Author Topic: Haringey 52(M) PCN  (Read 345 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Haringey 52(M) PCN
« on: March 03, 2024, 07:12:53 pm »
Hi all, my first PCN in years, my last one was appealed and won with the help of Pepipoo. I have used this road for over 40 years but there has been a restriction put in place by Haringey recently which I admit I completely failed to notice. A short stretch of this road has recently had a No Vehicles restriction put in place by Haringey definitely since Feb 2022 as it does not appear on Google Maps. I don't know how I missed it, probably as I have used this road for so long without this restriction. In fact when I went back to check what the PCN was all about I was only there for 15 minutes and saw three cars go through and that was on a Sunday. In my mind this was put in place for revenue.

I admit I went through the two planters and failed to spot the sign. Here is the link to the PCN: https://imgur.com/a/RiIFm3T

My Question to the forum is:

1) Isn't the council photo supposed to show the signage of the restriction together with my VRN so that I know exactly what I failed to comply with, rather than just the enigmatic 52(M) code? And

2) Is not the PCN supposed to tell the owner that if they make an informal appeal and fail, they still have ANOTHER 14 days to pay the discounted penalty from the date of the rejection?

Many thanks to all who reply.



« Last Edit: April 01, 2024, 01:17:09 am by cp8759 »

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter


Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2024, 07:23:05 pm »
The PCN is unenforceable as per other threads.  They cannot serve a charge certificate 28 days from the date of notice. Back later.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Karma: +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2024, 07:33:23 pm »
Quote
1) Isn't the council photo supposed to show the signage of the restriction together with my VRN so that I know exactly what I failed to comply with, rather than just the enigmatic 52(M) code? And

There is no legal requirement for any photographs at all on the PCN. Any photographs you might see on their website are stills from the video. It is commonplace, though, to see photos on the PCN of the car at the relevant location, but often the camera is not positioned to show the sign and the car going past it.

Quote
2) Is not the PCN supposed to tell the owner that if they make an informal appeal and fail, they still have ANOTHER 14 days to pay the discounted penalty from the date of the rejection?

The reoffer of the discount when rejecting informal challenges is not a legal right, funnily enough, but most councils to commit to re-offering it, but there is no legal requirement to put anything about this on a Regulation 9 PCN (one served to car or driver at the roadside), nor on a Regulation 10 PCN, (one served to the keeper on the V5 )

However, your's is a postal PCN, so there is only one opportunity to submit representations. These are formal reps, there is no informal challenge stage.  The discount period remains extant until its end date, but some councils play hard-ball and refuse to re-offer the discount if their rejection is past the discount end-date. Most councils do, howver, re-offer the discount. If they didn't, they'd make a rod for their own back, because with no discount re-offer, it is then a total no-brainer to take the council to adjudication, the penalty does not increase, nor are there any additional costs. The council, though, have to prepare an evidence pack.


Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2024, 07:34:47 pm »
Dear London Borough of Haringey,

I bring a collateral challenge against this PCN, on the ground that it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(8)(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

It follows that the penalty charge notice is invalid and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,




**************


https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-haringey-council-52(m)-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-types/msg9338/#msg9338

This case was won as they adduced no evidence.  2230567864  Costs application to follow.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2024, 01:11:22 am by cp8759 »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2024, 09:00:51 pm »
Hi OP here. Thank you all for your replies.

If I have understood correctly, you say that I should appeal on the grounds that the PCN does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(8)(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

By looking at your link to the other thread, I understand this to be that they said that:

"If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice, an increased charge £195.00 may be payable. We may then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount."

Please can you explain to a newbie, why that does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(8)(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Is it that they should have said the date of SERVICE of this notice? Or is it something else.

My other concern, now is that if they reject, which knowing Haringey is very likely, there is no guarantee that the reduced penalty will still apply.

Thanks again for the help.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2024, 01:11:31 am by cp8759 »

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2024, 10:01:08 am »
@Vike.  Please trust us and no worries for asking. We all started in this game from nothing.  I use the epithet "game" deliberately because this is what councils rely on - peoples' inexperience and fears re the discount.

The issue, itself, truncates the period in which a Charge Certificate may be served and the Tribunal is consistent in its decisions on this legal point.  They can only serve a C.C. 28 days from the date of service.

cpa8759, Mr Mustard and I have won all our cases on this issue.  Just keep going. If they continue, I offer to represent you for free.

In my opinion, the legal argument is incontrovertibly correct thus making the PCN substantially non-complaint.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2024, 10:20:59 am by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2024, 11:19:33 am »
Thank you so much, Hippocrates. I know that councils play the game, with the expectation that the accused would give up and pay, but I'm now, myself wondering if the time to go to Tribunal and the stress involved is worth it for £65. May I ask whether, if this went to Tribunal, I would need to go in person? I am still working and am already on a warning for too much leave of absence.What are the chances of winning on a remote appeal at Tribunal?

taffer87

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2024, 12:14:30 pm »
Thank you so much, Hippocrates. I know that councils play the game, with the expectation that the accused would give up and pay, but I'm now, myself wondering if the time to go to Tribunal and the stress involved is worth it for £65. May I ask whether, if this went to Tribunal, I would need to go in person? I am still working and am already on a warning for too much leave of absence.What are the chances of winning on a remote appeal at Tribunal?

you can do a telephone hearing - also if you are being offered representation for free by experienced members then you should take it as will reduce your workload significantly and you can if you choose even not attend the actual hearing by phone. Of course, no one can guarantee anything but this seems as close to that as possible with a clear legal error which has been tested at the Tribunal many times already.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2024, 12:47:43 pm »
Thank you so much, Hippocrates. I know that councils play the game, with the expectation that the accused would give up and pay, but I'm now, myself wondering if the time to go to Tribunal and the stress involved is worth it for £65. May I ask whether, if this went to Tribunal, I would need to go in person? I am still working and am already on a warning for too much leave of absence.What are the chances of winning on a remote appeal at Tribunal?
We are not at Tribunal time as they need to reply first.  I would attend in person and you by phone. As stated, in the other case they rejected but dodged the issue and filed no evidence.  A costs application has just been filed this morning for wasting everyone's time.

Bexley and Bromley have similar issues and one was won by me a few weeks ago.

************************

Revised draft:

Dear Haringey Council

Ref: PCN ZN11391338                VRM  LP16JDK
                           

I make the following representations against the said PCN.

1. I bring a collateral challenge on the ground that it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

2. I bring a further collateral challenge since the taken without consent ground clearly limits/fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner’s permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim.

In light of the above the penalty charge notice is invalid and must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully

Name (Registered keeper)

Address
« Last Edit: March 04, 2024, 02:16:28 pm by Hippocrates »
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #9 on: March 04, 2024, 06:26:49 pm »
Hi

Should I clarify point 1 that the reason it does not comply is that they put date of notice rather than date of service?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #10 on: March 04, 2024, 07:22:02 pm »
Nope.  Let them do the work.  Just simply cut and paste what I wrote.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #11 on: March 04, 2024, 11:08:39 pm »
Representations as per your advice submitted. Thank you.
"
I have just re-read the PCN and strangely, on the first page it clearly states "...the date of this notice" three times but on the 2nd page it changes to "with the date on which the penalty charge was served."

I also notice that where it mentions "without the consent of the owner" it goes on to qualify this with "if this ground arises through the vehicle being stolen and if you have documents related to the theft e.g. a crime reference number or details of an insurance claim you may wish to supply them as part of your representations)" I read this as their admitting that it could have been taken without consent other than it having been stolen. Or at least Haringey could allege that that is what the PCN states.

Does this change anything at all?

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1278
  • Karma: +32/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2024, 01:32:44 am »
Probably not.  It is a consequence of the LLA & TfL Act 2003 that is flawed and this has never been corrected. The Act sets the period for payment as 28 days from the PCN date, and the period in which to submit representations as 28 days from date of service. So if you submit reps on Day 28 from date of service, you're now 2 days overdue for payment of the PCN ! So how come nobody in our wonderful Parliament didn't spot this when the Bill for the Act was going through Parliament ? Good question !

Vike

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2024, 10:24:50 am »
Thank you Incandescent. Now I get it, It's not the council that has worded the PCN wrong but that the act that they are following is flawed. In fact that is why on the first page of the PCN it states from the "date of the notice"  when they talk about payment and on the second it states " from the date of service" when referring to the representation. They are actually following the erroneous act of parliament!

Do you have any comment re the taking without consent, please?

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 972
  • Karma: +12/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Haringey 52(M) PCN
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2024, 10:47:56 am »
Thank you Incandescent. Now I get it, It's not the council that has worded the PCN wrong but that the act that they are following is flawed. In fact that is why on the first page of the PCN it states from the "date of the notice"  when they talk about payment and on the second it states " from the date of service" when referring to the representation. They are actually following the erroneous act of parliament!

Do you have any comment re the taking without consent, please?

The main issue is that they misstated the time to serve a charge certificate.  I have added the TWOC ground to test their reply.  See Egenti v Islington.  But I would not use it at this stage.
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"