Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: smurf-e on December 26, 2023, 04:00:48 pm
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xpOKTxz1_DaTR0vzukDw57ixU5ISrQW0/view).
-
@smurf-e well you didn't challenge the notice to owner within 14 days, in fact you challenged it on the last day of the 28 day period. If you don't challenge the notice to owner within 14 days of the date of issue, the council will not normally reoffer the discount, so as things stand there's no point in paying now because if you go to the tribunal and lose the penalty stays the same. On the other hand you might win, so there's really nothing to be lost in carrying on.
It might be possible to construct an arguable case around legitimate expectation, I wouldn't have suggested risking the discount on that alone but at this point you might as well have a go.
-
Hi All,
Received the rejection from Barking and Dagenham. i think we always knew it was going to be rejected. do you think its worth taking this forward to tribunal?
i've attached their response.
@cp8759 - I had sent the response and forgot to copy over the correct regulation, so my appeal makes reference to the 2007 standard.
thanks again for all your help with this.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to formally contest the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 19/12/23, for contravention code 62, based on procedural improprieties linked to both the initial appeal process as outlined by Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, and the subsequent actions required in relation to a Notice to Owner (NTO).
@smurf-e did you read my reply above?
-
2007 regs replaced in 2022 - you can refer to 2022 General Regulations as shortform name
-
Hi all,
hope you're enjoying your bank holiday weekend!
@HC Andersen, thanks for your input, i've updated my notice to include your response, i'll get it sent out today.
thanks again!
Dear Sirs,
I am writing to formally contest the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 19/12/23, for contravention code 62, based on procedural improprieties linked to both the initial appeal process as outlined by Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, and the subsequent actions required in relation to a Notice to Owner (NTO).
Firstly, the PCN falls short of the detailed requirements set forth in Regulation 9, specifically failing to provide comprehensive guidance on how to contest the charge through all stages of the process, particularly if a Notice to Owner (NTO) is issued following initial representations. This lack of clarity undermines the procedural fairness of the enforcement process and impairs my ability to exercise my rights to appeal effectively.
Upon reviewing the initial PCN, it states, ...the registered owner/keeper will be entitled to make representations to the council against the penalty charge and may appeal to an independent adjudicator if those representations are rejected. However, this wording does not adequately convey the obligatory nature of the actions required upon receiving an NTO. It is crucial for recipients to understand that, irrespective of any informal representations made prior to the NTO issuance, they must comply with the directives of the NTOeither by making payment or by submitting formal representations as instructed. The use of "entitled" significantly dilutes the imperative to comply, which could mislead recipients regarding their legal obligations and affect their ability to safeguard their rights.
The combined effect of these deficiencies not only compromises the procedural integrity of the PCN issuance but also significantly hampers the rights of individuals to navigate the appeals process with a full understanding of their obligations and entitlements.
Given these procedural and informational shortcomings, I respectfully request the reconsideration and subsequent cancellation of this PCN.
Yours sincerely
-
Also i've just received the notice to Owner from B&D (attached) - from reading this, its just a representation to D&B and not at tribunal. but not sure why they are not offering the £65 discount?
They can't, the notice to owner must demand the full penalty but if they reject, the rejection will usually reoffer the £65 rate as long as you agree not to appeal to the tribunal.
It's worth noting that The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 have been abolished and replaced by The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/contents), but that won't make any difference to the outcome.
Let us know when you get a response please.
-
It fails to explicitly include information that if a Notice to Owner is served following initial representations, any further representations must adhere to the specific requirements set out in the Notice to Owner, including the form, manner, and timeline for response. This lack of comprehensive information in the PCN about the process for contesting the charge at all stages, particularly post-issuance of a Notice to Owner, is a notable procedural deficiency. This omission compromises my ability to fully comprehend and exercise my appeal rights as mandated by regulation, thereby undermining procedural fairness and my entitlement to contest the charge.
Is NOT the point which arises from the PCN.
A PCN is essentially in 3 parts:
1. The vehicle and contravention details;
2. Payment;
3. Challenges and further steps.
As regards 3, the PCN does not state that reps received before a PCN is issued will be considered, in fact consideration is only implicit. But this is not the key issue. The PCN must state, in effect warn, that even if reps are received before a NTO is issued then the recipient of the NTO MUST comply with the NTO's instructions e.g. pay or make formal reps. Not just 'is entitled to' but must.
The issue is not the 'form and manner..' it is that in order to protect the recipient's legal position they must act upon the NTO even if they or someone else has submitted 'informal' reps.
Your reps need more work IMO and you have until the 31 March to refine them and submit. (date of issue Thurs. 29 Feb. = service Mon. 4 March which is day 1 of the 28-day period).
But remember...that as the defect arises in the printed (as opposed to CEO-entered) part of the PCN, then the authority are unlikely to accept that it's not substantially compliant because the officer who considers your reps did not draft the PCN, neither are they likely to take it upon themselves to believe you over the 'system' which in its infinite wisdom drafted the PCN.
In short, they'll likely reject your reps, so prepare yourself.
However, an adjudicator wouldn't care about the internal dynamics and reputational damage to any officer.
-
Brilliant, I will send it off the new response later on today. thanks for all your help. lets see what they come back with.
-
I'd go with it.
-
Hi All,
any thoughts on the response? or should I stick to the original?
thanks
-
hi All,
is the below good to go?
thanks
Dear Sirs,
I am appealing against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 19/12/23 for contravention code 62, on grounds of procedural impropriety concerning Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.
The PCN does not fully comply with the requirements outlined in Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. It fails to explicitly include information that if a Notice to Owner is served following initial representations, any further representations must adhere to the specific requirements set out in the Notice to Owner, including the form, manner, and timeline for response. This lack of comprehensive information in the PCN about the process for contesting the charge at all stages, particularly post-issuance of a Notice to Owner, is a notable procedural deficiency. This omission compromises my ability to fully comprehend and exercise my appeal rights as mandated by regulation, thereby undermining procedural fairness and my entitlement to contest the charge.
Given the importance of adherence to procedural requirements, I respectfully request the cancellation of this PCN.
Thank you for considering my appeal.
Sincerely,
-
Thanks for the advise, i will re-write the appeal focusing only on the procedural deficiency. I'll put a draft response up later on today.
thanks
-
Where are the council's photos?
I've just seen them, your car is parked with DYL clearly visible ahead and on your left. I do not think you should risk the discount on your argument about you thinking you were parked on the carriageway i.e. the lack of distinction between the carriageway and footway(it's not a footpath).
IMO, as regards your beliefs about enforcement, this is a no-hoper, your lack of knowledge doesn't prevent the council from issuing PCNs. Similarly your expectation that as you claim you'd parked there previously without issue then you had a legitimate expectation.
There are two reasons for abandoning the above: firstly, they're not winning points and secondly, and IMO more important, you are shielding the key argument.
You only need to lead with one point which is procedural impropriety which relates to the wording of the PCN.
-
Sorry for the late reply on this; I just realised that the "Notify me of replies" option was turned off!
Interestingly, the land either side of the area being enforced by Barking and Dagenham, at one point, was being managed by two separate parking companies. Looking at the signage from Google Street View, it seems as though it's the same company now. I can double-check when I'm next there.
1. https://maps.app.goo.gl/E3gTDBBdwsAKEh847 (covering the West) from the council land
2. https://maps.app.goo.gl/Nd9iotzf9qR59dYj6 (covering the East) from
Also i've just received the notice to Owner from B&D (attached) - from reading this, its just a representation to D&B and not at tribunal. but not sure why they are not offering the £65 discount?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Definitely wait for the notice to owner, but we want to be careful with this one: adjudicators have previously held that lines of bricks, even of the same colour, are enough to denote a footpath.
Where exactly is the area enforced by a private company, can you give us a google street view link please?
-
Wait for the Notice to Owner. Their reply is bolleaux, in part.
-
Hi All,
any thoughts? is it worth appealing, still got some time before the discounted rate expires.
thanks
-
Morning All,
hope you're well,
Just received my rejection letter from Barking and Dagenham for my "wheels on the footpath" PCN. They've not addressed all the points in my response and have stated that the "other points" do not justify a cancellation.
I've attached their response.
what do you think, is there a strong enough case to challenge the PCN?
thanks for all your help.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Brilliant!
-
I've updated the response to include regulation 9, I'll get this sent off tonight.
thanks for all your help.
I'll keep you all updated.
Draft Representation:
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: Formal Representation Against PCN
I am writing to formally contest the Penalty Charge Notice referenced above, issued on 19/12/23 for contravention code 62, which denotes parking with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway.
My challenge is based on the following points:
1. Clarity of Signage and Parking Zone: the signage within the area where I was parked clearly indicated a "Restricted Parking Zone Mon-Fri 8 am to 6:30 pm". My vehicle was stationed in the land between these two signs, where the indications were explicit that enforcement is not applicable outside these hours. Parking within the confines of this clear signage, during a period that falls outside of the enforcement hours, I had every reason to believe that my actions were in compliance with the parking regulations set by the local authority.
2. Established Pattern of Non-enforcement: I have regularly parked in this area for a number of years without receiving a PCN, leading to a legitimate expectation that parking as I have done would not result in enforcement action. The sudden issuance of a PCN, without any apparent change in enforcement policy or notification thereof, represents a departure from the established pattern of non-enforcement that the council has previously demonstrated.
3. Indistinct Footpath: The area in question does not resemble a conventional footpath, and there is no clear indication that parking is prohibited, which misleads motorists regarding the legality of parking in that location. Further, the section of the carriageway where my vehicle was parked was constructed with the same materials and using the same methodology as the carriageway, lacking the paving slabs that are typically expected in a footway. This uniformity in construction within the restricted zone does not provide the clear visual differentiation that is required for drivers to discern the beginning of a footpath. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that outside the restricted parking zone, the construction material and methodology of the footpath changes, aligning with the typical build-up of a footway. This stark contrast in construction leads to a reasonable expectation that the zone where I was parked did not constitute a footpath and was, therefore, permissible for parking.
4. Omission of Key Information as per Regulation 9 (penalty charge notices and enforcement notices): The PCN does not fully comply with the requirements outlined in Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007. It fails to explicitly include information that if a Notice to Owner is served following initial representations, any further representations must adhere to the specific requirements set out in the Notice to Owner, including the form, manner, and timeline for response. This lack of comprehensive information in the PCN about the process for contesting the charge at all stages, particularly post-issuance of a Notice to Owner, is a notable procedural deficiency. It hinders my ability to fully understand and exercise my rights in the appeal process, as required by the regulation.
Given these points, including the procedural deficiency due to the omission of key information as per Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022, and in light of the longstanding practice of non-enforcement in the area, I respectfully request that the PCN be reconsidered and subsequently cancelled.
-
interestingly, its the only part of Academy way where there is no clear kerbstone or street marking such as the double yellow line and the vertical double yellow loading sings delineating the carriageway and footway. @Hippocrates - shall I add the the regulation 9 PCN information to the appeal?
thanks
-
How a line of bricks at the same level can denote where a footway is and where the carriageway is astonishes me. I mean it's not even a different colour for Heavens sake ! Of course looking at GSV, you can see where they're coming from as the line of bricks carries on the line of the kerbstones from the actual footway in the other part of the street and carries on to the next traditional footway: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/KxyGg1jDoDEDFeXUA
-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/part/2/chapter/1
Information to be included in regulation 9 penalty charge notices and enforcement notices
Information about right to make representations or appeal to be included in regulation 9 penalty charge notices and enforcement notices
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.
-
Hello everyone,
Hope you all enjoyed your break.
I'm seeking your guidance on whether there's an opportunity to appeal this Parking Charge Notice (PCN).
While visiting a family member, I was advised to park on Academy Way, directly in front of the car park entrance. They mentioned that this area, managed by Dagenham Council, isn't enforced, due to the 2 signs showing the timings of the restricted parking zone. Consequently, it's common to see cars parked on pavements within this part of land outside the restricted hour. However, beyond the 'zone ends' signs, enforcement is active as the area is overseen by a private company. This distinction is why visitors tend to park in the Barking and Dagenham section. For the past year, I, along with other cars, have been parking here without issue. Surprisingly, I've just received a parking ticket citing contravention code 62.
I have had a go at drafting an appeal below.
Do I have an opportunity to appeal?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Link to PCN Notice:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JH2Xuyaly-mUNbDM0j3IdkHcKGE2dD8Z/view?usp=drivesdk
Location Street view link:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oUNU97rqzdThysjL9
Draft Representation:
Dear Sir/Madam,
RE: Formal Representation Against PCN
I am writing to formally contest the Penalty Charge Notice referenced above, issued on 19/12/23 for contravention code 62, which denotes parking with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway.
My challenge is based on the following points:
1. Clarity of Signage and Parking Zone: the signage within the area where I was parked clearly indicated a "Restricted Parking Zone Mon-Fri 8 am to 6:30 pm". My vehicle was stationed in the land between these two signs, where the indications were explicit that enforcement is not applicable outside these hours. Parking within the confines of this clear signage, during a period that falls outside of the enforcement hours, I had every reason to believe that my actions were in compliance with the parking regulations set by the local authority.
2. Established Pattern of Non-enforcement: I have regularly parked in this area for a number of years without receiving a PCN, leading to a legitimate expectation that parking as I have done would not result in enforcement action. The sudden issuance of a PCN, without any apparent change in enforcement policy or notification thereof, represents a departure from the established pattern of non-enforcement that the council has previously demonstrated.
3. Indistinct Footpath: The area in question does not resemble a conventional footpath, and there is no clear indication that parking is prohibited, which misleads motorists regarding the legality of parking in that location. Further, the section of the carriageway where my vehicle was parked was constructed with the same materials and using the same methodology as the carriageway, lacking the paving slabs that are typically expected in a footway. This uniformity in construction within the restricted zone does not provide the clear visual differentiation that is required for drivers to discern the beginning of a footpath. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that outside the restricted parking zone, the construction material and methodology of the footpath changes, aligning with the typical build-up of a footway. This stark contrast in construction leads to a reasonable expectation that the zone where I was parked did not constitute a footpath and was, therefore, permissible for parking.
Given these points, and in light of the longstanding practice of non-enforcement, I respectfully request that the PCN be reconsidered and subsequently cancelled.