Free Traffic Legal Advice

The whole PCN please.

https://imagizer.imageshack.com/v2/1024x768q70/922/whYPzE.jpg

@cp.  May be worth trying the conflation argument and the TWOC ground limiting to theft just to test their response?  Plus the video point.

For the benefit of the OP:

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference   2110212199
Appellant   Chidi Egenti
Authority   London Borough of Islington
VRM   EA02WFR
PCN Details
PCN   IS2284987A
Contravention date   12 Feb 2011
Contravention time   12:06:00
Contravention location   Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5
Penalty amount   GBP 120.00
Contravention   Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date   
Decision Date   07 Jul 2011
Adjudicator   Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   Mr Egenti appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.



One of the issues that Mr Egenti raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr Egenti specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.



In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading.



The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal.

Re the Egenti case, I would prefer to make a representation without mentioning the case, rather try to recreate what Mr Egenti said.  And I would throw in the conflation argument to test their response.

Re the TWOC ground I suggest this:

I do not believe that the PCN is enforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly 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.

A more appropriate wording would be to include "for example" so that the absence of such a phrase clearly implies theft only as a taken without consent ground.

Re conflation argument:

The PCN is also a nullity because of the conflation of the two periods of payment and making representations.  According to the relevant legislation, there are two distinct periods in which the recipient may either pay the penalty charge or make representations. The following statement creates prejudice and confusion:   "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased charge of £195 may be payable." I interpret the use of "or" as a conjunctive and so I do believe it to be a simple matter of syntax in that the conditional phrase "if you fail to pay the penalty charge notice or make representations...." clearly refers to and governs grammatically both periods and I contend that any other interpretation would fall under Wednesbury unreasonableness.  I  refer to the Barnet case at the High Court, which set a legal precedent, of course, in terms of the statutory obligations placed upon an Authority in its production of penalty charge notices, what they must contain in order to justify their legal enforcement and, lastly, that prejudice does not need to be proven i.e. R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin): "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise." The conflation of the two periods creates ambiguity, confusion and could even be interpreted that a charge certificate may be served even if representations have been made. In light of the above I would be most grateful if the Representation is given due consideration and the PCN cancelled on this occasion.

@Hippocrates if you spell it out for them, it reduces the chances of a failure to consider?

@Hippocrates I'll contact you elsewhere, but personally I'd stick to what I drafted.

Thank you. Will make representation based on the above and let you know how it goes.