Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.





[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

Nope.  Let them do the work.  Just simply cut and paste what I wrote.

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 !

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.