Free Traffic Legal Advice

Mandatory PCN info is missing IMO.


Your PCN was issued under regulation 9 of the (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022. These provide that:

9(7) A penalty charge notice given under this regulation must include the information set out in—

(a)Schedule 2, and

(b)regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.


Regulation (3)(1) of the Appeals Regulations provides:

3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—

(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;

(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;

(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.

Having established what information must be included in the PCN, it only remains to review what is included. The relevant section is to be found on the reverse under the heading 'If the Penalty Charge is not paid or successfully challenged'.

I acknowledge that sub paras. 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b) are given, however the wording and meaning of 3(1)(c) are not given. The PCN fails to state that on receipt of a NTO, and irrespective of whether the owner was party to a prior challenge, 'representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.'

The significance of this regulation must be apparent to the authority as indeed must its omission being a procedural impropriety. Simply put, if a prior challenge has been submitted and a response has not been received - whether not sent(which is not required under the regulations) or sent but not received, then the owner must not wait for this, they must act upon the NTO as required because otherwise they risk losing their statutory rights and access to the adjudicator which is predicated upon receiving a Notice of Rejection of Representations which itself is contingent upon representations against the NTO having been made as required.

I would ask that the authority do not simply respond to the above - which prima facie is a clear omission and PI - with superficial comments to the effect that 'our legal department have checked it' or 'we are satisfied that it is compliant', but instead respond in similar form and detail to that in which these representations have been submitted.

And there's the other grounds that the contravention did not occur(because display is optional etc.)

Others may suggest shortening the procedural impropriety grounds - because normally their significance is lost on officers who consider challenges- and that's OK providing the essence remains. My long version would serve for formal reps against a NTO and the basis of a subsequent appeal.

Wait for others.

Mandatory PCN info is missing IMO...

If you can let me know re my response above that would be amazing thank you!

@brutal_deluxe Either go with H C Andersen's suggestion, or answer this and I'll see if we can expand on it slightly:

@brutal_deluxe where did you eventually move the car to, and did you ever actually pay to park?

@brutal_deluxe here's a draft:



Send this online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.

Hi Guys, so, appeal rejected it seems because...

1/ No evidence of app activity
2/ Car was left before parking session could be purchased
3/ Other payment options available
4/ Procedural impropriety only applicable on Notice to Owner

Any advice appreciated!


https://photos.app.goo.gl/XujJTpZH9KboYnhd9

IMO, au contraire, there's nothing usual about their second procedural impropriety.

OP, you've got them by the short and curlies, stick with procedural timescales and IMO you cannot lose.

From the Appeals Regs:

Interpretation of Parts 1 to 5

2.—(1) In this Part and Parts 2 to 5

"procedural impropriety” has the meaning given in paragraph (2);

2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by—

(a)the TMA 2004,

(b)the 2022 General Regulations, or

(c)these Regulations,

in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.


We already know that what's missing from the PCN is a requirement imposed under Reg. 3(1) of these Regs and that Reg. 3 is in Part 2 and therefore that as a 'procedural impropriety' applies to Part 2 then they're *****ing useless, but sadly judges in their own cause at the moment.

@brutal_deluxe definitely wait for the notice to owner, as long as you challenge it within 14 days of the date of issue they will reoffer the discount anyway.

1/ So it says I need to wait for the penalty to revert to the full amount before challenging again as registered keeper?
2/ It also says that 'it is the responsibility of the owner to make sure a parking session is in place before leaving the car', however I do not see any of this in the terms/conditions.
3/ I don't see how this is a winner at all unless they're lying to me about the procedural impropriety bit. Can you explain in lay terms how I could win this?

Thanks again
BD

Quote from: cp8759 on November 27, 2024, 07:37:14 pm

@brutal_deluxe definitely wait for the notice to owner, as long as you challenge it within 14 days of the date of issue they will reoffer the discount anyway.

1/ So it says I need to wait for the penalty to revert to the full amount before challenging again as registered keeper?

@brutal_deluxe yes, but in our experience as long as the NTO is challenged within 14 days of issue, the council will reoffer the discount again to give you an incentive not to appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (which they don't want because it's a lot of work for them, and then the outcome isn't up to them any more).