Ok thanks for the clarification Michael, I thought that would be the case. I better pay it I guess, as in my experience, common sense, intelligence and fair enforcement are largely absent when it comes to dealing with local authority traffic departments and of course, reasoned argument gets you nowhere.

Hi, Just wondering if the 56 day limit applies to an informal appeal or is it only valid for an appeal in responce to a "Notice to Owner"? I have just recieved a reply from the council to an informal appeal against a PCN, a week after the limit was crossed. The appeal was refused and I've been informed that the "notice to owner" will be sent in due course. Can anyone clarify? Thanks

Here's an update on this case for anyone interested and rather than go thru all the issues again, I'll presume the previous posts have been read. Finally, a year after the original PCN was issued, I had my day at PATAS. It was a confusing case, I was in there for quite a while and the Adjudicator couldn't decide at the time and wanted to go thru the documentation again. A decision was then posted to me and I'm happy to report that the appeal was allowed due to procedural impropriety. Which was: 1. the council had not included all the correspondence in their evidence pack and had left out the documents that showed their incompetance which included sending me pictures that didn't identify my car and the reponse to my NTO which related to a different PCN that was nothing to do with me. 2. I was not the registered keeper (RK) but made an official representation in good faith on behalf of the RK as this is what I've always done and no one has ever told me otherwise, (I do now know, thanks to this forum, that only the RK can make a representation) the council then stopped communicating with me after sending me the wrong rejection notices and then claimed that they had received correspondence from "someone other than the registered keeper". The impropriety here was that they had advanced the case, sending me a charge certificate etc without letting me know that they were not prepared to accept my representaions. Although I'm very happy to have got a result, it does highlight to me how ridiculous the system is as it was quite obvious the contravention occured (I was parked adjacent to a dropped kerb) however I would rather have argued the case with mitigation and had it judged on it's merits instead of having a battle of wits over the paperwork, however I guess that's a debate for another day. Many thanks to those who contributed....

Sorry if anyone thought I was being stubborn, it honestly wasn't my intention and I do appreciate everyones contribution here. I've learned quite a lot along the way. I'm not against posting all the docs, but there's quite a few. I haven't mentioned my mitigation or even said what the PCN was for as I started this post to try and get clarification on the 56 day limit as the information I had found online was ambiguous. Of course anyone could say they didn't receive a response, but it's only valid if the council cannot provide a dated copy of the document. My experiences with PATAS has been less than satisfactory and I'd be interested to know what mitigation they would accept. It could be a brilliant organisation and could reduce an lot of the shameful exploitation of regulations by our local authorities, if only they could consider mitigation and use their discretion. Once again, many thanks for all the contributions

The car belongs to my wife yet I drive it most of the time and in the 10 years that we've had the car I've received 5 or 6 PCN/parking tickets and when I've challeneged them It's always been me dealing with it on behalf of the keeper and I have never been told that this is incorrect. The local Authorities (at least 4 different ones) have been quite happy to deal with me with regard to the relevant case and I've never had it questioned, even by PATAS. How can they deal with me if they should be dealing with the keeper? shouldn't they point that out at the outset and isn't there issues of data protection if they're discussing a case with someone other than the keeper? The council messed up with their notice of rejection and so they are taking the official line in order to enforce. This is dishonest, as is the business with the photos (outlined earlier) they are either dealing with me or they're not, they can't have it both ways. The problem is that for ordinary people like me, we're not traffic law professionals and so we need those who are, ie local authority parking services, to be honest with us and if we're making a (potentially significant) mistake then that should be made clear. The other issue is with PATAS, there's no point me going there with my original appeal because they do not accept mitigation, which in my opinion renders the organisation next to useless. The only thing they can do is verify that the offence occured and that the council followed the rules when issuing and enforcing the PCN, which is why I was seeking clarification on the 56 day limit. I guess the adjudicator at PATAS will have no choice but to refuse the appeal.

She did sign the witness statement because it stated that only the registered keeper can submit the statement.

Really? They've been corresponding with me throughout and I made it clear that I was acting on behalf of the registered keeper. It has never been an issue before in previous appeals/representations, so are they playing this one because they messed up by sending me the wrong notice of rejection?

The NTO is dated 16/10/13 and the charge certificate was issued on 25/11/13. Having read thru the case history as submitted by the council they state that the NTO was sent to the registered keeper and named my wife and our address. She is the registered keeper though I was driving when the contravention occured. they then state "No payment or representation from the keeper was received" and below that they state "Correspondence from someone other than the keeper was received" However, when I responded to the NTO, I stated at the begining that I was making the representation on behalf of the registered keeper so they're claiming that as no representation was received from the keeper, the case progressed accordingly, hence the charge certificate etc, yet they did respond by sending me a notice of rejection to the unrelated PCN. I didn't realise that this could be an issue as I've appealed PCNs before on behalf of the registered keeper had never had it questioned and I always make it clear that I'm making the appeal/representation on behalf of the keeper.

Ok, in their bundle is a copy of my representations both informal and in response to the NtO, however there is no copy of any notice of rejection. They have obviously not included the correspondence regarding the unrelated PCN.

The Council Have now sent me, with out any prior notice, 45 pages of documentation and evidence, which I presume they've also forwarded to PATAS, though I have not instigated an appeal and PATAS have not contacted me. interestingly, when I first made an informal appeal I asked for photo evidence and they sent me a picture that didn't identify my car, I pointed this out and they sent me another which also did not clearly identify my car and in subsequent correspondence I've made several references to the fact that their photo evidence is flawed however the evidence pack they have now sent me contains several pictures which clearly do identify my car which begs the question as to why they continued to let me believe thay didn't have any photos? it couldn't be that they we're expecting me to use that in my appeal and that keeping quiet about it till it got to PATAS would scupper my defence and make me look foolish now would it?

I think Impropriety, since they wouldn't accept my original appeal

Great, that all makes sense now. Many thanks for your help and I'll let you know what happens.

OK 1. The letter from the court states that the order for recovery is revoked and that the charge certificate is cancelled. It further states that the original penalty charge has not been cancelled and that the local authority may take further action. It doesn't mention the NtO, that was probaly my mistake misreading the PATAS website. 2. The witness statement was submitted on the grounds that I made representations but did not receive a rejection notice. What I don't understand about the 56 day limit is what it is actually for, because that limit had been reached in this case yet the council, contrary to what is stated by PATAS and other websites, are still pursuing enforcement. All I can presume is that when it actually gets to PATAS you can use it in your appeal.

Thanks for the help, it is confusing. I'll see what transpires next

Ok, there seems to be some confusion, I'll try and clarify. 1. I received a notice to owner and made a formal appeal. 2. I received a reply but it was for an unrelated PCN that was nothing to do with me, the reply refered to other information in my appeal, so I know it was received, yet they have not issued a notice of rejection relating to my PCN. 3. I then received (and challenged) a charge certificate 4. I received a "gesture of goodwill" letter offering to accept a discounted payment. 5. Having not made that payment, I then received an order for recovery, which was successfully challenged on the grounds that I had made representaions and had not received a rejection notice. Having re-read the county court letter it states that the charge certificate and order for recovery have been cancelled however it does not cancel the original PCN allowing the authority to take further action. which brings me back to the original point of my post regarding the 56 day limit. here's what it says on the PATAS website (same link as previous post): "The enforcement authority considers your representations The authority must, before the end of 56 days beginning with the date on which they receive representations: Consider representations received in time; Decide whether to accept or reject them; Serve on the person who made the representations: A Notice of Acceptance, if it accepts them; or A Notice of Rejection and a Notice of Appeal form, if it does not accept them If the authority fail to respond within 56 days, they will be deemed to have accepted the grounds in question If they have accepted the representations or failed to respond within 56 days, cancel the Notice to Owner (where the Penalty Charge Notice was served at the scene) or the Penalty Charge Notice (where this was served by post) and refund any sums paid." Which seems fairly clear, if the authority fails to respond within 56 days "they will be deemed to have accepted the grounds in question" and must cancel the Notice to Owner. Yet despite this, it would appear (according to the PATAS website quoted in the previous post) that the authority can still continue their enforcement all the way through to the county court, who after accepting a witness statement, can allow the authority take further action. So My confusion is over the 56 day limit and what it's there for, if a local authority can just ignore it. Maybe I'm missing something here, which was why I posted here seeking clarification.