This could get very nasty. Who is the car registered to. Assuming it is to the guy who was driving, he can be tracked via DVLA. This will happen if you say you weren't the driver. If you say now comment you will get the rap. IMHO there are two ways out of this mess. Firstly to persuade (or get other family members to persuade) this individual to visit the nick, to own up and take his medicine. Secondly is for you to take the points (you can say that you have no recollection but as you drive so many cars it is possible) and figure out in a family way how your cousin can make matters good. Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive! Sir Walter Scott

Correct but if you don't pay after appeal it will go up to £90 as the council will get a charge cert and register the debt.

The penalty is determined by a blend of the contravention, the authority and where you are in the country. PATAS are for London appeals NPAS for outside London. Neither determine the size of the penalty. If an appeal to PATAS or NPAS is unsuccessful and the penalty paid swiftly (don't have time-scale to hand) the penalty to be paid is the undiscounted penalty on the PCN.

In your shoes I would work through the template letters in the sticky at the top of the forum. But I would say that wouldn't I?

You might want to refer to this thread. There is also a link to it in the two template letter stickies.

Assuming you mean local authority appeals? The simple answer is no. The reason is that informal appeals have no legal status. However, it is pretty common practice where LAs receive an informal appeal within 14 days to give, if/when they reject them, a further 14 days to pay at the reduced rate. The adjudicators have said that not to do so may well be seen as not treating the motorist fairly. Where LAs ignore informal appeals then expect nothing, unless they solicit them on the PCN. Views differ on the merits of informal appeals. I'm in favour as I believe the more opportunity you give the LA to foul up the more likely they are to do so!

Yes it does. In this context it means one carriageway going one way and a second going the other. It's not a "duallaneway".

Even this is not the case for a PCN under the 1991 RTA. Here it is the owner not the RK who is liable. OK there is a rebuttable presumption that the RK is the owner but it need not be the case.

Whilst your son does not dispute the contravention, the enforcement process has to be lawful to enable the council to collect a penalty using a judicial process. What this means is that if the council screw up in their admin you are not liable for the penalty. But you have to be prepared to argue hard. The first thing to do is to scan and post both sides of the PCN - obscure reg no and other personal details - so we can advise.

3 lanes in each direction.

Yes but it seems a bit odd if you can drive a car towing a trailer in lane 3 of a 3 lane dual carriageway but not in lane 3 of a 3 lane motorway! Well it does to me!

Only on an m/way with three or more lanes! But what about a three lane dual carriageway that is not a motorway?

Pat, I'm grateful for your expansion. In truth I was also thinking of the circumstances where (using your example) I do own a white Audi BA 06 XYZ but it has been cloned and I am in discussion with the DVLA on the subject. Anyway, it's also not the issue here. The issue is that to leave "I have never owned the vehicle in question" off the NTO in my view unlawfully fetters the motorists right of appeal and renders the NTO unlawful and unenforcable. In these circumstances (IMHO) the only option is for the NTO to be cancelled and as the law does not permit an NTO to be reissued, for the PCN to be cancelled also.

Not if my argument is that the PA has either made an error or that the car is a clone.

Like this - Car PA sees has reg HJ 06 ACB but PA notes HJ 06 ABC and I get the NTO when PCN is not paid. Is but one example

Menigma, I apologise, I forgot about this. This is part of your defence but not your only defence. You must, must, must use it all. Do not allow yourself the luxury of dismissing the more technical arguments. Councils have no qualms about issuing PCNs for "minor" transgressions. However, the fact that this is another statutory defence that the council are denying you is a further nail in their coffin. My argument would be is that as no PCN was served (any your evidence of an actual conversation with the PA corroborates your story - it is very different to having returned to your car with allegedly no ticket on it) means that your understanding is that the council must then have allegedly served the PCN by post but they never did. Therefor you are entitled to this defence.

Perhaps you had better ask those who drafted, debated and passed the legislation! It's there, don't really care about the background why but my assumption has always been to cover data processing/admin foul-ups/typos etc but possibly also cloning.

In theory it's a simple "contravention did not occur" and "penalty exceeds applicable amount". But the reality is it's not as simple as that as it will come down to proof. Was PCN issued less than 14 days ago? If so, what I would do at this stage is to write to the council and say I was not parked in x street on the day in question and in any event x street has no parking restrictions. If more than 14 days ago wait for the NTO. If council reject informal letter (if less than 14 days) or in any other circumstances, scan and post both sides of the PCN and NTO after having removed personal data and references.

Irrespective of rights and wrongs, you only had 28 days from date of receipt to appeal (standard and lawful). Your PCN was dated 12 Sept 2007 so I think you are stuffed. Really sorry for you on this!

And no doubt the small print is along the lines of the bits in red (blue explains why it's bad) What my concerns are, are that motorists who may have a lawful ground for appeal miss out or may be duped into thinking that they have a liability. This also includes keepers who are not the owner. It is not necessary to show that you have been prejudiced but that there is a real risk of prejudice to the motoring public.

Forget colour of car as an issue. If the street name is a simple typo then I would not rely on that alone. I suggest you scan and post both sides of the PCN having deleted the ref and your cars reg no.

As well as the PCN, we need the bits that give you the mechanism for appeal.

I'm particularly interested in these two: I was not the owner/keeper of this vehicle at the time of the contravention The vehicle was taken without my consent Bet they are fettering your right to appeal on the ground that "I never was the owner of the vehicle" or that the vehicle was permitted to remain at rest by a person in control of it without my consent but was not stolen! To do so (IMHO) would render the NTO invalid but I am not aware of any PATAS ruling.

Do you have a digital camera? A photo posted to imageshack (or similar) may work. Otherwise you need to type it all out - longhand I'm afraid. It pays to be pedantic with these!