When a Council's Silence Speaks Volumes: The Hounslow Case That Cancelled 20 Parking Fines at Once

Why This Case Should Make Every Driver Sit Up and Take Notice

Imagine receiving not one, not two, but twenty penalty charge notices in the space of a few months — all for driving on the same streets. The total bill? A staggering £2,470. Now imagine that a tribunal adjudicator, having asked the council responsible to explain itself twice, was met with complete and utter silence. And then imagine all twenty fines being cancelled as a direct result of that silence.

This is not a hypothetical. It happened in late 2025, in a case brought against the London Borough of Hounslow, and the outcome sends a powerful message to every local authority in England: if you pursue drivers through the tribunal system, you had better show up when asked.

The Case: Twenty Fines, One Driver, Two Streets

The driver at the centre of this case was a woman who had received twenty penalty charge notices issued by Hounslow Council. The alleged contravention on each ticket was the same: "Fail to comply with prohibition on certain types of vehicle" — in plain English, she was accused of driving a motor vehicle on Green Dragon Lane or Burford Road in west London during a period when those roads were closed to general motor traffic.

These kinds of restrictions are increasingly common across London, often introduced as part of Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) schemes, where councils close certain roads to through traffic using cameras and signage. Driving through such a restriction triggers an automatic PCN, and if you do it repeatedly — perhaps because you are unaware of the restriction, or because you have no practical alternative — the fines can stack up with alarming speed.

The driver appealed all twenty PCNs and attended her tribunal hearing by video link. The council sent nobody.

The Arguments: One Side Showed Up, the Other Did Not

The council's position, as set out in its written case summary, was that the driver had driven through a motor vehicle prohibition on twenty separate occasions and that the sheer number of PCNs was not, in itself, a reason to cancel any of them. The council's written submission explicitly stated that the volume of tickets was "not a ground for cancellation."

The driver's position is not detailed at length in the tribunal's published reasons, but she attended her hearing and participated. That, as it turned out, was more than the council managed to do.

The adjudicator, clearly troubled by the scale of the financial penalty and the council's apparent unwillingness to engage with legitimate questions, issued a formal adjournment notice on 24 June 2025 raising several important issues. He asked the council to explain whether it had ever genuinely considered cancelling some or all of the tickets given their sheer number, and whether a combined penalty of £2,470 was truly what Parliament intended when it created the civil parking enforcement regime.

The council did not reply. A second adjournment notice was issued in October 2025, spelling out in considerable detail what the council needed to address — and warning explicitly that continued silence could result in its evidence being excluded. The case was adjourned to 18 November 2025.

Still nothing.

The Decision: All Twenty Fines Cancelled

Faced with a council that had failed to engage for over five months, the adjudicator took the step he had clearly hoped to avoid: he excluded all of the council's evidence from the proceedings.

His power to do this comes from Regulation 9(8)(b) of The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, which gives adjudicators a discretion to admit — or not admit — evidence that would otherwise be inadmissible in a court of law. The flip side of that discretion is that it can equally be exercised against a party that has failed to participate properly.

With no admissible evidence before him, the adjudicator found as a fact that none of the twenty alleged contraventions had occurred. All twenty PCNs were cancelled. The council was directed to refund any amounts already paid.

The Legal Reasoning: Breaking It Down

Several important legal principles run through this decision, and they are worth understanding clearly.

1. Councils Have Duties to the Tribunal — Not Just to Themselves

The adjudicator drew on the overriding objective found in the Civil Procedure Rules, which governs how courts and tribunals should handle cases: fairly, efficiently, and at proportionate cost. Crucially, he found that both parties — including the council — are under a duty to help the tribunal achieve that objective.

A local authority is not simply a claimant pursuing a debt. It is a public body, and public bodies conducting legal proceedings are expected to assist the tribunal, answer legitimate questions, and engage in good faith. Hounslow did none of those things.

2. The Adjudicator Cannot Fill the Gaps for a Silent Party

One of the most striking passages in the decision comes when the adjudicator quotes a fellow adjudicator, Kumar, in a separate case: "it is not for the Adjudicator to step into the litigation arena and provide answers to those questions."

This matters enormously. Adjudicators are independent. They cannot speculate about what a council might have said, or construct arguments on the council's behalf. If the council will not engage, the adjudicator has no choice but to proceed on the evidence — or lack of it — that is actually before them.

3. The Volume of PCNs Can Be a Relevant Consideration

The council's written submission stated baldly that the number of PCNs was "not a ground for cancellation." The adjudicator pushed back on this, and rightly so. While the statutory grounds of appeal available to a driver at tribunal are fixed by law, a council has a much broader discretion when considering whether to cancel tickets at the informal or formal representations stage.

Many councils do, in practice, cancel repeat PCNs where enforcement would be disproportionate or oppressive. The adjudicator found it troubling that Hounslow appeared never to have considered this question at all — and even more troubling that it refused to explain its reasoning when asked.

4. Evidence That Does Not Comply With Proper Standards Can Be Excluded

The adjudicator noted that the council's evidence did not comply with the requirements of CPR Part 32, which governs how evidence must be presented in civil proceedings. While tribunals have flexibility in how they handle evidence, that flexibility cuts both ways. A council that ignores proper procedure and then ignores the tribunal's questions cannot expect its evidence to be treated with deference.

Lessons for Drivers

✅ Always Appeal — Even When It Feels Hopeless

Twenty fines totalling £2,470 might feel like an impossible mountain to climb. But this driver appealed, attended her hearing, and walked away owing nothing. Engaging with the process is always worth it.

✅ Multiple PCNs for the Same Restriction Is a Red Flag Worth Raising

If you have received several tickets for the same alleged contravention in a short period, make this a central part of your appeal. Ask explicitly whether the council considered cancelling some or all of the tickets on grounds of proportionality. Councils have a duty to consider this question, even if they are not always keen to acknowledge it.

✅ Councils Must Participate — and Can Be Penalised If They Do Not

This case demonstrates that a council's failure to engage with tribunal proceedings is not a neutral act. Adjudicators have real powers to exclude evidence and draw adverse inferences. If a council ignores a tribunal's questions, it does so at its own risk.

✅ Keep Records of Everything

The driver in this case was able to attend her hearing and participate. Keep copies of every PCN, every representation you make, and every response you receive. A clear paper trail strengthens your position at every stage.

✅ Proportionality Is a Legitimate Argument

The adjudicator openly questioned whether Parliament ever intended a single driver to face a £2,470 penalty for repeatedly driving on two streets. If the total value of your PCNs feels grossly disproportionate to the alleged offence, say so — clearly and in writing.

The Key Takeaway

A council that ignores a tribunal does not win by default — it loses by default.

Hounslow had every opportunity to make its case, explain its reasoning, and engage with legitimate questions about fairness and proportionality. It chose silence instead. The adjudicator, left with no admissible evidence and no assistance from the pursuing authority, had no option but to find in the driver's favour.

This case is a reminder that the tribunal system — when it works as it should — is not simply a rubber stamp for council enforcement. It is an independent forum where evidence is scrutinised, questions must be answered, and public bodies are held to proper standards. When they fall short of those standards, drivers can — and do — win.