If you had no permits on display and didn't require one, then the contravention code is wrong. You can park there without a permit or ticket - you are entitled to. All you could be ticketed for would be overstaying - contravention code 30. There doesn't seem to be any justification for contravention code 19. There is a good chance they will reject your appeal, since it probably addresses the wrong issue. If so, they will issue you a Notice to Owner (assuming you are the registered keeper) and at that point you can make a formal representation - another appeal, in other words. At that point you can write and appeal on the basis that the contravention did not occur. Can't see how they can disagree.

This looks like a possible wrong contravention code. This is not a P&D situation, right? It's free for non-permit holders. You have been ticketed for displaying an invalid permit. So the first question is, did you have a parking permit of any sort on display? If not, and this is free open-access parking, I would wait for the NTO then appeal formally on the grounds that the contravention did not occur. (This assumes they reject your initial appeal of course.)

Just gonna have to keep trying. If you called the payment line, I assume you're prepared to pay the balance, £188 minus £113 already paid = £75. It's definitely best to explain the situation to them, and that you have paid £113 already, or their systems will just show an outstanding balance. They are going to need to know what the situation is so they can close the file.

The correspondence you have should spell out your options. Does it mention TEC, witness statements, statutory declarations or anything like that? It should tell you what you can do to contest it.

Couldn't disagree more with the above advice, for two reasons: 1. It would be a mistake to think that because the PCN shows as paid on the council's website, your debt has been settled. 2. Not phoning the bailiffs is tantamount to burying your head in the sand. I know it's an uncomfortable situation, but you really neeed to meet it head on. The longer you don't, the more likely you will get enforement action and considerable extra fees. No-one has eplained why you shouldn't phone the bailiff. I think you should, you should tell them the situation and hear what they have to say about payment arrangements. You might head off a site visit and big fat charge just by picking up the phone. It is correct that bailiff fees are deducted first for any part-payment of the entire debt, which is what you made. You made it via the wrong route, and so it might not have gotten through to the bailiff yet - another reason to get into dialogue with them and sort it out. Can't see you have any practical way of avoiding payment for this, but better to get into dialogue and don't let them think you need tracking down - or they will track you down and charge you for the privilege.

Late to this one, but just for future reference - these parking restrictions are applicable to the "highway", which comprises carriageway, pavement and verge. For them to be inapplicable, the area would have to be off-highway, which is practice means a passer-by would have to recognise they don't have free access to that piece of land - so there would need to be some sort of barrier, such as a fence, to communicate it. Since any member of the public would consider themselves free to walk over that bit of land, it forms part of the highway. The issue of ownership is irrelevant - private or public, the highway is enforecable.

If you submit the TE7, which you definitely must do, make sure you explain fully and convicingly why you were unable to deal with this sooner. You can also attach proof - plane tickets or similar evidence to show when you were out of the country. Whether it gets accepted will be at the council's discretion, so try to be as clear as you can on the details. The additional costs are bailiff fees for chasing the case. You are entitled to a breakdown I believe, but for now, you need to try and get the whole bailiff thing revoked, so there's no point in looking into that as of now. Just get the TE9/TE7 filled out and sent off soon as you can.

So, the bay was still suspended when you parked there - according to their reply. You appealed, they rejected the appeal. So you either needed to pay or refer to adjudication and it looks like neither happened for whatever reason. You received a charge certificate and an Order for Recovery, but I assume you took no further action until the bailiff caught up with you. Is that correct? Now you are submitting a TE9 it is out of time, so you need to also submit a TE7 explaining why it is out of time, or it will likely just get rejected. I would advise you do that ASAP, along with a new copy of the TE7, but unless you have a reason why it's run on to this late stage without being dealt with, I'm not sure you will have any luck.

Hi. Who issued this PCN? Council or private company? And what are you meant to have done? Entering a Restricted Area is not a phrase I know but I don't know much about moving traffic violations, if that's what it is. What exactly are they saying you did to get the PCN?

Your argument about full reimbursement doesn't seem correct. If you won the appeal for the PCN because the council failed to write back to you after the event, it does not mean the vehicle was towed incorrectly to begin with.

Happy to give you some advice, but there are a couple of areas not explained in your posts. Just to go over them, clarification would help: The date of contravention was 13/07/2020. Since then, it has gone to Order for Recovery and then back to Notice to Owner. - How did this happen? Usually Order for Recovery is followed by a bailiff warrant. What happened, and when? When I received this second NTO, I responded via email saying the following: "I am writing to make representations against your NTO. There has been procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. I appealed your initial NTO dated 24/08/2020 on grounds that I saw no original PCN affixed to my car on the date of contravention. I therefore requested to pay the 50% discounted amount. Instead of written acknowledgement or rejection, I received a Charge Certificate." - You are right, you should have got a rejection, assuming a. they received your representation, and b. it was completed correctly. What were the dates (approx) of the second NTO being issued, and your representation being sent? Some general info which might be helpful: If you make a statutory declaration or witness statement to get the Charge Certificate revoked, one of two things will happen. Correct is that the Local Authority refer you to the adjudicator. Incorrect, but it happens, is that they will issue a new NTO. Assuming they do the latter, make representations (again). Either way you have an option of paying the charge, and that's the end - but it's not correct about the discount being reinstated. That's a concession to encourage prompt payment, and once it's gone, it's gone, although it is sometimes re-offered as good will. I would assume in this case it won't be re-offered due to the timescale. If you do make a statutory declaration or witness statement, no, don't include any notes. Just stick to the process to avoid any complications. All pertinent info, write on the form. And Spaceman61 is spot on. Your grounds would be that you made representations against the notice to owner but did not receive a notice of rejection.

Give the guy a break! He obviously drove off because he didn't want to be parted with his hard-earned money. Who would? Didn't get away with it, but if you are to fight it you will need grounds. If you did the deed, hard to see how it will get overturned.

I'd pay it. You've had three PCNs reduced to half a PCN. That's a result in my book.

I don't want this thread to get sidetracked on this matter. However for the sake of clarity, you can submit up to nine, but each one has to be submitted at the appropriate stage of the process, which is after an Order for Recovery has been issued, and normally only one would be submitted. But the council can issue a second Order for recovery later on, depending how the case progresses, and if they do, a second Witness Statement can be made, and so on, up to nine times. But none of that is particularly relevant to this case. In the OP's case he has had one Witness Statement rejected so an N244 is the only formal route left open on that PCN, which is currently on hold waiting for the OP to decide what to do. And it DOES matter that he applies in time, if that's what he is ultimately going to do. However while we are in the brief stage where all three are on hold, I think there is mileage in sending a new set of three witness statements and seeing what happens, because two of them have not been decided yet, so far as we know. The Council cant reasonably reject one and accept the other two, if they are all filed on the same grounds. So I say go for all three again and see what they do - nothing to lose. Filing an N244 is not easy, and there are upfront costs which might not ever get recovered, so for me, that would be the last resort. However the option remains open.

I would not file an N244 right now, I would send a new TE9/7 for that PCN and see what happens. However keep it in mind as an option, in case it comes to that. If you do have to go down that route, your second TE7/9 may in fact strengthen your case - but first things first. In your TE7 you must explain the situation clearly or they are likely to reject it. I would say something like this: In xxxx I lent my car to a friend named xxxx. I since learned he received three PCNs, but he did not tell me about them. I left me previous home on xxxxx dur to family circumstances, and when you sent me the official notices out I was no longer living there and did not receive them. The first knoweldge I had of the PCNs was when I was contacted by bailiffs. Therefore I have not had an opportunity to pay or appeal them. This is why my application is late.

@Will GoodfellowLet's not get too bogged down in this nine applications thing - it's not really relevant, but you are right it's a perfect tactic to frustrate the system. However it depends on the Council repeatedly issuing an Order for Recovery, which they shouldn't do, although many will. If they do issue one, then someone can respond to it with a TE9 every time. It's standard. Would be very unusual to keep submitting out of time ones, as they will have the correct address after the first one and will look to issue notices there - so they can then reject it. But do it in time, and you can stall the process for months and months. @Manxman in exileThe court don't accept or reject it - the Council does. The law is on the side of the debtor. In law you cannot be fined without the right of representation. This has been tested up to the House of Lords in connection with PCNs, whereby you have no option to present a defence in court. The legal position is, the appeals process serves that defence purpose and so it is an absolute right to have the appeals process made available to you, and you cannot be deprived of it because you were negligent in advising DVLA, or for any other reason. The council is seeking to penalise you - they have to serve notices first so you can choose to appeal. Serving notices does not occur if you do not live at the postal address they use - whoever's fault it is. Therefore they have to re-issue them to your correct address. I understand your reasoning, but the system doesn't work quite as you describe.

@Will GoodfellowDebtor files witness statement on the grounds he did not receive the notices. Council looks to see whether that is plausible. If it is, witness statement should be accepted. The whole point that out of times are possible is because problems like this arise, and the most common grounds for filing them is this one. It's what the process was set up for. Failure to update DVLA is common and whoever's fault that is doesn't matter. OP has a legal right to defend himself against forfeiture of goods and so the Council must serve him notices first. He hasn't been served any because he was not living at the address they sent them to. That's all that matters for the sake of PCNs. The nine submissions came from when I used to run an appeals team in my local Council. We were aware we were probably non-compliant in some respects so I had one of my team research the Council's whole legal obligation and this is one of the facts which came up. I imagine most councils don't even know, but it's not really important. There's no grounds to reject a witness statement on the basis that another witness statement was submitted before. It will only be accepted or rejected based on the material facts concerning the notices and the reason for late submission.

dx is right though. The grounds for having the application accepted out of time only hinge on the reasons why it is late. Not having the car registered to the correct address is a convincing reason why the forms could not have been submitted in time, and so it supports the application. If the car was registered to the correct address that would weaken the application, as no-one would belive three separate notices failed to arrive at the house. But if the OP isn't living there when they are delivered, then that all makes sense.

The CEO may have kicked them to show why he was issuing the PCN. Basically, the leaves were covering the lines when you parked, and when you collected the car at a later date. If there are three sets of photos showing the state of the road between those two dates, I would want to see them all - if just one shows the lines not visible, I think it would strengthen your case. Anyway, if you have appealed already, it's a case of wait and see for now.

I missed this post, but just reading through it - I hope you have not just made complaints, but have followed the appeals process? You must do that! OK, leaves aren't fixed in place. You were ticketed on three separate days. There should be three sets of council photos taken on different days. Is your argument that, when you arrived, the lines were hidden by leaves so you had no idea they were there? If so, compare that with the photos the council has to see what the road looked like when the CEO arrived on the scene each time. That will give you a good base-line idea of how strong a case you have. If the lines genuinely were completely obscured every day, you could possibly win an appeal on the lack of clear markings.

It's more than "reducing the amount". It removes the threat of any bailiff action and revokes their execution warrant and fees, and it gets the OP back in the appeals process, which is what he wants. He can then appeal them or pay, and will have a month to do one of those, or better, he can ask his friend to pay them, and the situation can be resolved. As to why the vehicle was registered to this or that address, it's not relevant. That's the sort of diversion which he doesn't need to get concerned with. Just showing why he did not receive the official notices is what he needs to do now. Any discrepancy over the place of registration is DVLA's concern, not Birmingham City Council's.

You have a good case and may well win. I will be happy to tell you what to do. Before I do, let me just say this: I am always concerned when I hear about solicitors being involved in parking tickets. I presume he/she is charging you for their services, whether you win or not? You can get all the advice you need for nothing, elsewhere. Most solicitors know little about the PCN process in my experience, but will still take your cash whetever happens. If I were you I would not pay anyone a penny for their advice. If your solicitor knows their stuff, this is what they will have told you in five minutes: - Yes you can submit another TE7/TE9. You can submit up to nine in connection with any PCN. - The owner of the vehicle is liable for all the charges, that's you, because you only lent the car to a friend and did not sell it. - You must advise the DVLA of who keeps the car, and they must be named on the V5C. Nonetheless the owner will always be liable for the PCNs. What to do... file a new TE7 and TE9 for each PCN as soon as you can. You do it yourself to be sure, and don't rely on any the solicitor may have done for you. Do new ones, so you know they are correct. The TE9 is the first one to do: fill in your details in the boxes, using your current address. Tick the box which says "I did not receive the Penalty Charge Notice". Sign, date etc. Now the TE7 - make sure you get this right! This is the form which tells them why you are late in submitting the TE9, and they need a good explanation or they will reject the whole thing. Fill in your name and current address again, as before. In the box "Reasons" - explain clearly and simply - you lent the car to a mate (name him, don't give his address) tell them when you did it. Tell them you moved out of your previous home on xxx date. Tell them your friend failed to advise you of any PCNs, and you did not at any point receive a PCN or Notice to Owner because you had left the property they will have written to. Sign, date etc. (My advice, stick to these facts, don't talk around what you would have done if... or accuse them of anything - just tell the straight facts as I suggested.) Get this done for each PCN as soon as you can. Do one TE7 and one TE9 for each PCN which is outstanding. Send them back to Northamton County Court, not to the council. Post back if any of this is unclear.

The garage put the car in the parking bay after inspecting it? They then failed to keep feeding the meter for you? I would say your argument is primarily with them, but forcing them to pay the PCNs doesn't seem realistic, so they've landed you in it. In terms of your appeal, I would be looking for proof it was towed to the garage, some sort of paperwork from the garage, proof it was scrapped - that kind of thing. It's not a guaranteed win, but stronger then just proving you're no longer the keeper.

Complete rubbish. You're not helping people by making up things. They can tow any car which is in contravention, regardless of whether there is a "porking" place nearby. I'm not sure what COVID-19 has to do with it, but you have a right of appeal against the charges. What were the circumstances which might win an appeal for you?

Sure. 1. PCN issued (usually onto vehicle windscreen) 2. 28 days later, Notice to Owner (NTO) by post - the discount is forfeited by now, but you can still appeal 3. 28 days later (I think) Charge Certificate (CC) - right to appeal expires when this is issued 4. Order for Recovery (OR) - this opens the possibility of making a Witness Statement, to get the case set back to NTO stage, and back into the appeals process. The adjudication stage is available if you appeal during the NTO stage, and your appeal is rejected. However the legislation states that if an OR is accepted, that should compel the council to refer the case the adjudicator straight away - but usually they don't. It doesn't adversely affect you if they don't, but they must at least issue an NTO, so you can appeal and then if unsuccessful go to the adjudicator by your own choice. It's fairly important that they open this route to you either way - but from what we know of this case so far, they accepted the OR then sent you a letter, then a CC. No route to adjudication. I can't see this as anything other than procedural impropriety, which would usually lead to a complete cancellation of the whole case. You need to put this to the council now and see what they do. If nothing, follow it through to the adjudictor after submitting another OR.