From the ticket in your hand to a finished letter

Your case is well-founded. You hold a valid resident permit (ref BCC-RP-778214) that was active from 1 March 2026 - more than a month before the PCN was issued on 3 April 2026 - and you parked in the correct zone. The permit's existence and validity are verifiable from Birmingham City Council's own records. The statutory ground is straightforward: the contravention did not occur because the vehicle was correctly permitted at the time and location. The council's rejection without addressing the permit's validity is the weakest point in their position.

Your RingGo confirmation timestamped 16:47 shows you paid for the right vehicle, at the right location, within two minutes of the PCN being issued at 16:45. The payment was genuine and the delay was caused by a signal drop, not by any failure on your part. That said, technically the contravention occurred because payment had not registered at the moment the CEO issued the notice. Islington is a high-volume enforcement authority that tends to contest appeals, so a discretionary cancellation is not guaranteed.

Your case rests on a concrete, documented factual ground: the restriction sign at Wind Street was obscured by graffiti at the time of the contravention, and you hold dated photographs taken minutes after the PCN was issued that show this. A contravention cannot be established where the required traffic signage was not legible on the day. You also have a secondary procedural point: the council's Notice of Rejection did not engage with your signage evidence at all, which is a failure to consider material representations under the Wales 2013 regulations.

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

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. 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.

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. 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.