Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Birmingham Council PCN for non-display of ticket
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Bill Door
Hi, I'm a long time reader but first time member. I hope you guys can advise.

End Nov last year I parked in an off-street car park legitimately, but it was very windy and pouring with rain so when I locked the car I didn't check if the ticket could be seen. It blew off the dash and I got a PCN. I wrote a nice letter explaining that I had paid.

They wrote back acknowledging that I had a valid ticket, but they will still charge as it was not displayed. Now the NTO has arrived (while I was on holiday last week) and I intend to dispute it.

Ticket Purchased:


My Initial reply
2/12/2015. Before 10am

Dear Sir/Madam,

On 28th Nov I parked in the Tennant street car park for a visit to the Symphony hall. It was very wild weather (Storm Clodagh). I purchased a ticket at 17:58 and displayed it clearly in the car.
I have an independent witness who was with me when I bought the ticket, my neighbour. My partner and her mother were already in the city for the Christmas market and joined us for the concert and the journey home.

When I returned to the car at 9:30, I found the PCN attached. On opening the door I could see that my ticket was on the car floor. I showed the ticket to my three fellow travellers (witnesses).

I can produce the original ticket purchased by me, statements from the witnesses and tickets from the concert at the symphony hall.

A contract exists between us and it seems this is a technicality of display.

A further technicality is that the ticket instructs the purchaser to place the ticket inside the windscreen, this wording is inaccurate as the ticket is not adhesive, and all that can be done is to place the ticket on the dashboard, it is not possible to place it inside the windscreen as instructed.

Please advise how I can present my evidence re this case,


I'll add another post with reponses smile.gif

Their response:

The NTO:

Really grateful for any advice smile.gif
You have got the Notice to Owner, so there is no loss in taking them all the way to the adjudicators. IMHO they are showing their ruthlessness in refusing your appeal despite the fact you did actually pay and have the ticket.

Their own guidelines state they may accept the challenge if: -

If the motorist produces a Pay and Display parking ticket that was valid at the time the Penalty Charge Notice was issued or when the parking contravention occurred for Penalty Charge Notices issued by post and the Civil Enforcement Officer’s evidence confirms:

A face down ticket was on display in the vehicle.
A ticket was displayed but partially concealed so that the relevant details (expiry time, date, etc.) could not be seen and checked.

And providing that either:-

The serial number printed on the back of a face down ticket was visible and could be seen and recorded by the Civil Enforcement Officer.

The serial number of a partially concealed ticket was visible and could be seen and recorded by the Civil Enforcement Officer.


If the motorist produces a Pay and Display parking ticket that was valid at the time the Penalty Charge Notice was issued or when the parking contravention occurred for Penalty Charge Notices issued by post and the vehicle registration number recorded on the Pay and Display ticket matches the vehicle registration number recorded on the Penalty Charge Notice.

Where there are other specific mitigating circumstances requiring the case to be assessed on its individual merits.

with no ticket visible it says they may reject if: -
If or where the Civil Enforcement Officer confirms that either a face down ticket or partially concealed ticket was not on display at the time the Penalty Charge Notice was issued for Penalty Charge Notices issued by post.

Where the serial number of the ticket produced does not match the serial number printed on the back of the ticket seen by the Civil Enforcement Officer.
When records confirm that the ticket produced was not purchased by the motorist (obtained from another motorist, found in the car park etc.), which was observed by the Civil Enforcement Officer.

The Penalty Charge will be enforced in circumstances where a Penalty Charge Notice has been issued in similar circumstances on a previous occasion (ie. for failure to clearly display the purchase date, purchase time and expiry time of the Pay and Display ticket) and has been cancelled with the motorist being advised of the need to display a valid pay and display ticket correctly in the vehicle in future (ie. so that the purchase date, purchase time and expiry time of the ticket are clearly visible), unless there are specific mitigating circumstances requiring the case to be assessed on its individual merits.

If yours was on the floor it may not have been visible, but to me, it shows they are not applying "may", but "must". In other words the writer of the letter of rejection has not actually followed the policy, as discretion is allowed.
Bill Door
That's great thanks smile.gif DO the timings look ok?
Mad Mick V
The Council indicates on its website the Contravention Codes it uses. It does not use the obvious one which reflects the circumstances of the OP‘s case --Code 73 “ Parked without payment of the parking charge”. This is important because that code can use the suffix “u” which relates to mobile phone payments.

Instead the Council uses Code 83 “ Parked in a car park without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher or parking clock”. This code does not have the suffix “u” so the contravention has no clear link to payment by mobile phone. I would put this more strongly--there is no exemption to pay by mobile phone under this contravention.

This contravention is only about display yet an absurdity exists in that a person can receive a PCN for not displaying a ticket in a car-park full of cars without tickets. So the situation is contradictory and discriminatory and certainly prejudicial. I would put this more strongly ---people who have paid by mobile phone have parked illegally since they are in breach of Contravention Code 83 regardless of payment (i.e non- display of a ticket). They do not have an exemption because the code is all about display.

By limiting themselves to this contravention code the Council has allowed its CEOs to ignore vehicles clearly parked illegally. A clear example of Wednesbury Unreasonableness and certainly prejudicial to the OP.


The CEO was prohibited from serving a PCN in respect of parking beyond the end of the permitted parking period for 10 minutes.
This applies to parking places designated under s32 i.e. car parks.

Facts in this case:
Contravention time - 21.12
Ticket expired and end of 'permitted parking period' - 21.58
Prohibition on serving a PCN for this contravention until - 22.08.
The authority accept that the ticket was purchased by OP and in the vehicle.

As the regulations make no reference to the valid display of a ticket but only to having purchased then IMO they were stymied until 22.08.

It was open to the authority to state that presentation of the ticket in evidence neither established that it was bought by the OP nor that it was in the car. But they didn't, they've accepted both points.

IMO, it was the intention of parliament when these regs were passed to prevent the sort of abuse of power we see in this case when the authority ACCEPT that payment was made. After all, which is worse, paying for 10 minutes less than you park and displaying to the world that you've done it, or making a valid payment and a problem occurring with the display of the ticket?
Need to check but last year, one of our members had a none display in a Birmingham car park..... there was an issue that rendered the contravention null.
Rookie IIRC

This one.

In that car park, there was no requirement in the Parking Place Order for continuous display.
This is critical as they cannot enforce against a fluttering ticket without the continuous.
You paid, you displayed, end of.
They let his challenge time out which says a lot.

Differing car park but well worth getting the order for this one, just in case.
They have a department who are usually quite quick at replying with a copy of the order requested.
Bill Door
This is great stuff guys, I'm so grateful.

I'm going to study in detail this weekend and post back smile.gif
Bill Door
Just query on procedure. I've written a letter which is my representation. The NTO states I can make representation on-line, but the only facility is to send an email with PDF attachments.
This I've done, attaching the letter. I note it goes to Birmingham City Council themselves, and I have to trust that they will pass to adjudication.

I guess I should probably send by post in parallel. Do I need to re-send all my original evidence, copy of ticket etc.? Or can I trust that this will be in my file?
The challenge is against the NTO and will be considered by Birmingham council
Only if they reject will you get chance to appeal to adjudicators.
You need, in either case attach evidence like a copy of the P&D ticket but things like the PCN are on file.

Did you get the traffic order??
OP, as per DD you're getting ahead of yourself.

Let's recap procedure from here:

You received a NTO which is the demand for payment of the penalty;

You are making representations against the NTO to the enforcement authority, Birmingham City Council;

You should provide whatever evidence is necessary to support your argument. Where this involves reference to regulations you only need to refer to the regs, you do not need to cut and paste them. It doesn't matter whether you have these to hand immediately, you can add to your reps at any stage up to the authority issuing their notice of acceptance or rejection which they have to do in writing no later than 56 days beginning on the date they receive your reps;

Only if they reject your reps would you be able to appeal to an adjudicator.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2020 Invision Power Services, Inc.