Silence Is Not Golden: How Westminster Lost Two Courier PCNs by Not Replying

When a parking tribunal asks a council a direct question, you would expect an answer. In this Westminster case, the question went unanswered, and that silence decided the outcome. A courier facing two penalty charge notices (PCNs) walked away with both cancelled, not because he proved his every point, but because the council stopped fighting.

The case is a useful reminder that parking appeals are not only about signs and bay markings. They are also about who is legally responsible for the vehicle, and whether the paperwork holds up.

The case: two PCNs, one hire vehicle

Mr Courtney appealed against two PCNs issued by the City of Westminster, one on 25 July 2003 and one on 21 October 2003. The contravention on both was "parked in a restricted street", which broadly means a vehicle was left somewhere that parking or waiting is not allowed at the relevant time.

The unusual part is who the council was chasing. The vehicle was not Mr Courtney's own. Westminster pursued him on the basis that he was the hirer of the vehicle, which he used in his work as a courier. So the usual question, "was the car parked unlawfully?", sat behind a more basic one: "is this person legally responsible for the PCN at all?"

The arguments

The adjudicator's reasons are short, and they do not set out a full account of what each side argued, so it is worth being clear about what we actually know.

What the council relied on: Westminster's case was that Mr Courtney was the hirer, and so should answer for the PCNs. For that to work, it needed a valid vehicle hire agreement linking him to the vehicle on the relevant dates.

What the driver provided: Mr Courtney supplied two copy vehicle hire agreements in his latest correspondence with the tribunal.

The adjudicator's concern: On 28 June 2004, the tribunal wrote to the council. It asked Westminster to comment on those two agreements and said that, on the face of it, they could not both be genuine. It added the key legal point: without a genuine hire agreement that complies with the Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000, there was no basis for holding Mr Courtney liable.

What the council did: Nothing. Even though it was given considerably longer than the tribunal had indicated, Westminster did not reply.

It is worth noting what we do not know. The decision does not say which agreement, if either, was genuine, or how the discrepancy arose. Nor does it find that anyone acted dishonestly. It would be unfair to speculate, and the outcome does not depend on it.

The decision: appeals allowed

The adjudicator allowed both appeals. The reasoning was simple. The council had been asked a direct question about a central issue, had been given ample time, and had not responded. The adjudicator took that as an indication that Westminster no longer opposed the appeals, and decided in Mr Courtney's favour.

This is not a finding that the vehicle was parked lawfully. The tribunal never ruled on the restriction itself. The case turned on liability and on the council's failure to engage.

The legal reasoning in plain English

Who pays a PCN: the owner, usually

In England and Wales, councils generally pursue the registered keeper or owner of a vehicle for a PCN, not necessarily whoever was driving. That is why you can be liable for a ticket even if a friend or employee was at the wheel.

Hire vehicles are the exception

Hire firms would otherwise be liable for every PCN incurred by every customer. The Road Traffic (Owner Liability) Regulations 2000 deal with this by allowing responsibility to shift from the hire company to the hirer, provided certain requirements are met.

In broad terms, the vehicle must have been let under a proper hire agreement, and that agreement must contain what the regulations require, such as a statement acknowledging the hirer's liability for penalty charges. The paperwork must also be properly provided to the council. If those conditions are met, the council can pursue the hirer instead.

The key point is that the shift in liability depends on the documents. If the agreement is not valid or does not comply, the legal basis for pursuing the hirer falls away.

Why the council's case collapsed

Westminster chose to proceed against Mr Courtney as hirer. That choice meant it needed a compliant, genuine hire agreement to anchor his liability. The adjudicator spelled this out in writing, flagged a concern about the two agreements, and gave the council the chance to respond.

Had Westminster replied, it might have explained the apparent inconsistency, produced the original documents, or satisfied the tribunal on compliance. By staying silent, it left the adjudicator with a question mark over the one thing its case depended on.

Silence has consequences

Tribunals expect both parties to engage with directions and questions. An authority that ignores a clear request, especially after being given extra time, risks the tribunal treating the matter as uncontested. That is what happened here. The adjudicator did not need to resolve the factual puzzle of the two agreements. The council's failure to respond made it unnecessary.

A note on timing: this decision dates from 2004, and the adjudication system has changed since, including in how appeals are administered. The underlying principle that a council must be able to show its case is as relevant as ever, but you should not assume procedures today are identical to those described here.

Lessons for drivers

This is case commentary, not legal advice, but several practical themes emerge.

1. Liability is a separate question from the contravention

Many drivers focus only on whether they parked wrongly. This case shows there is another layer: whether the person being pursued is the legally responsible party. Where vehicles are hired, borrowed, or used for work, that question can matter a great deal. If you are interested in how liability works in other situations, our guide on what to do if you receive a fine for a sold vehicle shows a similar issue from a different angle, and our piece on navigating UK rental car parking fines covers the hire side.

2. Paperwork matters, and it needs to be consistent

Documents such as hire agreements carry real weight. The adjudicator's concern here was that two agreements appeared inconsistent. Whatever the explanation, the lesson is that any documents you rely on should be accurate, complete, and consistent with one another. Inconsistencies invite scrutiny, and if you submit evidence, you should be confident it is genuine and correct.

3. Respond to every tribunal request, and on time

The council's silence cost it the case. Drivers should take the mirror-image lesson: if a tribunal or council writes to you with a question or deadline, answer it. Missing a deadline can undermine an otherwise strong appeal. If you are heading toward a hearing, our step-by-step guide to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal process explains what to expect.

4. Councils must prove their case, not just assert it

A council issuing a PCN is not entitled to a win by default. Where it relies on a particular legal route, such as hirer liability, it needs the evidence to support it. This is worth bearing in mind when you write your own challenge. Our guide to formal representations for PCNs explains how to frame points about liability and procedure clearly.

5. Do not count on the other side failing

It would be a mistake to treat this case as a reliable strategy. The driver in this appeal did something right: he supplied his documents, and the tribunal engaged with them closely enough to spot a problem. A council that responds promptly may well see things end differently. Where significant sums are involved, or where there are questions over the authenticity of documents, speaking to a qualified legal adviser or a recognised consumer advice organisation is sensible.

Key takeaway

A PCN only sticks to the person the law says is responsible, and when the paperwork behind that responsibility is questioned, the council has to answer.

In this case, Westminster was asked a pointed question about the very documents its case depended on, had ample time to reply, and did not. The result was two cancelled PCNs for a working courier. For drivers, the lesson is twofold: always check whether the right person is being pursued, and never ignore a tribunal's request for a response, because silence can decide an appeal.

This article is general commentary on a historical tribunal decision and does not constitute legal advice. If you are dealing with a PCN, consult official guidance from the relevant authority or tribunal, or seek advice from a qualified professional.