Author Topic: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required. (Read 2355 times)

ChocolateGinger · « **Reply #30 on:** October 27, 2024, 12:35:02 am »

Quote from: Incandescent on October 26, 2024, 01:00:48 am

As far as I know, they must re-serve the Notice to Owner, the document you have not received.

Thank you.
is there a way to submit my representation whether or not I get the Notice to Owner?

ChocolateGinger · « **Reply #31 on:** November 20, 2024, 02:28:50 am »

I'm about to submit my representation to the Notice to owner.

I intend to tick the first option ie "The alleged contravention did not occur."
The 6th option "There has been a procedural impropriety on behalf of the authority" comes a close second.

I'll be grateful for your comments to my representation below.

I appeal this PCN on the grounds below.
I didn’t see the sign stating it was for permit holders only.
I drove down Wandsworth Place looking for parking. At the corner/the junction there was a big high white van coming out of Bronti Close and must have obscured the sign. The traders there use high vans so the Council would’ve been aware of this. The sign was small, mid height and only on one side ie the on-coming side blocked by the van.
So I did not see the sign as I turned right. I turned into the street and there was a parking spot on my side of the road, so I parked so the shop assistant could load the 20kg bag of rice and 15l of oil.
I challenge liability for this PCN on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The PCN alleges an off-street contravention, Con 85 Off Street Car Park Contraventions. There is as a result, a requirement for the council to communicate the terms and conditions of parking created by the off-street parking places order to users of the car park.
As the location is off-street, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 are irrelevant and are of no application. Ordinarily in an off-street car park there would be a tariff board outlining that the car park is subject to statutory parkings controls, listing the terms and conditions of parking, and stating that failure to comply with the requirements imposed by the parking places order might result in a penalty charge notice being served.
At this location there is no signage at all informing users that they are in an off-street car park, so there is nothing to advise motorists that this is an off-street car park subject to statutory controls, nor is there anything to inform users that the bay markings and signs are anything more than merely advisory.
I would suggest it is wholly improper for an authority to fail to convey the requirements of a parking places order or even tell motorists that the land in question is a designated off-street car park, and then say "Surprise! you have a statutory PCN!" when the motorist had no way of knowing there are any enforceable restrictions at all.
I had been given no information about the fact that this was an off-street car park, or that a parking places order imposed any restrictions, let alone what those restrictions might be.
In the circumstances the alleged contravention cannot have occurred, and the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

H C Andersen · « **Reply #32 on:** November 20, 2024, 09:42:27 am »

OP, let's help you focus.

As cp wrote some posts ago, the Permit Holders sign has NO legal effect off-street which is where this contravention is alleged to have occured by virtue of the grounds.

Pl don't fret about your grounds of representation, frankly they're not essential although desirable to help the wee unfortunates who work for the council understand what they're supposed to be looking for.

Remember, the council erected this sign pursuant to their duty* to mark restrictions with traffic signs, so is an officer of the council going to accept that they're wrong? They've made a real pig's ear of their order, but this is their concern, not yours.

PCN *******;
I refer the authority to ss 2 (Interpretation) and 17.1(Traffic Signs) of the relevant order - *******.

As you will see, s2 defines a 'traffic sign' as a sign 'prescribed or authorised under s64 Road Traffic Regulation Act' which states the following:

'traffic sign' means '..any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads...warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—

The emphasis is mine(such emphasis isn't necessary in the Act itself because its scope i.e. Road Traffic Regulation is adequate and self-explanatory).

Why the council have chosen to use 'traffic signs' on their own, which have no legal effect off-street, in an order restricting off-street parking only they would know. But the legal position is that they have no effect in conveying off-street restrictions which, as you will see from the PCN, is the alleged contravention. The PCN must be cancelled.

Whether you wish to put this under 'contravention did not occur' or 'penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case' I leave to the authority. Indeed whether having cancelled my PCN officers wish to raise with their traffic/housing estate colleagues that the order is not enforceable as worded and with the descriptions of prohibitions currently used, I also leave to you.

As I have set out the detailed legal position above I should expect a response in similar fashion, should the authority believe that the PCN is enforceable and can support such a belief with legal references. Otherwise a simple 'we have cancelled your PCN' would suffice.

OP, for your info only. Pl delete the '*' in my draft.
*- Not under the Local Authorities' Traffic Order Regs(which apply to roads) but by virtue of the duty the council have placed on themselves under s17.1 of their order. (An Order has the force of law and the council is as bound by its provisions as much as anyone else).

ChocolateGinger · « **Reply #33 on:** November 20, 2024, 04:01:27 pm »

Thank you HC A.
I shall use your draft in the main body of my representation.

ChocolateGinger · « **Reply #34 on:** December 11, 2024, 07:01:08 pm »

Please see attached the Council's reply.
They've rejected my appeal.
Their only response to the substantive point is that Bronti Close falls under Nelson Estate but nothing in response to the fact that the Estates Map shows it as on street parking.

I'm about to draft my appeal to the London Tribunals Environment and Traffic Adjudicators.
Should I simply use my previous appeal or I need to set it out differently or add other points?

Thank you for your time and considerations.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

ChocolateGinger · « **Reply #35 on:** January 10, 2025, 08:34:16 pm »

Hello everyone,
My hearing will be in about 2 weeks. Please see attached.

I will have to email them to conduct it over the phone as I have a long awaited consultant appointment ending about the time the hearing will start so I won't be able to arrive in time.
Is this advisable or I should pursue some other options?
Also, do I need to submit anything for this hearing or what I've sent in already is sufficient?
Please help, how do I win this?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

John U.K. · « **Reply #36 on:** January 10, 2025, 09:55:49 pm »

Quote

I will have to email them to conduct it over the phone as I have a long awaited consultant appointment ending about the time the hearing will start so I won't be able to arrive in time.

And if the consultant is running late?

Telephone LT, explain and ask for new date to suit you: LT are normallly helpful.

H C Andersen · « **Reply #37 on:** January 11, 2025, 11:00:48 am »

+1, you've come this far so why leave being able to attend your appeal in the lap of the health Gods?

What have you submitted so far to the Tribunal?

By way of additional info, here's an extract from the Code of Practice to which they claim to adhere while considering PCNs issued for off-street contraventions:

The Code of Practice is split into two separate parts: Part 1 is concerned with the on-street enforcement activities and sets out the objectives and requirements of Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs), the requirements of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and Clamping and Removal procedures. Part 2 sets out the procedures that should be followed when processing PCNs through the various stages in the back office.

As I warned you, they're in denial about their off-street responsibilities and powers.

What does contravention of an on-street restriction imply by virtue of the driver holding a licence? That a contravention carries a prescribed penalty.

What does contravention of an off-street restriction imply when conveyed only by on-street signs? IMO, nothing.

ChocolateGinger · « **Reply #38 on:** January 15, 2025, 05:01:35 am »

The letter says if I can't attend they'll go ahead in my absence. I'll ring them as suggested. Thank you.

I've not sent anything else apart from what I sent to them before this letter.
The letter doesn't state that I should or could send anything further. It does say the authority will provide their response before the hearing.

mrmustard · « **Reply #39 on:** February 19, 2025, 07:43:14 pm »

I have been emailed asking what my charge is to deal with the tribunal, the answer to which is nothing at all except a donation to the North London Hospice if we prevail.

Hippocrates · « **Reply #40 on:** February 19, 2025, 08:53:44 pm »

@ChocolateGinger Please screenshot the current website page re payment and report back. You can ask for the hearing to be rescheduled to suit you. I suggest you ask mrmustard or me to represent you via video call. We both know this council and vice versa.

Here it is: an illegal threat while an appeal is pending which should be a winner:

The amount outstanding on the Penalty Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 very soon. Please pay £130.00 now.

You have already challenged this PCN and we replied on Thu, 23 May 2024. You cannot challenge twice

You have already made representations for this PCN and we replied on Thu, 28 Nov 2024. You cannot make representations twice.

Hippocrates · « **Reply #41 on:** February 20, 2025, 10:27:27 am »

Spoke with mrmustard last night. Take your pick! The arguments will be the same and the cases provided in support too.

ChocolateGinger · « **Reply #42 on:** February 25, 2025, 03:28:21 pm »

Thank you so much. I have been unwell and going away for a couple of months for medical treatment so I was trying to get my hearing before I leave next week.
I'd emailed and called them and they said they'll revert but didn't. I chased again today and signed on just in case and behold the adjudicator showed up. I explained that the contravention alleges an off street Contravention so it needed terms and conditions of the off street parking places order to users of the car park. He insisted that the sign showed the permit numbers that are allowed and I'd confirmed it was my car and I'd received the PCN. I called his attention to the Order for the estate and showed him the map at page 89. He insisted that I was parked at Nelson Estate. I said yes but on Bronti close which is on street according to the order.
He said he'll look at it later and if there's anything else.

As Hippocrates thankfully pointed out, I said the Council's statement that the fine will increase if I didn't pay is as threat while proceedings are ongoing. He said he'll check the website before he makes his decision. We've just finished so I'm waiting.

mrmustard · « **Reply #43 on:** February 25, 2025, 03:32:12 pm »

Sorry I was unable to help you at literally the last minute.

I would have been a hindrance without having read the file beforehand and it wouldn't have helped the adjudicator, Mr Greenslade, who will give the papers a thorough consideration.

ChocolateGinger · « **Reply #44 on:** February 25, 2025, 03:41:47 pm »

Thank you MrMustard. If I had been in touch even as last as night perhaps.
There was no way you could have and that's my fault.
Thank you once again.

Free Traffic Legal Advice

Author Topic: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required. (Read 2355 times)

ChocolateGinger

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

ChocolateGinger

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

H C Andersen

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

ChocolateGinger

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

ChocolateGinger

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

ChocolateGinger

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

John U.K.

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

H C Andersen

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

ChocolateGinger

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

mrmustard

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

Hippocrates

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

Hippocrates

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

ChocolateGinger

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit

mrmustard

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.

ChocolateGinger

Re: PCN Southwark - Contravention 85 Parked Without A Valid Virtual Permit Or Valid Physical Permit Where Required.