Free Traffic Legal Advice

@John U.K. - thanks! I'll go with attached PDF as you said, especially given there may be a character limit. Given your suggested edits are on the minor end, would you be okay if I just make them without adding here. I'd like my best to bring focus towards the 14th PCN which is on the more urgent end.

@Enceladus - If you have any thoughts on my 14th PCN draft, I would greatly appreciate it!

To make things easier, I've included it below here:

---

Representation against PCN number ZN12536367

I am writing to make a representation against PCN ZN12536367 issued to me on the 31/05/2024 at 08:08AM.

From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, I was out of the country for work. As a Haringey resident for over five years, I've consistently held parking permits (October 2023 - 6 Months, May 2023 - 6 Months, and May 2022 - 1 Year) and have always renewed them promptly. Unfortunately, during my absence, my permit expired on April 25th, and I don't recall receiving the renewal reminder that the council usually sends.

Due to these circumstances, my car remained stationary in the same location for 61 days without a valid permit. In this period, from May 7, 2024, to May 30, 2024, a total of 13 Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued. Twelve of these PCNs cited contravention code 12(i), while one cited code 16. Both codes essentially refer to the absence of a valid permit, indicating a continuous contravention throughout this time.

As I was abroad during this entire time and received no follow-up emails, text messages, or letters, I was completely unaware of these penalties.

The penalties imposed in this case have been excessive, as the vehicle should have been removed much sooner. The principle of 'continuous contravention' is fundamental, stating that one should not be punished multiple times for the same offence. This principle has been upheld by numerous adjudicators, and I believe the Council may already be familiar with it.

Imposing 13 consecutive penalty charge notices is not only disproportionate but also contrary to this principle. Therefore, the application of these multiple penalties for what is essentially a single, continuous contravention is inappropriate and should be reconsidered.

The car was eventually removed by the council on May 31st, following the issuance of one more Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). It is this final PCN that I am appealing in this representation based on the principle of continuous contravention. This principle suggests that this PCN should not have been issued at all. Instead, alternative methods for removing the car should have been considered and implemented much earlier by the council.

I would also like to highlight procedural improprieties at the impound, which resulted in the submission of this delayed representation. These improprieties prevented me from becoming aware of my right to appeal and obtaining information on how to do so.

On June 1st, my sister and a family friend recovered the vehicle on my behalf, paying the removal PCN and release fee. The impound staff provided only two documents: the PCN receipt (Appendix 1.1) and a vehicle removal receipt (Appendix 1.2). No information about my rights to appeal or make representations was given, nor was any documentation explaining how to make representations provided. As a result, I remained unaware of these rights until I sought legal advice.

I am willing to provide any additional information that might assist the council in reviewing this aspect of my case. I hope we can reach a fair resolution that takes into account these unique circumstances.

@John U.K. - I do apologise! The thread is becoming quite long and tracking edits is becoming difficult. I did carefully review your two posts and thought I included them I have dedicated Google Doc for this and I would rather prefer linking to that and comments being made there. But not sure if that violates this forum policy @cp8759?

@inst1nct103 not at all, everything that makes things easier is encouraged.

The representation against the removal PCN needs rewording: the right to make representations does not belong to the owner or the registered keeper, that right is vested in the person who was required to pay an amount on recovery of the vehicle under section 101A(1) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as per regulation 11(1)(a) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.

Therefore the representation needs to be made by your relative who recovered the car from the pound, so you need to reword it accordingly and all references to you need to be replaced with referenced to the registered keeper.

So the opening paragraph becomes "From April 12th to July 12th, 2024, the registered keeper was out of the country for work. As a Haringey resident for over five years, the registered keeper consistently held parking permits..."

You want to add details of how the person who recovered the vehicle became aware of the vehicle's removal, any attempts that person made to contact you and so on (that will be written in the first person).

Once you've posted a new draft I will add some wording about the procedural impropriety.

A letter of authority from you should also be provided: it's not required but there is a fair change the council has not read regulation 11(1)(a) and they might issue the notice of rejection to you rather than to the person who made the representation, that would be an additional procedural impropriety.

I think you need to make a standalone letter for PCN 14, rather than mixing it in with everything else. You want to keep it short and simple because you want them to issue a notice of rejection.

OP, IMO you have 3 distinct PCN types, it's not one size fits all.

The first = did not receive reminder, unblemished record, pl exercise discretion;

2-13 = continuous contravention, where is the council's authority to issue multiple PCNs when other enforcement methods were available i.e. removing and should have been considered. Why weren't they? Contravention did not occur and Penalty exceeded etc;

14= penalty exceeded because a PCN should not have been issued, other methods should have been considered and implemented earlier; Procedural Impropriety as in you did not provide 'reps' information as required which also = reason for lateness.

@H C Andersen I have a question. So I've got the draft for PCN 2-13 ready and here is an excerpt of it. I'm not sure if I should reference the PCN 1 at all? My thinking is that this is the 'original' PCN, and therefore a reference to it further emphasises that PCN 2-13 are essentially continuous contravention of those?

This is what I have so far:

---

The Vehicle Should Have Been Removed Sooner (Continuous Contravention)

My car remained in the same place throughout the period these PCNs were issued. Tickets were issued almost daily from 07/05/2024 to 30/05/2024.

All PCNs except one were at the same location on Cornwall Road, which are all again against essentially the same continuous contravention. While I understand the importance of parking enforcement, I believe this pattern of issuance and the excessive number of tickets are unfair and exorbitant.

Upon returning to the country, I emailed Ann Cunningham, Head of Highways and Parking, about this situation. She responded (Appendix 1.1):

"...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."

Given that my car was stationary in the same place during this entire period, I would have hoped the council would have carefully considered whether this was the most appropriate approach, especially when other enforcement methods were available.

I think you're right, according to the OP the only time the car moved was on its way to the pound!

OP, I don't know why you think not telling the council about the whole issue is so important. Their systems would flag up the number of PCNs issued.

IMO, what is essentially a very straightforward situation with 3 types of defence has become very difficult for you to put in writing.

All PCNs - the intro.
PCN 1 - as regards the PCN issued on ***, the first of the 14, my representations are on the grounds that ....the no email argument.

In your separate reps for 2-13 ...as regards the PCN issued on **, the second of the 14, my representations are on the grounds *****that the contravention did not occur ...continuous contravention..with explanation.

PCN 14, my sister collected my car from your pound and despite not being advised of her rights to make reps when the car was delivered to her none the less makes the following reps which she has authorised me to submit on her behalf[see attached authorisation]..procedural impropriety and contravention did not occur. The procedural impropriety naturally follows from her not being provided in writing with details of her right to make representations. What also follows is that these reps are being made beyond the 28 days allowed but, given that this arises solely because she was not advised of her rights, I would hope that the authority would not simply disregard but would consider and, if confident of their position, defend robustly.
That the contravention did not occur follows from the reps I have made to 12 PCNs issued by the council i.e. the contravention was continuous.

But you can't keep going round and round, you have to submit something.

@cp8759 I've separated it out to here

I took on board H C Andersen's comments, but decided to make the rep in first person as family friend (who went along with my sister), rather than me. The letter of authorisation (giving permission) is on the last page.

My goal is to print this out and send it tomorrow.

@cp8759 - family friend signed the release doc but my sister actually paid for the transaction with her card (£265).

Are you saying rep needs to come from her (even though the family friend signed for the release and the doc has his name/address)?

Family friend submitted the SAR yesterday.

@cp8759 - yeah I thought so too! I just asked my sister why (as I found it a bit strange), but she can't recall why he was asked to sign the release doc despite her paying ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But hopefully no issues and will wait back to hear about the SAR. I'll send this off tomorrow and then will start submitting the other reps one by one.

Thanks for the help! Will update on any news..