DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 100384--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: November 30, 2025, 5:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local
authorities outside London on civil enforcement of bus lane and
moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022
guidance issued for local authorities outside London and
relating to moving traffic and bus lane
> contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a
procedural irregularity, in the current appeal which relates to
a parking contravention occurring within London.
>
>
> What nonsense.
>
> Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil
enforcement of parking contraventions
>
>
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions#introduction-and-legal-basis
>
> I'd request a review in the interests of justice. No
adjudicator acting reasonably and knowledgeably could have made
such a mistake.
>
> From the Introduction:
> Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not
to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may
consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow
an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided.
>
--- End Quote ---
I was completely baffled by that also. I have no idea where he
got that from!
How do I request a review?
#Post#: 100407--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 30, 2025, 10:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For peer review by others.
OP, note the time limit on applying for a review.
See para. 12 of Schedule 1:
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564
12(1)(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.
Re: Case No. ********, ******* v **********
I refer to the above and hereby submit a request for review
under the provisions of para. 12(1)(vi) of Schedule 1 to the
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022:
(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.
My reasons are as follows:
On ***, Adjudicator Wallington rejected my appeal after a
hearing which I attended. His reasons were set out in writing
and were thorough, addressing each of my grounds of appeal in
detail and making corresponding findings of fact and, in one
case, dismissing my grounds for lack of relevance.
My request for a review is in respect of this determination
which is objectively and manifestly incorrect.
Specifically his written decision stated:
19. Finally, in respect of the issues raised regarding the EA's
policy on cancelling PCNs, I accept the Appellant's evidence
that the Secretary of State issued guidance in October 2022
under s.87 of the TMA. However, that guidance is headed
"Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on
civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic
contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022 guidance issued
for local authorities outside London and relating to moving
traffic and bus lane contraventions can have no relevance, and
cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current
appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within
London.
I was flummoxed by this statement and did not have rebutting
proof to hand. However, as the reviewing adjudicator will know,
the Statutory Guidance to which I was referring is:
Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil
enforcement of parking contraventions
(Updated 20 October 2022)
Which states, as far as is relevant in the Introduction:
Introduction and legal basis
This statutory guidance is published by the Secretary of State
for Transport under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act
2004 (TMA).
This document is also the Secretary of State’s guidelines on
uniforms that section 76(3) of the TMA allows the appropriate
authority to issue.
The guidance sets out the policy framework for civil parking
enforcement. It explains how to approach, carry out and review
parking enforcement.
......
All local authorities in England with designated civil parking
enforcement powers to which schedule 8 to the TMA applies should
use this guidance in conjunction with the following regulations
that give effect to the parking provisions in part 6 of the TMA:
.........
The guidance has no special authority in regard to matters of
legal interpretation. Where there appear to be differences
between the guidance and the legislation, the legislation always
takes precedence.
......
Authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance (as
stipulated by section 87 of the TMA) when exercising their
functions.
These functions include developing, implementing and reviewing
their civil parking enforcement regimes.
Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not
to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may
consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow
an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided. This
guidance should also be read in conjunction with the guidance on
Certification of Approved Devices, and the Home Office
Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.
I submit that it was not open to the adjudicator to fail to
consider this ground of appeal. Furthermore, as it is accepted
that the authority's extant policy is dated 2017 then it must
follow that the council in this case has failed in its duty to
have regard to the Guidance and, given that no reason was
offered in evidence by the council in regards to this failure, I
submit that the adjudicator should have 'considered it to be a
procedural impropriety'.
I ask that the reviewing adjudicator substitutes their own
decision and allows my appeal on these grounds.
#Post#: 100412--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: November 30, 2025, 11:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> For peer review by others.
>
> OP, note the time limit on applying for a review.
>
> See para. 12 of Schedule 1:
>
>
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564
>
>
> 12(1)(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.
>
> Re: Case No. ********, ******* v **********
>
> I refer to the above and hereby submit a request for review
under the provisions of para. 12(1)(vi) of Schedule 1 to the
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022:
>
> (vi)the interests of justice require such a review.
>
> My reasons are as follows:
>
> On ***, Adjudicator Wallington rejected my appeal after a
hearing which I attended. His reasons were set out in writing
and were thorough, addressing each of my grounds of appeal in
detail and making corresponding findings of fact and, in one
case, dismissing my grounds for lack of relevance.
>
> My request for a review is in respect of this determination
which is objectively and manifestly incorrect.
>
> Specifically his written decision stated:
>
> 19. Finally, in respect of the issues raised regarding the
EA's policy on cancelling PCNs, I accept the Appellant's
evidence that the Secretary of State issued guidance in October
2022 under s.87 of the TMA. However, that guidance is headed
"Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on
> civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic
contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022 guidance issued
for local authorities outside London and relating to moving
traffic and bus lane contraventions can have no relevance, and
cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current
> appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring
within London.
>
> I was flummoxed by this statement and did not have rebutting
proof to hand. However, as the reviewing adjudicator will know,
the Statutory Guidance to which I was referring is:
>
> Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil
enforcement of parking contraventions
> (Updated 20 October 2022)
>
> Which states, as far as is relevant in the Introduction:
>
> Introduction and legal basis
>
> This statutory guidance is published by the Secretary of State
for Transport under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act
2004 (TMA).
>
> This document is also the Secretary of State’s guidelines on
uniforms that section 76(3) of the TMA allows the appropriate
authority to issue.
>
> The guidance sets out the policy framework for civil parking
enforcement. It explains how to approach, carry out and review
parking enforcement.
> ......
>
> All local authorities in England with designated civil parking
enforcement powers to which schedule 8 to the TMA applies should
use this guidance in conjunction with the following regulations
that give effect to the parking provisions in part 6 of the TMA:
>
> .........
>
> The guidance has no special authority in regard to matters of
legal interpretation. Where there appear to be differences
between the guidance and the legislation, the legislation always
takes precedence.
>
> ......
>
> Authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance (as
stipulated by section 87 of the TMA) when exercising their
functions.
>
> These functions include developing, implementing and reviewing
their civil parking enforcement regimes.
>
> Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not
to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may
consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow
an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided. This
guidance should also be read in conjunction with the guidance on
Certification of Approved Devices, and the Home Office
Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.
>
> I submit that it was not open to the adjudicator to fail to
consider this ground of appeal. Furthermore, as it is accepted
that the authority's extant policy is dated 2017 then it must
follow that the council in this case has failed in its duty to
have regard to the Guidance and, given that no reason was
offered in evidence by the council in regards to this failure, I
submit that the adjudicator should have 'considered it to be a
procedural impropriety'.
>
> I ask that the reviewing adjudicator substitutes their own
decision and allows my appeal on these grounds.
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you. He did not make a decision during the call. He
listened to what I had to say and then said he will look into
everything including the statutory guidance point and then make
a decision. Also, I’ve made payment to TH last night. Will I
still be ok to ask for a review?
#Post#: 100413--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 30, 2025, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, yes. Asking for a review doesn't stop the authority's
enforcement powers i.e. they could still issue a CC while LT are
cogitating on a review request, so IMO paying simply protects
your position, it doesn't imply that you feel that a review is
not possible.
As regards the exact process of decision making, how would we
know?
I'm certain you can amend to reflect the sequence.
#Post#: 100414--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: November 30, 2025, 11:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> IMO, yes. Asking for a review doesn't stop the authority's
enforcement powers i.e. they could still issue a CC while LT are
cogitating on a review request, so IMO paying simply protects
your position, it doesn't imply that you feel that a review is
not possible.
>
> As regards the exact process of decision making, how would we
know?
>
> I'm certain you can amend to reflect the sequence.
>
--- End Quote ---
Many thanks. I’ll submit the email now with what you’ve written
up. Thanks again
#Post#: 101938--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: December 10, 2025, 8:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just got a response and it’s been rejected.
Further to your correspondence, the adjudicator, Anthony Chan,
has directed that there are no
grounds for there to be a review of this case.
The Appellant said that the adjudicator found that the guidance
issued pursuant to section 87 of the
Traffic Management Act 2004 was statutory guidance for local
authorities outside London on civil
enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". This
is true but the guidance if of course
also guidance for parking throughout England.
However, I do not agree with the Appellant's submissions
regarding the guidance. The legislation
places an obligation on an authority to have regard to the
guidance. It does not mean that an authority
is bound by the guidance.
As the adjudicator has found, and it is not challenged by the
Appellant, the Appellant did not display a
parking clock when he was required to do so. This is not de
minimums. The clock used in conjunction
with the badge establishes the right to park and it is the tool
with which a CEO whether there was an
overstay.
I do not accept therefore that the refusal to cancel a PCN
issued as a result of the missing clock is
itself evidence of a failure to have regard to the guidance.
As to the Authority's policy to cancel PCNs, adjudicator's do
not have the power to police theauthority' s exercise of
discretion.
Your application for review is therefore rejected.
The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision,
and is entitled to continue with its
enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which
you should pay without delay if you
have not already done so.
Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you
do not pay the penalty promptly, the
Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing
the penalty by 50%.
#Post#: 102015--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: December 11, 2025, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
End of the road so you must pay to avoid escalation.
#Post#: 102022--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: December 11, 2025, 7:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> End of the road so you must pay to avoid escalation.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yep already paid. Thank you. What’s your thoughts on this
adjudicator’s reasoning?
#Post#: 102265--------------------------------------------------
Re: Tower Hamlets PCN Brady St code 01
DIR By: Jamran
Date: December 13, 2025, 2:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Jamran link ---
>
> Just got a response and it’s been rejected.
>
> Further to your correspondence, the adjudicator, Anthony Chan,
has directed that there are no
> grounds for there to be a review of this case.
> The Appellant said that the adjudicator found that the
guidance issued pursuant to section 87 of the
> Traffic Management Act 2004 was statutory guidance for local
authorities outside London on civil
> enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions".
This is true but the guidance if of course
> also guidance for parking throughout England.
> However, I do not agree with the Appellant's submissions
regarding the guidance. The legislation
> places an obligation on an authority to have regard to the
guidance. It does not mean that an authority
> is bound by the guidance.
> As the adjudicator has found, and it is not challenged by the
Appellant, the Appellant did not display a
> parking clock when he was required to do so. This is not de
minimums. The clock used in conjunction
> with the badge establishes the right to park and it is the
tool with which a CEO whether there was an
> overstay.
> I do not accept therefore that the refusal to cancel a PCN
issued as a result of the missing clock is
> itself evidence of a failure to have regard to the guidance.
> As to the Authority's policy to cancel PCNs, adjudicator's do
not have the power to police theauthority' s exercise of
discretion.
> Your application for review is therefore rejected.
> The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision,
and is entitled to continue with its
> enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which
you should pay without delay if you
> have not already done so.
> Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If
you do not pay the penalty promptly, the
> Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate
increasing the penalty by 50%.
>
--- End Quote ---
[member=428]H C Andersen[/member] did you get a chance to read
the decision?
*****************************************************
Page 9 of 9
DIR Previous Page