What Cato actually gives you back

I am writing further to my earlier representations regarding Penalty Charge Notice BCC44219087, which the council has rejected. I am not satisfied that the rejection engaged with the substance of my case, and I am now making formal statutory representations against the Notice to Owner served on me in respect of this PCN. I intend to pursue this to the independent adjudicator if necessary.

Ground of representation: the alleged contravention did not occur

I rely on the ground set out in regulation 5(4)(a) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (SI 2022/576): the alleged contravention did not occur.

At 11:20 on 3 April 2026, my vehicle GM68 NPR was parked in the Bristol Street resident permit bay. I held a valid resident permit for that zone - permit reference BCC-RP-778214 - which was purchased and active from 1 March 2026, more than five weeks before this PCN was issued. I enclose a copy of that permit, which confirms the permit reference, the vehicle registration GM68 NPR, the zone covering Bristol Street, and the commencement date of 1 March 2026. The permit was therefore fully in force at the date, time and location of the alleged contravention.

There was no contravention. A vehicle correctly permitted for the bay in which it is parked does not commit a contravention under code 12, which alleges parking in a residents' or shared use parking place without a valid permit. The council's own permit records will confirm the existence and validity of this permit, and I ask that they be checked before this matter goes any further.

Camera enforcement was not available for this contravention

The PCN records that it was issued on the basis of CCTV evidence and served by post. Since the restrictions introduced in 2015, an English authority may serve a PCN by post on the strength of an approved-device record only for a closed list of contravention types - broadly bus lanes, bus stops and stands, red routes and other no-stopping restrictions, and school entrance markings. A residents’ permit bay is not within that list. If this PCN was issued on camera evidence alone, the council had no power to proceed that way and the PCN falls on that ground irrespective of the permit position.

I therefore require the council to state the statutory basis on which this PCN was served by post, and to produce the civil enforcement officer’s contemporaneous notes if it maintains that an officer observed the contravention. If the council does maintain that an approved device was used, I further require the type-approval certificate for the specific device used at Bristol Street and the on-site commissioning records for that camera.

Supporting documents

I attach the following documents with these representations:

• •Penalty Charge Notice BCC44219087 - confirms the PCN reference, vehicle, date, time, location and contravention code.
• •Notice to Owner - confirms the enforcement stage and the basis on which these representations are made.
• •Resident permit BCC-RP-778214 - confirms that a valid permit was active for vehicle GM68 NPR in the Bristol Street resident permit zone from 1 March 2026, well before and at the time of the alleged contravention on 3 April 2026.

56-day time limit

I note that under SI 2022/576 regulation 6, the council must serve notice of its decision on these representations within 56 days of receiving them. If it fails to do so, regulation 6(7) deems the representations accepted and the PCN must be cancelled and any sum paid refunded.

Outcome sought

I ask the council to cancel PCN BCC44219087 in full. The vehicle was correctly permitted at the time and location of the alleged contravention, no contravention occurred, and this contravention was in any event not one the council may enforce by camera. If these representations are not accepted, I require a Notice of Rejection that engages individually with each point raised above and includes the prescribed Notice of Appeal form so that I may appeal to the independent adjudicator without delay.

Yours faithfully, [Your full name] [Your address] [Your contact number / email]

I am writing to appeal against Penalty Charge Notice ISL22887744, issued on 27 June 2026 at 16:45 in respect of vehicle KP70 DWL on Upper Street.

Primary ground

I had paid for my parking via the RingGo app before the CEO issued this notice. I enclose my RingGo payment confirmation, which shows the transaction completed at 16:47 on 27 June 2026, for the correct vehicle registration and location. The two-minute gap between the notice time and my payment registering was caused by a brief mobile signal drop. I had already initiated the payment before the CEO arrived. No money was withheld from the council - the charge was paid in full for the right vehicle at the right time and place.

Further grounds

I ask you to exercise your discretion to cancel this notice. The Government's own guidance to councils on parking enforcement makes clear that a discretionary power to cancel a PCN exists at any point in the process, even where a technical contravention has occurred, and that this discretion must be applied genuinely. A two-minute app processing delay caused by signal loss is exactly the kind of circumstance that discretion exists to address. The council suffers no financial loss here because payment was made.

Supporting documents

• •RingGo payment confirmation, showing the transaction completed at 16:47 on 27 June 2026 for vehicle KP70 DWL at Upper Street, two minutes after PCN ISL22887744 was issued.
• •Penalty Charge Notice ISL22887744, showing the issue time of 16:45 on 27 June 2026.

Mitigation

I want to be clear that I made every reasonable effort to pay on time. The delay was entirely due to a signal failure outside my control, not any attempt to avoid payment. I ask you to take this into account when considering your discretion.

Outcome requested

I ask you to exercise your discretion to cancel PCN ISL22887744 for the reasons set out above. If you do not cancel this notice, I ask you to issue a Notice to Owner so that my right of appeal to the independent adjudicator is preserved.

Yours faithfully, [Your full name] [Your address] [Your contact details]

The appellant appeals against PCN SWC90031177 on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur, because the restriction sign at the location was obscured by graffiti and not legible at the time of issue, and that the authority failed to consider the appellant's central ground and supporting evidence when rejecting the formal representations.

Ground 1 - Signage not legible: contravention not established

The legal test is that traffic signs giving effect to a waiting or parking restriction must be in place and must convey the restriction to a motorist at the time of the alleged contravention. Where a sign is obscured so that it cannot be read by a motorist at the relevant time, the restriction is not properly on display and the contravention is not established. The applicable ground under the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (Wales) Regulations 2013 (SI 2013/359) regulation 4(a) is that the alleged road traffic contravention did not occur.

The photographs attached as Exhibit 1 were taken at Wind Street on 18 January 2026, minutes after PCN SWC90031177 was issued at 08:05. They show the restriction sign at the location of the alleged contravention obscured by graffiti to the extent that the restriction it displays was not legible. A motorist at that location on that morning could not have read the sign. Where the sign does not convey the restriction, the restriction is not on display; where the restriction is not on display, no contravention can be established.

The authority bears the burden of proving that compliant, legible signage was in place at the exact location at the time of the alleged contravention. The PCN itself (Exhibit 2) confirms the date, time and location. The authority's evidence pack will need to address the condition of the sign on 18 January 2026; the appellant's contemporaneous photographs show that it cannot do so. No amount of evidence that the sign is ordinarily present at this location meets the test: what matters is whether the sign was legible on the day, and the photographic record shows that it was not.

The adjudicator is invited to find that the contravention did not occur and to allow the appeal on this ground.

Ground 2 - Procedural impropriety: failure to consider material representations

If the adjudicator does not find for the appellant on Ground 1, the appellant relies on Ground 2 independently.

Under SI 2013/359 the authority is required, upon receipt of formal representations, to consider those representations and any supporting evidence provided. The appellant's formal representations (Exhibit 3) advanced, as the central ground, that the restriction sign at Wind Street was obscured by graffiti and not legible at the time of the contravention, and were accompanied by the photographic evidence now produced as Exhibit 1. The Notice of Rejection (Exhibit 4) did not address the signage ground at all. It made no reference to the photographs, offered no evidence as to the condition of the sign on 18 January 2026, and contained no reasoning capable of meeting the appellant's point.

A failure to consider material representations and supporting evidence is a procedural impropriety within SI 2013/359 regulation 4(f). The rejection here was not a reasoned disagreement with the signage ground; it was a failure to engage with it. The Notice of Rejection is, on its face, a template response that proceeded as though no evidence had been provided. That is not consideration of the representations within the meaning of the regulation.

The adjudicator is invited to find that the authority’s rejection constituted a procedural impropriety and, on that ground independently, to allow the appeal and cancel the penalty charge.

Cumulative observation

Each ground stands independently. Taken together, they also show a consistent failure by Swansea Council to engage with the one fact that defeats enforcement at this location on this date: the sign was not legible. Ground 1 establishes that the contravention did not occur; Ground 2 establishes that the authority declined to confront that evidence when it had the opportunity to do so.

Supporting documents

• •Exhibit 1 - Photographs of the restriction sign at Wind Street taken on 18 January 2026 minutes after PCN SWC90031177 was issued, showing the sign obscured by graffiti and not legible. These photographs support Ground 1.
• •Exhibit 2 - PCN SWC90031177, confirming the date (18 January 2026), time (08:05), location (Wind Street) and penalty amount (£70). This confirms the factual parameters within which Ground 1 is argued.
• •Exhibit 3 - The appellant's original formal representations to Swansea Council, showing that the obscured signage ground and the photographic evidence were placed before the authority. This supports Ground 2.
• •Exhibit 4 - Swansea Council's Notice of Rejection, showing that the authority did not address the signage ground or the photographic evidence. This supports Ground 2.

The appellant respectfully requests that this appeal be allowed and the penalty charge notice cancelled. The appellant is willing to attend a hearing if the adjudicator considers it necessary.

[Your full name] [Your address] [Date]