A Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued because, the appellants vehicle was parked on a single yellow line. The appellant claims there was a disabled badge in the car, accompanied with the clock.
The clock was set to 09:30 and the PCN was issued at 13:57 (over 4 hours).
A disabled badge holder can only park on a single yellow line for up to 3 hours, provided the badge is displayed and the clock is set to the correct time.
The appellant made an informal appeal to the Enforcement Authority (EA). This was rejected expressing, the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) did not see a disabled badge in the car. However, it also said the CEO did see a disabled badge with the clock set at 09:30. A very contradicting response.
The appellant then made a formal appeal which was rejected. Within the appeal the appellant requested that the EA used compassion and discretionary consideration to cancel the PCN. The appellant did not argue that the contravention occurred.
Within the rejection letter it explained, the PCN was issued correctly, in line with the regulations and a reason to cancel it cannot be found.
Nothing was stated within the rejection that demonstrated the EA had considered the mitigation within the appeal.
WHY WAS IT ALLOWED?
Regulation 4 (2) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 allows a representation against a Notice to Owner to be made either on the basis of specific grounds set out in Regulation 4(4) or under Regulation 4(2)(b)ii which states:
“that whether or not any of those grounds apply there are compelling reasons why in the particular circumstances of the case the enforcement authority should cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund any sum paid to it on account of the penalty charge.“
What does that mean?
In simple terms when submitting a formal appeal you have two options:
- Choosing from a list of predefined grounds.
- You can appeal if none of those predefined grounds apply, and you have compelling reasons in the particular circumstance.
Regulation 5 states that the EA is under a duty to consider representations made under Regulation 4(2)(b) ii.
This means that the EA must consider any appeal points made by appellants that do not fall under the predefined grounds (option 2).
In this case the EA did not mention or consider the mitigation’s the appellant made within their appeal.
The EA must consider mitigation, they did not do so in this case, therefore this appeal was won due to procedural impropriety.
Therefore the contravention is not proved.