Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Car towed away whilst on holiday
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Hi all

I understand this site is really useful to get responses on how to appeal against parking costs.

I was away last week and didn't realise my parking permit for the road outside my flat in Camden council had run out, I received a text saying my car was impounded and then when I came back home had to pay £240 to get the car out the impound and also had 2 parking tickets on my car, which will cost a further £40 each. I only received a text that my car had been impounded and at no point did I receive communications that my permit had expired or that I had received a ticket. As soon as I was made aware of it I was able to go online and quickly renew it. It seems ridiculous that I was only told about the offence after the point of impounding my car and as I was not in the country was unable to know that I had received any parking tickets, is there any case for excessive charges?

Any help would be much appreciated.


Mad Mick V
Post up the documents without personal details.

These are the removals protocols:-

It seems like you have to be 7 days with an expired permit before they remove.

If the vehicle was not moved by you between the 1st and last PCN then only the 1st PCN is payable under the continuous contravention precedents.

I would certainly ask the Council how many PCNs have been issued, just in case.

Always fight a tow.

Yes, always appeal a tow. It is a total no-brainer, because you have paid all there is to pay, and could get some or all of it back. First you have to appeal to the council, then when they reject this, as is virtually always the case, (they don't want to hand back nearly £300), you appeal to PATAS based on disproportionate action in towing. I don't think you can escape the PCNs, maybe one of them under "continuous contravention" as MMV says.
When you draft your appeal I suggest you conclude with the text below.

Furthermore, as I was considered liable to pay a penalty charge, I was lawfully entitled to make representations in accordance with those regulations made under section 80 of the TMA 2004.

80 Representations and appeals
(1)The Lord Chancellor may make provision by regulations entitling a person
(a)who is or may be liable to pay a penalty charge, or
(b)who secures the release of a vehicle from an immobilisation device on payment of an amount in accordance with regulations under section 79,
to make representations to the enforcement authority and to appeal to an adjudicator if his representations are not accepted.

As my vehicle was not immobilised (clamped), the relevant regulations are those given under Part 2 of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. It is somewhat perplexing that a Regulation 9 penalty charge notice was served under the TMA 2004 only for the council to deviate from the proper procedure for making representations prescribed under the Act.

Such deviation is a “procedural impropriety” since it is undoubtedly the TMA 2004 that regulates parking contraventions subject to civil enforcement. Nowhere does the TMA 2004 or the regulations made under it enable a council to deviate from the TMA 2004 in cases where a regulation 9 PCN is served and the vehicle is subsequently removed. The council’s deviation from the TMA 2004 is also contrary to section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 since a person’s right to a fair hearing is consequently made wholly conditional on pre-paying all charges. This is discriminatory against those with no means to pre-pay. Had the council not deviated from the TMA 2004 then no discrimination or impediment to a fair trial would occur
Mad Mick V

Send the Council something like this on the continuous contravention:-

Two additional PCNs (numbers????) were issued to my vehicle on ???? and ???? although the vehicle had not moved since the first PCN was issued. This is therefore a continuous contravention and the additional PCNs should be classed as invalid and cancelled. The effect of the additional PCNs is that I am being penalised thrice for the same alleged contravention. This is both unfair and against the European Convention on Human Rights which indicates you cannot be punished twice for the same "offence". Therefore the aggregate penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of this case.

In terms of Continuous Contravention I would refer the Council to PATAS Cases 2110166557, 2140191859, 2140184092, 2140234882, which all justify this ground of appeal.

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.