Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you @Enceladus! This is very helpful and that particular case you have referenced sounds almost identical to mine.

There is no rule of law or regulation that entitles an authority to issue a penalty charge notice every 24 hours or as in some of these Penalty Charge Notices less
than 24 hours. An enforcement authority has other powers at its disposal for a continuous contravention, such as removal.

This specific part is very handy and I think I can build the case on that.

I also appreciate you going over those PCN photos and I did catch some of what you observed, specifically that no signs of any PCNs were there on some of the photos and would indicate some interference. I'll have a look at the rest.

I think I have enough here now (including my points on the last post) to write a letter against the Notice to Owner. I'll share here once drafted and it would be much appreciated to get your thoughts!

Strictly speaking these are not continuous contraventions but the tribunal can interpret them as such as being 'exorbitant' given the alternative remedy of removal available.



The removal PCN (and tow charge) should be challenged separately given the seeming lack of documentation provided.   

The rest are all going to NTO anyway and should be grouped and reps made on duty to act fairly in the case of what amounts to one contravention for a usually diligent resident, plus lack of permit reminder. There is nothing to lose and they may cancel some or probably offer you the discount to buy you off going to the tribunal.

In Hackney I got five permit renewal reminder emails last year (one every 2 weeks and first well in advance of expiry) before I renewed which shows that councils can act better.   

Thanks for your response.

I've had a look back through the documents and it was an additional PCN that was issued on 31/05. That was the pound PCN.

This was given along with the release document (single-sided) which I've attached below.

The PCN number is ZN12536367 and the amount paid to release the vehicle was £200. They required this PCN to be paid too which was £65, so in total £265 was paid.

@inst1nct103 so were representations ever made against PCN ZN12536367?

@cp8759 no. Quite honestly I didn't know this PCN existed until I created this thread and learnt that a separate PCN is used to trigger the impound.

So was it your sister who picked up the car from the pound?

One other thing on my mind is whether to include the mishaps at the impound in the representation against to the Notice to Owner.

Just as a recap, 13 PCNs and 1 separate one that triggered the removal.

Should I include the lack of documentation provided at the impound in the representations for those 13 PCNs? Or should I keep that separate and appeal that in the representation against the 14th PCN (which I still need to figure out how to do given it's been paid)?

@H C Andersen thank you, that's very helpful!

I've drafted the following representation.

I'm not sure whether to include the probable interference of the PCNs that @Enceladus highlighted? I've omitted them for now, but any thoughts on the letter would be much appreciated!

---

Notice to Owner Appeal

I am appealing the Notice to Owner (NTO) issued to me. This appeal applies to all 13 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs - Appendix 1.1) related to this case. As of now, I've received 4 NTOs, with 9 pending. I will provide context before presenting my three-part representation, which I'll explain in detail in separate sections.

Executive Summary

I've held a resident's permit since October 2023. From April 12 to July 12, 2024, I was abroad for work. My permit expired on April 25, and I don't recall receiving a renewal notification. Consequently, my car remained parked and stationary in the same place without a valid permit for 61 days.

During this period, 13 PCNs were issued before the council decided to remove my car on May 31 (PCN ZN12536367 - Appendix 1.2). On June 1, my sister recovered the vehicle on my behalf, paying £265 (£65 PCN fee, £200 removal charge).

I've received 4 NTOs and expect 9 more. The council's potential £1690 demand for late permit renewal is excessive, especially considering my five-year residency and consistent permit history.

My appeal consists of three parts:

1. The council's lack of fairness and failure to remove the vehicle earlier.
2. Absence of permit renewal reminders or attempts to contact me.
3. Lack of representation information at the impound and misinformation about required documents.

Section 1 - Lack of Fairness

Councils have a public law duty to act fairly, as outlined in the 'Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions'. The guidance emphasises:

1. Applying different penalties for different contraventions.
2. Ensuring efficient, effective, and impartial processes for handling challenges and appeals.

I believe the council acted unfairly by issuing 14 PCNs (including immobilisation) for these reasons:

1. My car remained stationary throughout the period. The PCN printout (Appendix 1.1) clearly shows that tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024, often just minutes after 24 hours had passed. For instance, PCNs were issued at 08:20 on 22/05, 08:28 on 24/05, and 08:10 on 25/05. All but one PCN (dated 29/05) were for the same contravention code 12(i), at the same location on Cornwall Road. This pattern demonstrates that all contraventions were essentially the same, making the number and frequency of PCNs excessive and punitive rather than corrective.

2. ___, Head of Highways and Parking, stated in response to my complaint (Appendix 2.1): 'Normally after 3 PCNs the vehicle is flagged for removal... I can see from the PCN issued on 30th May that there were 5 PCNs attached to the vehicle and agree that the vehicle should have been removed sooner.'

This admission, coupled with the PCN record showing 13 tickets issued before removal, highlights the council's failure to follow their own procedures and remove the vehicle promptly, leading to an unjustified number of PCNs for what is arguably a single, ongoing contravention.

Section 2 - Lack of Communication

As a five-year resident with a consistent permit history, I've held three consecutive permits with Haringey Council:

1. May 2022 (1 Year)
2. May 2023 (6 Months)
3. October 2023 (6 Months)

My prompt renewals upon receiving past communications demonstrate my reliability.

Haringey Council states: "You'll get an email 5 weeks before your permit ends asking you to renew your permit." However:

1. I did not receive this reminder email and cannot locate it in my records.
2. No follow-up emails, text messages, or letters were sent.
3. No other attempts to contact me were made.

This lack of communication contrasts with other councils' practices, such as Hackney, which sends multiple reminders. Haringey's single email attempt is insufficient to inform residents of expiring permits, especially given my history of prompt renewals upon notification.

Section 3 - Impound Malpractice

1. Inconsistent Information:

    - My sister was initially told by phone that my passport, driving license, bill, and a handwritten authorisation letter were sufficient for vehicle release.
    - Upon arrival, a different representative deemed these documents insufficient, requiring an additional signature and specific document placement.
    - This inconsistency caused significant inconvenience, forcing my sister to search for printing facilities while managing three children.

2. Violation of Statutory Guidance:

The 'Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions' states:
'On the release of a vehicle from a clamp or the vehicle pound, the authority must immediately inform the vehicle owner or person in charge of the vehicle about their right to make representations and their subsequent right to appeal against representations that are rejected.'

3. Breach of Procedure:

    - My sister was not provided with any documentation explaining how to make a representation.
    - This oversight has effectively removed my right to appeal the PCN that triggered the immobilisation.
    - Despite contacting the council separately about this issue, I currently have no means to appeal this specific PCN.

These procedural failures have significantly impacted my ability to address the triggering PCN and caused undue stress and inconvenience.

Thanks,

I'm adding this at the bottom of Section 1:

"A single, continuous contravention occurred as the vehicle remained stationary at the same location throughout the period these Penalty Charge Notices were issued. No law or regulation entitles an authority to issue PCNs every 24 hours or less for the same offense. For continuous contraventions, enforcement authorities have other powers at their disposal, such as vehicle removal. The Council's failure to remove the vehicle promptly should not result in my liability for multiple penalties. This approach is disproportionate, unfair and contrary to the interests of justice.

This admission, coupled with the PCN record showing 13 tickets issued before removal, highlights the council's failure to follow their own procedures and remove the vehicle promptly, leading to an unjustified number of PCNs for what is arguably a single, ongoing contravention."

Do you think I should save the probably PCN interference you picked up on in the photos for later (if it goes to Tribunal)?

@cp8759 any thoughts or similar cases?