Author Topic: Triple PCN for the same alleged 52M offence by Havering Council  (Read 260 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Enceladus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 508
  • Karma: +9/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Triple PCN for the same alleged 52M offence by Havering Council
« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2024, 03:37:04 pm »
The deadline for payment on an LLA&TFL 2003 PCN is 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. So the deadine is today the 4th Dec. My apologies, where I said Tues above I meant today Wednesday.  Since the deadline for the discount expired on the 20th Nov then you might as well pursue this all the way. Stick to the deadlines and the charge cannot increase further.

However the deadline to submit representations (challenge) is 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN. In theory Sunday the 8th Dec. But I wouldn't push it that far. Try to get your challenge delivered by close of business on Friday 6th Dec.

One representation for each PCN and on each representation cross reference the other two.

FocusDriver

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Triple PCN for the same alleged 52M offence by Havering Council
« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2024, 03:59:37 pm »
Dear Sirs
1. There appear on the PCN two lists of grounds, which clearly do not agree
with each other and, indeed, another wrong ground concerning the TWOC: The
vehicle had been permitted to rest in the place in question by a person who was
in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner. – Clearly, this and the
aforementioned ground belong to parking legislation.
2. This issue is further compounded and exacerbated by the council’s
website (attached as a screenshot) which contains further grounds pertaining to
parking legislation and some irrelevant grounds. Its contents are selfexplanatory;
 however, I would wish to add that the council has had similar
issues with its Code 34 j PCNs as the costs decision in Gar Poon v London
Borough of Havering 223043933 proves. Similarly, in that case, they included
procedural impropriety as a ground and also in Tal Ofer v London Borough of
Havering Case No 2230533614. In the latter case, they did not contest the costs
application.
3. With particular regard to the grounds on the website, I rely upon the
following decisions allowed by the following adjudicators, some of which agree
with other’s decisions: 2230228494; 2180498755; 2230274232; 2230398949;
2230446542; 2230398949; 2230446542; 2230494501; 2230541860;
2230539585; 2230487415; 2230464748; 2230545861; 2230483130;
2230496595; 2230534763; 2240258389; 2240138955. The Adjudicators who
allowed these appeals are in alphabetical order: Miss Alderson, Ms Brennan, Mr
Greenslade, Mr Harman, Mr Styles, Mr Teper and Mr Walsh. For example, I
rely upon Mr Harman’s decision in Case no 2230483130. Mr Murray-Smith, for
the appellant company, attended the hearing today via telephone. The council
did not attend the hearing either in person or via telephone nor did it seek an
adjournment. Mr Murray-Smith made submissions in accordance with those set
out in his skeleton argument uploaded to the case on 17/12/23. I reserved my
decision. I accept Mr Murray-Smith's argument that the grounds upon which
representations can be made were correctly stated on the PCN but not on the
council's website. My noting his submissions on the point supported by the
decisions upon which he relies (one of which is mine) I am not accordingly
satisfied that the council's online system adequately conveys to motorists the
grounds upon which they can make representations the council thus I find being
in breach of its duty to act fairly. I am satisfied for that reason that enforcement
may not be pursued. That being so I need make no finding as to any other issue
raised by either party to the proceedings. Of course, in this instance the grounds
are not correctly stated on the PCN as it includes two which are wrong. It
follows, therefore, that this scenario presents an appellant with a somewhat
aleatoric predicament to put it mildly, which is hardly legally valid.

Thanks so much for your swift and insightful response, @Hippocrates!

Just to clarify for the uninitiated (myself): I am to use the response you’ve provided above when making representations via the webcodes for each of the 3 PCNs online. The focus should be entirely on the procedural error regarding the inconsistent grounds between the PCNs and the council’s website, supplemented with the precedents you’ve highlighted to strengthen this argument, rather than the issue of the triplicate PCNs issued for the same continuous alleged offence. I should also include the screenshot with the representation reasons I included in my previous post as supplementary evidence to highlight these inconsistencies.

I trust this approach aligns with your advice? Please let me know if I've understood this correctly and I will go ahead.

Thanks again for your invaluable guidance — your advice is hugely appreciated!
« Last Edit: December 04, 2024, 04:52:48 pm by FocusDriver »

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2348
  • Karma: +49/-31
    • View Profile
Re: Triple PCN for the same alleged 52M offence by Havering Council
« Reply #17 on: December 04, 2024, 05:03:58 pm »
You have 3 PCNs which are for the same contravention and yet I cannot find any reference to this in your draft.

IMO, you should start with the glaringly obvious.

PCN *****
I refer to the above which you will see is exactly the same in all particulars and two other PCNs which I received at the same time i.e. PCNs **** and *****. When you consider these and their associated videos you will suffer from a feeling a deja vu and I am sorry to add to this by making representations against each in exactly the same form.

Clearly the council have made a blunder in demanding 3 penalties for the same alleged contravention. Therefore at least 2 must be cancelled, the authority's next problem is which two because none of them shows any signs related to the contravention and therefore which of the three happened first?

Given the additional procedural errors in each PCN I submit that your best course of action is to cancel all three, draw a veil over this sorry episode and investigate what went wrong.

..and then whatever you want about the grounds..


PCN ****
I refer to the above which you will see is exactly the same in all particulars and two other PCNs which I received at the same time i.e. PCNs **** and *****. When you consider these and their associated videos you will suffer from a feeling a deja vu and I am sorry to add to this by making representations against each in exactly the same form.

Clearly the council have made a blunder in issuing demanding 3 penalties for the same alleged contravention. Therefore at least 2 must be cancelled, the authority's next problem is which two because none of them shows any signs related to the contravention and therefore which of the three happened first?

Given the additional procedural errors in each PCN I submit that your best course of action is to cancel all three, draw a veil over this sorry episode and investigate what went wrong.

PCN *****
I refer to the above which you will see is exactly the same in all particulars and two other PCNs which I received at the same time i.e. PCNs **** and *****. When you consider these and their associated videos you will suffer from a feeling a deja vu and I am sorry to add to this by making representations against each in exactly the same form.

Clearly the council have made a blunder in issuing demanding 3 penalties for the same alleged contravention. Therefore at least 2 must be cancelled, the authority's next problem is which two because none of them shows any signs related to the contravention and therefore which of the three happened first?

Given the additional procedural errors in each PCN I submit that your best course of action is to cancel all three, draw a veil over this sorry episode and investigate what went wrong.
« Last Edit: December 04, 2024, 05:10:37 pm by H C Andersen »

FocusDriver

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Triple PCN for the same alleged 52M offence by Havering Council
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2024, 06:09:22 pm »
Hi all,

Thanks for your input once again, it's hugely appreciated.

I replied to all PCNs just now as follows (attaching the 12 page scan of them plus the screenshot in my previous post):

Representation against PCN x:

"To whom it may concern,

    1. There appear on the PCN two lists of grounds, which clearly do not agree with each other and, indeed, another incorrect ground concerning the TWOC: "The vehicle had been permitted to rest in the place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner." Clearly, this and the aforementioned ground belong to parking legislation and are irrelevant to the alleged contravention.

    2. This issue is further compounded by the council’s website (attached as a screenshot), which contains additional grounds pertaining to parking legislation and other irrelevant grounds. This discrepancy between the PCNs and the council’s website is misleading and prejudicial. I would add that the council has had similar issues with its Code 34J PCNs, as evidenced in decisions such as Gar Poon v London Borough of Havering (223043932) and Tal Ofer v London Borough of Havering (2230533614). In the latter case, the council did not contest the costs application.

    3. Specifically, I rely upon the following decisions, allowed by the following adjudicators, which highlight the importance of clarity and consistency in the grounds for representation:
        - 2230228494, 2180498755, 2230274232, 2230398949, 2230446542, 2230494501, 2230541860, 2230539585, 2230487415, 2230464748, 2230545861, 2230483130, 2230496595, 2230534763, 2240258389, and 2240138955.
        - The adjudicators in these decisions are Miss Alderson, Ms Brennan, Mr Greenslade, Mr Harman, Mr Styles, Mr Teper, and Mr Walsh.

The case of Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2230483130) is particularly relevant. The adjudicator in that case ruled that discrepancies between the grounds for representation listed on the PCN and those on the council’s website rendered the enforcement unfair and invalid. This precedent underscores the council’s duty to ensure clarity and consistency in communicating grounds for representation, a duty that has clearly not been met in this instance.

    4. In addition to the procedural inconsistencies noted above, I have received three PCNs (x, y, z) for what is evidently the same alleged contravention at the same location. While the PCN numbers and evidence differ slightly in framing and duration, all three pertain to a single continuous event. This triplication of penalties:
        - Unfairly inflates the penalty from £130 to £390 for one alleged contravention.
        - Violates the principles of fairness and proportionality inherent in the enforcement process, as the penalty is grossly disproportionate to the alleged contravention.
        - Demonstrates a failure in the council's enforcement processes.

The principles of fairness and proportionality are essential to ensure that enforcement actions remain just and reasonable. Issuing three PCNs for one alleged continuous contravention constitutes an excessive response and undermines the legitimacy of the enforcement process.

For the reasons stated above—procedural inconsistencies, errors in the grounds provided for representation, and the unfair issuance of three PCNs for the same continuous alleged offence—I respectfully request that all three PCNs be canceled in full."


I will keep you all posted on what happens next.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2648
  • Karma: +29/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: Triple PCN for the same alleged 52M offence by Havering Council
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2024, 07:49:44 pm »
Just caught up with this. Fine.
How do we get more people to fight their PCNs?

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/how-do-we-get-more-people-to-fight-their-pcns/msg41917/#msg41917

If you do not even make a challenge, you will surely join "The Mugged Club".

URGENT!

PLEASE SIGN MY PETITION TO EQUATE MOVING TRAFFIC LAW WITH BUS LANE LAW SO LONDON COUNCILS MUST ATTEND HEARINGS WHEN REQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT. 

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/701491

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/petition-to-align-the-llaa-2003-to-the-llaa-1996-(right-to-x-council-witnesses)/msg56899/#msg56899