Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Vike on March 03, 2024, 07:12:53 pm
-
Costs application accepted. I will attend when back from Kos. 8)
-
I am just a small cog in the wheel. ;D
I recite: to win a case is like climbing Mount Everest. To achieve costs is like climbing Mount Everest without oxygen equipment.
Hopefully, all this will change shortly.
Clearly, Hippocrates is in contact with the Delphic Oracle. :) Lovely place.
-
Hello everyone, I think my topic deserves an update for all members.
With the help of Hippocrates, I appealed to London Tribunals, and 3 days before the date set for a hearing, where Hippocrates offered to represent me, Haringey issued a DNC Notice (Do Not Contest) just as Hippocrates predicted.
We are now in the process of making a claim for costs in light of the fact that the council withdrew.
I will update again if/when we are successful.
My heartfelt thanks to this forum and in particular to Hippocrates.
-
I will PM you. I will need all the documents hitherto, unredacted, and I will explain. Yes, it is possible to claim costs, risk-free and you have 14 days from the date of the decision.
£19 per hour from the date of the Notice of Rejection.
-
@Hippocrates.
How would I claim for costs, please? Is this something you can help me with. And have you managed to claim costs on similar DNC appeals before?
I would be quite happy to go for this and donate the proceeds to the forum. As without your help It would have cost me a minimum of £65 and a maximum of £130.
My only experience of asking for costs was when I won a previous appeal and asked about costs the adjudicator told me that it was very unlikely to succeed.
-
Ευχαριστώ πολύ! But, the other two Musketeers are far more knowledgeable than I. I would consider a costs application, Vike, since yours was the last one forced to the Tribunal in the full knowledge re the other four I represented - plus the couple mrmustard did too - would fail - and did fail.
I will e mail cp8759 on your behalf re the donation.
-
I checked again and the DNC (Do not contest) Notice is now registered on the Tribunal's website.
This website is fantastic! and particularly, in my case, Hippocrates who certainly knows the law and how to apply it in favour of the little people against the councils who clearly do not (know the law) but clearly believe they can bully us into paying by taking it to the wire.
If these guys tell you they believe it's worth going to appeal, please believe them!
Three cheers for Hippocrates, Hip, Hip, Hippocrates.
Thank you so much. How can I donate to the forum to keep up the struggle?
-
It still shows on the list. But these things take time. I guarantee my voice mail message and I consider a costs application is in order.
Anyway, Hippo is off to the Asclepion very soon. To renew his Oath.
-
Oh wow! Just as you said. You clearly know them by now, Hippocrates. Thank you so much for all your help in this. You are a legend! I expect I, too will get an email to that effect?
-
Just had a call from the Tribunal. They are not contesting. A costs application will possibly follow in view of their NOR.
-
They have very recently retreated in this case which was on pepipoo. 2240166305. cp, MrColmans and Schofeldt had to pull out all the stops to stop him (sorry for repeat) joining The Mugged Club too. And this one: 2240141621.
OP for this thread and I spoke with each other this morning in Greek and used the "M" word a few times. ;)
Hearing is set for 21st May; but, sadly my crystal ball tells me otherwise. :-[
-
They have chosen not to contest Monday's hearing.* Possibly a costs application to follow.
*
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=153074&pid=1813435&mode=threaded&start=#entry1813435
-
Just got your e mail. Game on.
-
Thank you so much, @Hippocrates. I look forward to your PM.
-
@Vike: I will PM you with details of exactly what to do. You will not need to take time off work as I will attend on your behalf. And, they will not even adduce evidence in all probability.
This really disgusts me, actually, and I will couch the application in such terms as to imply a costs application is on the cards if they do not play ball and cancel.
-
Thank you so much guys, I too am up for it but as I previously stated, I really don't think I can take the time off to attend the tribunal in person, much as I'd love to. I don't even know if I will be able to appear by phone, but if one of you kind gentlemen are happy to represent me in the interest of justice I am willing to take it to tribunal. I too get really incensed when they just use standard phases without the facts to back them up on the grounds that the public will just fold and pay up.
What do I need to do next. Can I ask for a hearing online or do I need to complete the attached NOR?
My thanks again for standing up for us little people.
-
I am up for it. They will almost certainly fold! Mr Knight needs training - like many of them. Or go to Specsavers. (https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji88.png) Perhaps, this is another case where the CA may write to them to confirm that they have the relevant training, if any.
-
This seems to be the relevant paragraph:
(https://i.imgur.com/dZe8FwP.png)
It's complete nonsense of course, Mr Knight is unlikely in the extreme to have read the legislation. Reminds me of a hearing a few weeks back where I cross-examined a council officer and forced him to read the legislation, which he had admitted he's never read.
This is as close to a guaranteed win as it gets. I have a feeling Hippocrates might offer to represent you, if he's too busy I'll try and pick this one up.
-
Here is the NOR
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I eagerly await their NOR. I suspect they are really trying this on under the circumstances - they have cancelled at least 3 now but at the Tribunal stage. This really disgusts me.
-
Do I need to redact anything
Your name and address.
-
Hello everyone. I finally received the NOR yesterday, it having been dated 2nd April and received (served) 6th. April. So much for deemed to be served two days after posting.
I will copy and post the entire NOR tomorrow. Do I need to redact anything or is there anything else to be mindful of?
Many Thanks.
Vike
-
The other two hearings pending are on 15th and 29th April. I have already looked into the crystal ball.(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji12.png)
-
Won by default.
This case, I mean:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=152725&pid=1812443&mode=threaded&start=#entry1812443
However, they are still trying it on!
-
Won by default.
-
One outstanding case is tomorrow. So far, no evidence adduced by them.
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=152725&pid=1812189&mode=threaded&start=#entry1812189
-
@Vike where the charge certificate period is mis-stated on the PCN, I don't think we've ever lost where the point has been properly argued.
As above please post up the notice of rejection when you get it.
In the meantime here are:
The Haringey (Moving Traffic Restrictions) (No.14) Experimental Order 2023 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/16d4iqs1E3DLHRFdpjMIml5s8S--VfWVC/view)
Map tiles (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ahNqXvqShs9i0xR-pSyBfn272ZHVoNzq/view).
-
I'm confused, as I definitely remember the adjudicator counting the days on a calendar at my previous appeal and agreeing that as an additional reason to find in my favour. Mind you now that I think of it that was an appeal to a PCN affixed to my windscreen, does that make a difference, as that is classes as an informal appeal?
Different legislation. I have 4 cases live re this wording issue at present and they have DNCed one due to this* Just post up their NOR and we take it from there. OK?
*
1. The Penalty Charge Notice wrongly states the council can serve a Charge Certificate 28 days from the date of the said notice. I attach the two PCNs for your convenience.
2. The council are fully aware of this as they have now fixed the issue.
3. I attach Case No. 2230567864 in which I represented Mr Parnavides. In that case, the legal argument was raised and the council did not adduce any evidence at all.
-
Hi again,
[/quote]There is no statutory time. What did you write?
On 4th March:
I wrote: Dear Haringey Council
Ref: PCN ZN11391338 VRM Redacted
I make the following representations against the said PCN.
1. I bring a collateral challenge on the ground that it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
2. I bring a further collateral challenge since the taken without consent ground clearly limits/fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner’s permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim.
In light of the above the penalty charge notice is invalid and must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully
Name (Registered keeper)
[/i]
I was getting all excited that I have yet to receive a response and that they would be out of time, but you say that there is no statutory time to receive the response to a formal appeal.
I'm confused, as I definitely remember the adjudicator counting the days on a calendar at my previous appeal and agreeing that as an additional reason to find in my favour. Mind you now that I think of it that was an appeal to a PCN affixed to my windscreen, does that make a difference, as that is classes as an informal appeal?
-
There is no statutory time. What did you write?
-
Hi again, I've made representations exactly as per Incandescent's advice and am now awaiting a reply. May I ask what the statutory time for a response is. I remember when I went to tribunal before (again with the help of Pepipoo, that apart from my reps the adjudicator found in my favour because the council did not serve the rejection until a day after the statutory period, but I can't remember whether that was 21 or 28 days. ( I actually remember the adjudicator counting the days on a calendar! Thank you.
-
They failed to produce any evidence in this case which I represented:
ETA 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 2230567864
Appellant Pavlos Varnavides
Authority London Borough of Haringey
VRM LM15EKY
PCN Details
PCN ZN09894620
Contravention date -
Contravention time -
Contravention location -
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention -
Referral date
Decision Date 20 Feb 2024
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
This appeal is listed for personal hearing later today.
The hearing will not now take place the council not providing its evidence there thus being no case for the appellant to answer.
The appeal is allowed.
****************
I have two more pending. The legal argument is sound.
https://bit.ly/2ALghSS
Click on adjudications - key cases 149-161
-
Your PCN was issued under the London Local Authorities & Transport for London Act 2003. There is no time limit on responding to formal reps in this legislation as far as I can see. The Transport Management Act, which is used in London for parking contraventions, has a limit of 56 days to respond to formal reps against a Notice to Owner.
There is, of course, their common law duty to act promptly and fairly as an organisation given penal powers by Parliament.
-
I thought I'd confirmed, but obviously not, I made representations on Haringey's website exactly as per Incandescent's advice on 4th. March 2024.I am awaiting their reply.
Can someone please advise what the cutoff for their response is. Is it 28 days or 21 days from the service of the reps, in the case of on-line reps I'm assuming that is the same as the date of submission. The last PCN I took to tribunal, as well as my other representations, one of the things that won me the case was that I did not receive the council's reply till one day after the statutory period had expired (I remember the adjudicator counting the days on a calendar!), but I can't remember whether it was 21 or 28 days. Thanks again.
-
Thank you Incandescent. Now I get it, It's not the council that has worded the PCN wrong but that the act that they are following is flawed. In fact that is why on the first page of the PCN it states from the "date of the notice" when they talk about payment and on the second it states " from the date of service" when referring to the representation. They are actually following the erroneous act of parliament!
Do you have any comment re the taking without consent, please?
The main issue is that they misstated the time to serve a charge certificate. I have added the TWOC ground to test their reply. See Egenti v Islington. But I would not use it at this stage.
-
Thank you Incandescent. Now I get it, It's not the council that has worded the PCN wrong but that the act that they are following is flawed. In fact that is why on the first page of the PCN it states from the "date of the notice" when they talk about payment and on the second it states " from the date of service" when referring to the representation. They are actually following the erroneous act of parliament!
Do you have any comment re the taking without consent, please?
-
Probably not. It is a consequence of the LLA & TfL Act 2003 that is flawed and this has never been corrected. The Act sets the period for payment as 28 days from the PCN date, and the period in which to submit representations as 28 days from date of service. So if you submit reps on Day 28 from date of service, you're now 2 days overdue for payment of the PCN ! So how come nobody in our wonderful Parliament didn't spot this when the Bill for the Act was going through Parliament ? Good question !
-
Representations as per your advice submitted. Thank you.
"
I have just re-read the PCN and strangely, on the first page it clearly states "...the date of this notice" three times but on the 2nd page it changes to "with the date on which the penalty charge was served."
I also notice that where it mentions "without the consent of the owner" it goes on to qualify this with "if this ground arises through the vehicle being stolen and if you have documents related to the theft e.g. a crime reference number or details of an insurance claim you may wish to supply them as part of your representations)" I read this as their admitting that it could have been taken without consent other than it having been stolen. Or at least Haringey could allege that that is what the PCN states.
Does this change anything at all?
-
Nope. Let them do the work. Just simply cut and paste what I wrote.
-
Hi
Should I clarify point 1 that the reason it does not comply is that they put date of notice rather than date of service?
-
Thank you so much, Hippocrates. I know that councils play the game, with the expectation that the accused would give up and pay, but I'm now, myself wondering if the time to go to Tribunal and the stress involved is worth it for £65. May I ask whether, if this went to Tribunal, I would need to go in person? I am still working and am already on a warning for too much leave of absence.What are the chances of winning on a remote appeal at Tribunal?
We are not at Tribunal time as they need to reply first. I would attend in person and you by phone. As stated, in the other case they rejected but dodged the issue and filed no evidence. A costs application has just been filed this morning for wasting everyone's time.
Bexley and Bromley have similar issues and one was won by me a few weeks ago.
************************
Revised draft:
Dear Haringey Council
Ref: PCN ZN11391338 VRM LP16JDK
I make the following representations against the said PCN.
1. I bring a collateral challenge on the ground that it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
2. I bring a further collateral challenge since the taken without consent ground clearly limits/fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner’s permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim.
In light of the above the penalty charge notice is invalid and must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully
Name (Registered keeper)
Address
-
Thank you so much, Hippocrates. I know that councils play the game, with the expectation that the accused would give up and pay, but I'm now, myself wondering if the time to go to Tribunal and the stress involved is worth it for £65. May I ask whether, if this went to Tribunal, I would need to go in person? I am still working and am already on a warning for too much leave of absence.What are the chances of winning on a remote appeal at Tribunal?
you can do a telephone hearing - also if you are being offered representation for free by experienced members then you should take it as will reduce your workload significantly and you can if you choose even not attend the actual hearing by phone. Of course, no one can guarantee anything but this seems as close to that as possible with a clear legal error which has been tested at the Tribunal many times already.
-
Thank you so much, Hippocrates. I know that councils play the game, with the expectation that the accused would give up and pay, but I'm now, myself wondering if the time to go to Tribunal and the stress involved is worth it for £65. May I ask whether, if this went to Tribunal, I would need to go in person? I am still working and am already on a warning for too much leave of absence.What are the chances of winning on a remote appeal at Tribunal?
-
@Vike. Please trust us and no worries for asking. We all started in this game from nothing. I use the epithet "game" deliberately because this is what councils rely on - peoples' inexperience and fears re the discount.
The issue, itself, truncates the period in which a Charge Certificate may be served and the Tribunal is consistent in its decisions on this legal point. They can only serve a C.C. 28 days from the date of service.
cpa8759, Mr Mustard and I have won all our cases on this issue. Just keep going. If they continue, I offer to represent you for free.
In my opinion, the legal argument is incontrovertibly correct thus making the PCN substantially non-complaint.
-
Hi OP here. Thank you all for your replies.
If I have understood correctly, you say that I should appeal on the grounds that the PCN does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(8)(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
By looking at your link to the other thread, I understand this to be that they said that:
"If the Penalty Charge is not paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of this notice, an increased charge £195.00 may be payable. We may then send you a Charge Certificate seeking payment of this increased amount."
Please can you explain to a newbie, why that does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(8)(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Is it that they should have said the date of SERVICE of this notice? Or is it something else.
My other concern, now is that if they reject, which knowing Haringey is very likely, there is no guarantee that the reduced penalty will still apply.
Thanks again for the help.
-
Dear London Borough of Haringey,
I bring a collateral challenge against this PCN, on the ground that it does not comply with the mandatory requirement of section 4(8)(a)(v) of, and paragraph 5(2)(a) of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
It follows that the penalty charge notice is invalid and must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
**************
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-haringey-council-52(m)-failing-to-comply-with-a-prohibition-on-certain-types/msg9338/#msg9338
This case was won as they adduced no evidence. 2230567864 Costs application to follow.
-
1) Isn't the council photo supposed to show the signage of the restriction together with my VRN so that I know exactly what I failed to comply with, rather than just the enigmatic 52(M) code? And
There is no legal requirement for any photographs at all on the PCN. Any photographs you might see on their website are stills from the video. It is commonplace, though, to see photos on the PCN of the car at the relevant location, but often the camera is not positioned to show the sign and the car going past it.
2) Is not the PCN supposed to tell the owner that if they make an informal appeal and fail, they still have ANOTHER 14 days to pay the discounted penalty from the date of the rejection?
The reoffer of the discount when rejecting informal challenges is not a legal right, funnily enough, but most councils to commit to re-offering it, but there is no legal requirement to put anything about this on a Regulation 9 PCN (one served to car or driver at the roadside), nor on a Regulation 10 PCN, (one served to the keeper on the V5 )
However, your's is a postal PCN, so there is only one opportunity to submit representations. These are formal reps, there is no informal challenge stage. The discount period remains extant until its end date, but some councils play hard-ball and refuse to re-offer the discount if their rejection is past the discount end-date. Most councils do, howver, re-offer the discount. If they didn't, they'd make a rod for their own back, because with no discount re-offer, it is then a total no-brainer to take the council to adjudication, the penalty does not increase, nor are there any additional costs. The council, though, have to prepare an evidence pack.
-
The PCN is unenforceable as per other threads. They cannot serve a charge certificate 28 days from the date of notice. Back later.
-
Hi all, my first PCN in years, my last one was appealed and won with the help of Pepipoo. I have used this road for over 40 years but there has been a restriction put in place by Haringey recently which I admit I completely failed to notice. A short stretch of this road has recently had a No Vehicles restriction put in place by Haringey definitely since Feb 2022 as it does not appear on Google Maps. I don't know how I missed it, probably as I have used this road for so long without this restriction. In fact when I went back to check what the PCN was all about I was only there for 15 minutes and saw three cars go through and that was on a Sunday. In my mind this was put in place for revenue.
I admit I went through the two planters and failed to spot the sign. Here is the link to the PCN: https://imgur.com/a/RiIFm3T
My Question to the forum is:
1) Isn't the council photo supposed to show the signage of the restriction together with my VRN so that I know exactly what I failed to comply with, rather than just the enigmatic 52(M) code? And
2) Is not the PCN supposed to tell the owner that if they make an informal appeal and fail, they still have ANOTHER 14 days to pay the discounted penalty from the date of the rejection?
Many thanks to all who reply.
(https://i.imgur.com/vG1I14U.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dghDKEn.png)
[attachment deleted by admin]