@cristinika Thanks. Date of PCN: 6th January. Deemed served 8th January. Therefore, price should increase on 22nd January.
Have you kept the envelope as proof of service?https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/motorbike-52m-pcn-lambeth/msg41795/#msg41795ETA 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 2240362722
Appellant Ian Prideaux
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM KY15HXG
PCN Details
PCN LJ2877492A
Contravention date 15 Jun 2024
Contravention time 18:27:00
Contravention location Larkhall Rise
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Fail comply prohibition on certain types vehicle
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
The Appellant appeared in person and was represented by Mr Morgan. Having heard the Appeal I reserved my decision to give further consideration to the rather detailed procedural and technical issues raised. I directed the Appellant to produce a chronological summary which has proved to be of assistance.
The Appellant has produced in evidence a copy of The Lambeth (Moving Traffic Restrictions) Order 2024 coming into force on the27th April 2024 which provides that “ all previous Orders are hereby revoked in their entirety.” This must include the 2023 Order relied on by the Council. However it seems to me highly probable that the 2024 Order would re-enact the restriction based on the “map-based schedule” and that if the Appellant is to challenge order relied on by the Council on this basis the onus is on him to produce a complete, not a partial, copy of it.
The main challenge lies on procedural grounds, In bare summary the Appellant submits that the Council’s website was giving incorrect and/or confusing information regarding payment dates, and that it was still showing a demand for payment after an appeal had been lodged. It seems to me that even if the Statutory notices are in themselves technically correct what is shown on the Council’s website should be in accordance with those notices; and that if it is not, it inevitably has the effect of undermining what is sted in the Notices. In the present case I see no reason to doubt the Appellant’s evidence, supported by screenshots, as to whet was shown on the website at various times These include a statement that “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Tue,16 Jul 2024. Please pay £65.00 now”. The correct date (the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the PCN) is in fact the 17th July. There is a subsequent statement that “The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Mon,5 Aug 2024. Please pay £65.00 now. The Rejection Notice is dated the 16th July and states correctly that the Appellant has 28 days from that date before a Charge certificate may be issued. The motorist is entitled to have clear and correct information from a Council as to what is required to be paid and when; and in my judgement these errors are serious enough for the Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral challenge. In addition, I agree with the decision of my learned colleague Mr Greenslade in the case cited by the Appellant, 2240178326 Maurice Fisher v London Borough of Hackney, in which he sted that “it is not open to the Enforcement Authority to seek any sum beyond the prescribed amount or any amount at all whilst an appellant is appealing to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.”
The Appeal is therefore allowed.
