DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 98037--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: TMOCONTRACTLAW
Date: November 13, 2025, 12:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Updated draft to be used for formal reps:
Dear Camden Parking Ops Team,
PCN **********
I refer to the above and NTO issued on 11 November 2025. I
hereby make formal representations on the following grounds:
Contravention did not occur.
Rather than rehearse my informal representation in everyday
motorists' terms, I shall instead reproduce verbatim and rely
upon the decision of Adjudicator Stanton-Dunne of the
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators when allowing an appeal on
18 February 2025 on identical grounds, coincidentally against
Camden which was actually represented at the hearing.
“This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of “being
parked for longer than permitted blue (badge holder).”
The CEO’s images show that Mr Searle’s car was parked on a
single yellow line displaying a blue badge with the clock set at
8.30am so that the three hour blue badge parking exemption had
ended. The Council’s evidence is that Fordwych Road is part of a
CPZ with controlled hours of 8.30am to 6.30pm Mondays to
Fridays.
There is no contravention of a blue badge holder being parked
for longer than permitted. The contravention of being parked for
longer than permitted occurs when a vehicle is parked in a
parking place where there is a permitted period of parking which
is exceeded. Mr Searle’s car was not parked in a parking place
where there was a permitted period of parking. It was parked in
a restricted street during prescribed hours where there is an
exemption for blue badge holders to park with the display of a
clock. When the vehicle became parked beyond the period of the
exemption, a PCN could have been issued for being parked in a
restricted street but it was not. The PCN was issued for the
wrong contravention, indeed a contravention which does not
exist.”
I don't think I could add to his reasoning and therefore I am
content to let his words form my representations. I have
attached the ETA Case No. should you wish to verify the above -
2240520470 .
The PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
TMOCONTRACTLAW
-----
I feel the above would be good in the sense that no files need
to be attached and no issues regarding the formatting of the
referenced case. Just hope there's no character limit. Do let me
know if any adjustments should be made.
#Post#: 98687--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: TMOCONTRACTLAW
Date: November 18, 2025, 1:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TMOCONTRACTLAW link ---
>
>
> The PCN must be cancelled.
>
>
--- End Quote ---
Do I need to edit the above and say "The PCN and NTO must be
cancelled"?
If not, pl let me know as I plan to submit the formal reps
today.
#Post#: 98690--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: November 18, 2025, 1:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just the PCN is fine.
I would include the case number up-front and say London
Tribunals:
... rely upon the decision of adjudicator Stanton-Dunne at
London Tribunals when allowing an appeal for case no. 2240520470
on 18 February 2025 ...
#Post#: 98694--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: TMOCONTRACTLAW
Date: November 18, 2025, 2:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: stamfordman link ---
>
> Just the PCN is fine.
>
> I would include the case number up-front and say London
Tribunals:
>
> ... rely upon the decision of adjudicator Stanton-Dunne at
London Tribunals when allowing an appeal for case no. 2240520470
on 18 February 2025 ...
>
--- End Quote ---
Thank you. Below is my final draft, I'll submit the following
reps:
Dear Camden Parking Ops Team,
PCN **********
I refer to the above and NTO issued on 11 November 2025. I
hereby make formal representations on the following grounds:
Contravention did not occur.
Rather than rehearse my informal representation in everyday
motorists' terms, I shall instead reproduce verbatim and rely
upon the decision of adjudicator Stanton-Dunne at London
Tribunals when allowing an appeal for case no. 2240520470 on 18
February 2025 on identical grounds, coincidentally against
Camden which was actually represented at the hearing.
“This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of “being
parked for longer than permitted blue (badge holder).”
The CEO’s images show that Mr Searle’s car was parked on a
single yellow line displaying a blue badge with the clock set at
8.30am so that the three hour blue badge parking exemption had
ended. The Council’s evidence is that Fordwych Road is part of a
CPZ with controlled hours of 8.30am to 6.30pm Mondays to
Fridays.
There is no contravention of a blue badge holder being parked
for longer than permitted. The contravention of being parked for
longer than permitted occurs when a vehicle is parked in a
parking place where there is a permitted period of parking which
is exceeded. Mr Searle’s car was not parked in a parking place
where there was a permitted period of parking. It was parked in
a restricted street during prescribed hours where there is an
exemption for blue badge holders to park with the display of a
clock. When the vehicle became parked beyond the period of the
exemption, a PCN could have been issued for being parked in a
restricted street but it was not. The PCN was issued for the
wrong contravention, indeed a contravention which does not
exist.”
I don't think I could add to his reasoning and therefore I am
content to let his words form my representations.
The PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
TMO CONTRACT LAW
#Post#: 100992--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: TMOCONTRACTLAW
Date: December 4, 2025, 8:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, my formal reps have been rejected.
Notice of Rejection (Redacted)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Scf8SKgAkszReL3QqTdNTz3D6_3cD9mT/view?usp=drive_link
They've also included the 4 page 'TMA - Your right to a appeal'
document.
I understand that if I were to take this to ETA, not all
adjudicators will understand as to why I believe that no
contravention occurred?
Also, is the Council not acting in a 'wholly unreasonable
manner' in trying to chase this PCN. As, there was already an
adjudicator case where the PCN was cancelled and in Camden owns
Parking Protocol Document, the alleged contravention can only
take place in a bay rather than SYL.
Pl, do let me know what you think in the meantime.
#Post#: 100999--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: December 4, 2025, 9:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You should register the appeal with the tribunal and opt for an
online or phone hearing.
There's no discount on offer so this is a no brainer.
They will probably attend to argue that this is a legitimate
alleged contravention but why is beyond me as there is the
perfectly legal code 01 higher level to apply.
It's true there are adjudicators who have ruled that code 30
does apply but they are wrong and the appellants in those cases
had no knowledge of what really applies.
HTML https://i.ibb.co/hJPTSsHV/Notice-of-Rejection-Redacted.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/n8qKYncV/Notice-of-Rejection-Redacted-2.jpg
#Post#: 101012--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: December 4, 2025, 9:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
+1.
I would go for:
Contravention did not occur
Procedural impropriety.
We'll expand later, but at present all you've got to do is
register.
IMO, it is a PI because the authority failed to consider your
reps. The law requires a cogent and reasoned response. Whatever
they moght think of the Stanton-Dunne decision, their statement
that ..this has no bearing on the matter in hand' is flippant at
best and a dereliction of their duty and PI at worst.
As for '..therefore no exemption can be applied in this
instance', this is a non sequitur of enormous proportions.
Bring it on!
#Post#: 101234--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: December 6, 2025, 5:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Another +1 here
Not just because you'll probably win but also because there's a
chance you'd get Mr Stanton-Dunne as the adjudicator, which
would be immensely entertaining.
#Post#: 101241--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: stamfordman
Date: December 6, 2025, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes it would be good if Mr Stanton-Dunne is on duty.
Earlier I posted a case where this contravention was upheld by
adjudicator Natalie Goffe.
Here's another, by Michael Burke, who seems to have had an alarm
bell ringing but turned it off.
-----------------
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
within 28 days.
Reasons
parked for longer than permitted at 9.26am on 26.12.24. The
Appellant disputes this. She says the Civil Enforcement Officer
told her the PCN was issued because the Blue Badge displayed had
expired. She says that it should be obvious she did not arrive
at 4.00 as shops would not have been open at that time.
A vehicle may be parked in a restricted street during prescribed
hours for up to 3 hours providing there is clearly displayed a
valid Blue Badge together with the time clock set at the time of
arrival.
The Enforcement Authority have provided photographs taken by the
Civil Enforcement Officer which confirm that the time clock
displayed with the Blue Badge was set at 4.00. The vehicle was
parked on a double yellow line. As the Highway Code makes clear,
the double yellow line indicates ‘No waiting at any time’. It
does not require an adjacent time plate.
The better course in these circumstances would be to issue the
PCN for contravention code 01, being parked in a restricted
street during prescribed hours. However, it is also true to say
that the vehicle was parked for longer than permitted as, unless
an exemption applies, any time parked on a double yellow line is
longer than permitted.
I have no reason to doubt that the Appellant made a genuine
error but this amount only to mitigation. The Enforcement
Authority may cancel a PCN as a matter of their discretion but
Adjudicators have no power to direct cancellation on the basis
of mitigating circumstances.
Having considered all the evidence I am satisfied that the
contravention occurred and that the PCN was properly issued and
served. I am not satisfied that any exemption applies.
#Post#: 101258--------------------------------------------------
Re: Camden Council - Contravention 30o - Single Yellow Line, BB
Holder
DIR By: TMOCONTRACTLAW
Date: December 6, 2025, 8:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Grant Urismo link ---
>
> Another +1 here
>
> there's a chance you'd get Mr Stanton-Dunne as the
adjudicator, which would be immensely entertaining.
--- End Quote ---
I hope Mr Stanton-Dunne is on duty as it will be interesting
indeed. Whoever it is, I just hope they understand why I believe
the contravention didn't take place.
I've made a note for next week to come back and put the appeal
in for the ETA.
In the meantime I wanted to know the following:
1) I take it the following information will be public
indefinitely: my name, VRM, Contravention Location, Details of
the case and outcome
2) the following wouldn't be publicised: Mobile No, Email and
vehicle keeper address
Pl, do let me know and I plan to put the appeal in next week
(will come back to the forum for assistance).
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page