Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi all,

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to look at this. I appreciate any help I can get with this issue.

My elderly and disabled father is going to court on Monday regarding a penalty charge notice for parking in London. I only found out yesterday, as he hasn't been able to keep me updated. I urgently need assistance, as I plan to attend with him to help argue his case.

To keep this initial post concise, I'll summarize our experience:

1. My father received a Notice to Owner on March 5th. This was the first correspondence we received about the parking fine. No ticket was given before this—nothing was affixed to my father's vehicle or handed to him; as the council claims.

2. He informed me on the same day, so I went to help him. We wrote the appeal and tried sending it via their website, which failed due to technical issues on their side. My father called them, and they provided an email address (hounslow.challenges@nsl.co.uk). We re-wrote the appeal and sent it there.

3. On March 22nd, we received the council's rejection via post.

4. We promptly submitted the case to court.

I would greatly appreciate help with the following points:

1. The CEO took 12 minutes to observe the vehicle and process the PCN, which is quite long. Yet, the only picture taken was of the signage. There is no proof that my father's car was present on that road. The council claims they don't need a photo as it's only 'secondary evidence.' In the council's court bundle, the summary section states the CEO observed the vehicle for 5 minutes. However, they include a copy of the original PCN, showing an observation time of 12 minutes. This discrepancy suggests the council's information on the PCN is inconsistent. Can their evidence be trusted if their basic facts are incorrect?

2. My father has been a disabled driver for quite some time and always displays his blue badge. Without picture evidence, can the council legitimately claim the blue badge wasn't displayed?

3. The council claims the fine was 'HTD' (handed to the driver). My father and I have never experienced this. Is this a common practice? Can they legitimize the PCN by claiming it was handed to him? The included PCN in the court bundle looks like something typed up on Microsoft Word, with no time-stamping or solid proof that it’s the same PCN issued on the alleged date of November 7th, 2023.

4. When viewing evidence on the council's website after receiving the NtO, the 'key events' section lists the first and only event as the NtO being issued. Shouldn't the first event be the PCN being issued and 'handed to the driver' as they claim?

5. Lastly, after reviewing the images I’ve attached, any advice or noticed contradictions would be greatly appreciated. Please also let me know if we have no leg to stand on and are wasting our time. Hounslow is a small area, people know people. And we’ve encountered corrupt CEOs in the past willing to act in avengement for their friends over petty neighbourly disputes. It's concerning how easily someone could issue a fine without any photo evidence of a contravention occurring. All you need is a reg number, and the make/model of a car. The road the alleged contravention occurred on is a 5 minute walk away from my dad's house. He'd park at home if he needed to park somewhere 5 minutes walk away. And this is increasingly making us more and more sceptical.

Thank you again for any assistance you can provide.

---

Opening pages in Hounslow's court bundle:





Hounslow Council's summary of the case:




Hounslow Council's recorded notes re. this PCN:



The alleged PCN that was 'handed to driver':




The only contravention image included in their bundle:



The notice to owner:





Our appeal in response to the NtO





Council's rejection of my appeal:





The 'key events' page on Hounslow Council's website when viewing PCN - this was part of the evidence included in my appeal of the NtO.

Read the first para. of their Case Summary:

The PCN was issued because...'..the vehicle was parked ..in a pay by phone bay beyond the expiry of a parking session.'

WTF is this all about?

And OP, pl be realistic. If you were not in the car then you don't know what happened. You found out in May 2024 about matters which occurred in Nov. 2023.

So, while I can understand your desire to help, just accepting everything you're told isn't any different to the council accepting their CEO's notes and account.

Consider examine and evaluate pl, don't just accept everything you're told as being Gospel.

H C Anderson, thank you for taking the time!

I actually totally missed that first paragraph of the case summary. That’s another thing they’ve been inconsistent with then. I will be sure to point that out tomorrow.

And yes, I cannot say I know what happened. And I do understand your remarks about the council and their CEO. But it’s my dad - if it’s his fault, he’ll admit to it and ask if there’s a way out. Otherwise he’d pay.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I would argue the following supports my dad’s claims.

1. No picture of my dads car in any of the evidences, so cannot prove/disprove the displaying of blue badge.
2. ‘First events’ of PCN, shown on councils portal when viewing evidence, claims first event was the NtO being issued in March. Not the handed to driver PCN occurring allegedly in November.
3. General inconsistencies such as how long vehicle was observed for

Let me know what you think. And thank you again.

OK I've found the log and notes. I believe there is a procedural impropriety.

The notes say "A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY To TAKE photos"

The above mentioned PCN is a Regulation 9 PCN which are served on-site by attaching to the windscreen or handing to the driver. But it wasn't served as the driver drove the car away before it could be served. That's what the notes say.

So the correct procedure would have been to serve a Regulation 10 PCN on the Registered Keeper within 28 days. They did not do so, if they had done so then it should be in the log. Instead they waited nearly 4 months and served a Notice to Owner. This is not the correct procedure.

Please see here. Perhaps somebody can confirm that Regulation 10 has not been superseded?

OK I've found the log and notes. I believe there is a procedural impropriety.

The notes say "A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY To TAKE photos"

The above mentioned PCN is a Regulation 9 PCN which are served on-site by attaching to the windscreen or handing to the driver. But it wasn't served as the driver drove the car away before it could be served. That's what the notes say.

So the correct procedure would have been to serve a Regulation 10 PCN on the Registered Keeper within 28 days. They did not do so, if they had done so then it should be in the log. Instead they waited nearly 4 months and served a Notice to Owner. This is not the correct procedure.

Please see here. Perhaps somebody can confirm that Regulation 10 has not been superseded?

Thanks for looking into this sir - yes the notes were in my initial post.

RE: Case progression history etc. the closest thing I could find in the bundle was the following

Quote from: Incandescent on May 19, 2024, 10:16:39 pm

The 2007 regs have been superceded by those of 2022.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/contents

Look at Regulation 10(2)(c)

@Incandescent, I'm grateful for that information.

Seems to me that the situation is not any different. There has been a "Procedural Impropriety" on the part of the Council.

The Civil Enforcement Officer's notes in the evidence pack state;
"A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY To TAKE photos".
Therefore the Council's own evidence shows that no Penalty Charge Notice was actually served on the appellant or his vehicle.

As such the Council may have had justification to serve a postal Penalty charge Notice under regulation 10 of the The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, paragraph 10(2)(c).

The case progression log confirms that the Council never issued any such Regulation 10 Penalty Charge Notice. And certainly not within the 28 days stipulated by regulation 10(6) of the regulations.

10(2) An enforcement authority may give notification of the penalty charge by serving a penalty charge notice by post where—
(a).....
(b).....
(c)a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice to be given in accordance with regulation 9, but the vehicle concerned was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or had given it in accordance with regulation 9.
(3).....
(4).....
(5).....
(6) Subject to paragraph (, an enforcement authority may not give a penalty charge notice under this regulation after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the contravention date (“the 28-day period”).

No such PCN has been lawfully served and is therefore unenforceable and null and void.

@notagain
See what others might have to add.
However I suggest that the above is your strongest argument.

If you do not understand the point and wish to explore it further then I suggest you request an adjournment at tomorrow's (Monday's) hearing.

Enceladus, massive thank you for this. I fully understand the point. I'm in the process of writing up our defence and this will be the first argument I rely upon. Hearing is at 12PM tomorrow.

I'm reading some of the references you and others have posted here, so may have a few more questions in due course.

Thanks again!

Quote from: Enceladus on May 19, 2024, 11:14:59 pm

... The Civil Enforcement Officer's notes in the evidence pack state;
"A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY TO TAKE photos".
Therefore the Council's own evidence shows that no Penalty Charge Notice was actually served on the appellant or his vehicle...

... If you do not understand the point and wish to explore it further then I suggest you request an adjournment at tomorrow's (Monday's) hearing.

Just playing Devil's Advocate but do the CEO's notes say the the driver drove off before the PCN was served?

The note says the driver returned after the PCN had been issued* and drove off before the CEO could photo it.  What does "HTD" mean at the beginning of the note?

Seems odd to me that the council would be arguing that the PCN had been handed to the driver if they thought their own CEO's notes contradicted that argument.  (OK - I know, it's not odd - they're just incompetent    )


*I know it says issued and not served but I'm not certain that that note says unambiguously that the driver drove off before it was served.  It's open to interpretation...

Hmm I see what you're saying ManxTom, and thanks for looking into this.

HTD means Handed to Driver.

If Driver is handed the PCN before driving off. Technically, has the PCN been served if it's still 'incomplete' and CEO notes they were still taking photos?

And..how would the PCN be classified as being served, if the CEO is basically saying the driver drove off? Doesn't driving off then mean the PCN was not served?

I do think it's still probably one of the stronger arguments I have so far. But I'm a little confused now.

So the point of contention is that the CEO says the PCN was handed to the driver, and your father says no PCN was handed to him. This is one of those situations where the adjudicator must decide which person is most credible in his evidence. I would therefore say it is essential your father attend the adjudication. This can, of course, be by phone.

There is, of course, the other element, namely excessive delay in issuing the Notice to Owner.