appellant further states that the EA did not fully
consider their representations in the
Notice of Rejection by not responding to the Appellant's
representations that a precedent was
set in the case of Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council (TPT)
(PL00004-2401, 12 March
2024) and further relies upon a decision of this tribunal (case
reference 2210280742) in which
they assert the adjudicator found that the failure by the EA to
consider the representations of
the Appellant in that case, to be a procedural impropriety.
8. I am satisfied from the evidence that the contravention did
occur. I have seen photographs of
VRM KS15 FKU parked at the location specified in the PCN. I am
satisfied that there was
clear signage indicating that these were parking bays which
required payment of a parking
charge between 8:00am and 6:30pm Mondays to Saturdays. The
signage indicates that
payment can be made by telephone, text or pay and display.
9. Whilst not law, I note that contravention code 6 is described
in The Civil Enforcement Officer's
Handbook as being suitable for a contravention where 'a vehicle
waits in a pay and display
bay during controlled hours and a valid voucher or ticket has
not been clearly displayed' and
contravention code 11 (which the Appellant asserts should have
been used) 'where a vehicle
parks in a bay during controlled hours and fails to pay the
parking charge (usually by mobile
phone)'. In this instance, I find that contravention code 6 used
by the Civil Enforcement
Officer is compliant with the requirements of Regulation
4(8)(a)(i) of The London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 in that it states
the grounds on which the EA
believes that the penalty charge is payable. I find that
subjectively, a recipient of the PCN to
which this appeal refers, would have had a good understanding of
the contravention to which
it relates, and that by using contravention code 6 and not
contravention code 11, the
Appellant has not been denied a defence if that had of paid the
parking charge by telephone
or text.
10. I am not bound by the decision of other adjudicators in this
tribunal or those of the Traffic
Parking Tribunal. I find that the requirement under Regulation 6
(4)(a) of The Civil
Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations
and Appeals Regulations
2007 is that the EA is to 'consider the representations and any
supporting evidence which the
recipient provides'. I find that the Notice of Rejection dated
20 August 2025 states that the EA
has given the Appellant's representations full consideration.
Whilst the EA does state in their
Notice of Rejection that they have been unable to locate the
Traffic Parking Tribunal case to
which the Appellant referred in their representations, I do not
find, in any event, that this is
'supporting evidence' to which the EA are obliged to give
consideration. Evidence governs the
proof of facts, the case law which the Appellant argues was not
considered by the EA, is the
Appellant's assertion that a legal precedent has been set, it is
not in support of a proof of fact.
I do not therefore find that there has been any procedural
impropriety on the part of the EA.
11. The matters raised by the Appellant amount to mitigating
circumstances which have alread been considered by the EA. I
find that no grounds of appeal or exemptions have been met.
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.
12. I therefore refuse the appeal and find that the penalty
charge is payable.
<ol></ol>
Louise Fisher
Adjudicator
12th February 2026
2250476433
BT24415109
#Post#: 109707--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: Moaya
Date: February 13, 2026, 8:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there anyway to get a tribunal decision reviewed? Or is this
pretty much end of the road.
#Post#: 109717--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 13, 2026, 9:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Moaya link ---
>
> Is there anyway to get a tribunal decision reviewed? Or is
this pretty much end of the road.
>
--- End Quote ---
You can request one within two weeks after the decision.
#Post#: 109743--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: Moaya
Date: February 13, 2026, 11:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've been looking on the tribunal website about to ask for a
review. Looks you can only request one based on certain
conditions below. Can anyone advise if I have any grounds?
A review may only be granted in the following limited cases:
The decision was wrongly made because of an error by our
administrative staff;
You failed to appear or be represented at a hearing for some
good reason;
There is new evidence and the existence of this could not have
been reasonably known of or foreseen before the decision;
The interests of justice require a review. You should note that
an adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final
and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible
with the evidence that was before the adjudicator. The mere fact
that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for
review.
An adjudicator may also, on the application of a party, review
and revoke or vary any interlocutory decision. For example. The
adjudicator’s decision not to grant an extension of the period
of time for bringing an appeal.
Please note that a review will only be granted if an adjudicator
is satisfied that one or more of these applies. A review is not
simply an opportunity for you to appeal again. You cannot ask
for a review just because you disagree with the adjudicator's
decision.
#Post#: 109755--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: tincombe
Date: February 13, 2026, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, given that 'Regulation 4(8)(a)(i) of The London Local
Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003' is not a
regulation, applied only to postal PCNs and for your
contravention has in any event been repealed(the relevant
legislation is the TMA which is stated clearly on the PCN) then
this would suggest that the decision was 'plainly incompatible
with the evidence that was before the adjudicator.' and that a
review should be allowed!
#Post#: 110077--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN - Kingsbury Road - parked without clearly displaying a
valid pay and display ticket or voucher
DIR By: Moaya
Date: February 17, 2026, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your feedback tincombe.
I have drafted the following letter for review, what do you guys
think?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I would like to request a review of my decision as there an
error in law made by the adjudicator as set out below.
1. Error of Law: The Adjudicator Applied the Wrong Legislation
My PCN was issued on street by a Civil Enforcement Officer,
affixed to the vehicle. Such PCNs are governed by the Traffic
Management Act 2004. However, the adjudicator analysed the case
using, section 4(8)(a)(i) of the London Local Authorities and
Transport for London Act 2003 and incorrectly referred to this
as a regulation. This Act applies only to postal PCNs issued by
CCTV, not to on street PCNs. Applying the wrong legislation is a
legal error and renders the decision flawed.
2. Error of Law: Failure to Apply the Correct TMA 2004
Requirements
Under the 2007 General Regulations, a PCN must state “the
grounds on which the enforcement authority believes that the
penalty charge is payable.” The adjudicator did not apply this
test. Instead, they applied a “subjective” test and relied on
the CEO Handbook, neither of which form part of the TMA 2004
statutory framework.
3. Error of Law: Mischaracterising Statutory Grounds as
“Mitigation”. The adjudicator stated “The matters raised amount
to mitigating circumstances.” This is incorrect because I raised
the following points, incorrect contravention, failure to
consider representation, procedural impropriety. These are
statutory grounds, not mitigation.
4. Procedural Impropriety: Failure to Consider Representations
Under The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022. The
adjudicator held that the enforcement authority was not required
to consider case law because it is not “supporting evidence”.
This is a misunderstanding of the mentioned Regulation, which
requires the authority to consider “the representations and any
supporting evidence.” “Representations” include legal arguments,
including references to tribunal decisions. In my
representations I cited, Lydia Russo v Plymouth City Council
(TPT) which concerned the use of an incorrect contravention code
where phone or text payment is available. The adjudicator
dismissed this case without addressing their reasoning. This is
a failure to consider a material matter and the authority’s
failure to consider the legal argument is itself a procedural
impropriety. The adjudicator’s reasoning on this point is
legally incorrect.
5. The Contravention Alleged Was Not Legally Capable of
Occurring. The bay permitted payment by, phone, text and pay and
display. Where payment can be made without displaying anything,
alleging “parked without clearly displaying a valid pay and
display ticket or voucher” (Code 06) is not a legally accurate
ground. A motorist who pays by phone is not required to display
anything. Therefore, the alleged contravention cannot occur, and
the PCN does not satisfy Regulations and was not addressed by
the adjudicator.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the decision be
reviewed and set aside.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page