Bromptonaut is correct. If the 'offence' was before 1/10/12 then ignore the letter and any further correspondence. If after that date then I think the appeal procedure is the only route open to you. If you have a history of Migraine then your Doctor may help out with a letter confirming this and in his opinion it would have been unsafe to drive further. That should do the trick for an appeal. Perhaps DVD might have some further comments.

I have heard recently that someone had this problem. His wife, as registered keeper, said her husband was driving at the time of the 'offence'. He wrote in repsonse that he was not driving and did not know who was. He invited them to take the case to court. They declined. He thinks on the grounds that a spouse cannot be compelled to give evidence against their own spouse. So the case is in a very grey area. A risky strategy and not for the faint hearted. Maybe just anecdotal though. Cheers Concrete

Problem is that there is no exemption for illness. If proveable then this should be strong grounds for appeal but the system is not truly independant.

HMG have said that the charge should not be excessive and out of proportion in relation to the loss and admin in relation to the ticket. Under law of contract this would have to be argued at civil county court .

Now if the charge is not paid by the driver then the legislation places the onus to cough up on the Reg Keeper. No arguement like a 172 name and shame driver in speeding case. Was i6 me? was it her?

dvd

Why have no civil courts thought along similar lines ?

They haven't had time yet; the legislation came into effect four weeks ago.

The appeals system is interesting. They've got somebody with proper experience in the London Parking Appeal (PATAS) service to act as Chief Adjudicator and appear to have an arrangement with the same tribunal to share administration.

PATAS and The Traffic Penalty Tribunal in rest of England and Wales have a good tale to tell regarding their independence from the Councils and Dept for Transport. They have been pioneers of technology such as paperless hearings and use of telephone or video to simplify matters for appellants and keep cost down.