Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: iispartan on March 30, 2024, 03:12:02 pm
-
Well done!
-
Finally received a response and PCN has been cancelled. I appealed on the basis of procedural impropriety but I have a feeling they realised they mucked up the photos!
Thanks all for your help
https://imgur.com/a/uM85szT
-
I think @H C Andersen makes a very valid point about code 05, which seems to be the applicable one.
However once more I think it is best to avoid any self-incriminating admissions at all in the representations, you know right to silence and all that. I would stick with the representation as drafted, after all it's not as if you're going to persuade the council to cancel the penalty.
At the tribunal stage if the council proves a contravention is made out (which is 50 / 50 at best), a fairly solid argument can be made that the PCN should have been issued for "Parked after the expiry of paid for time", and the penalty demanded therefore exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.
-
I thought that parking restriction end at 1pm but actually realised afterwards it ends at 5pm on a Saturday.
The sign posted clearly shows that payment is required Mon-Sat 9-5.30pm, so I've no idea where 1pm comes from, it's never 1pm, unless the sign we've seen is incorrect?
So, what do we have?
At its most basic level, a higher level penalty for a 30-minute overstay.
I think we should examine the 12 v 19 issue. And code 5.
Grounds for reps:
Penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
OP, read the list of contraventions here: https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/download/file/fid/4029
You were parked after the expiry of paid for time, which is a lower level penalty.
You were also parked with an invalid P&D ticket. Again, lower level.
So, my approach would be that you saw the sign but just miscalculated when you would return. In this respect, the sign is your ally.
I think we need to broaden the approach here.
But it's just a view.
-
It’s not my main defence in this case, the strategy is to distract the authorities from the fact that the only evidence they have are in fact blurry and try to argue that there is nothing to prove a contravention occurred. It’s more of a smoke screen so at tribunal stage can bring this up, as advised by @cp8759
-
Each case turns on its own facts. IMO it is risky to attempt to draw the general from the specific, in this case is every PCN which does not refer to 'contravention occurred' going to succeed atu adjudication on PI grounds?
IMO, very unlikely.
What we know as case law is that a PCN must be read as a whole and whose wording is not required to be replicated from the regs verbatim. It must convey the information contained therein without confusing or misleading. This has been incorporated into the 2022 regs which now state:
2. The information to be included in a penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 is—
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
So 'information to be included' in the PCN as a whole.
And yours states:
Service date of notice: 30/3
Contravention date: 30/3
'.....date on which the penalty was served.'
If 100 people were asked 'on what date does the 28-day period commence' how many would say '30 March'?
IMO, there's no PI regarding the use of 'date..was served' because as a whole the PCN contains this information.
-
Any thoughts on above ?
-
NtO arrived see link here https://imgur.com/a/FNFJkez
I agree cp I will appeal this with the simply procedural impropriety point. I will not mention the blurry pictures. The fact they haven’t included any picture evidence in the NtO is telling. Draft appeal:
I appeal the PCN on the grounds of procedural impropriety, the wording regarding the 28 days payment in the PCN does not comply with The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions Regulations 2022, specifically Schedule 2 para. 2
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
As such the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled.
Appreciate any feedback
-
@iispartan the one thing you do not want to do is mention the blurry images when you challenge the notice to owner, as they can send someone round to take some better pictures and send them to you in the notice of rejection, and you've then sunk your own case (this is one of the possible pitfalls I mentioned earlier).
One approach would be to actually argue the procedural impropriety in the representations and not mention anything else, hence throwing the council off the scent. Then an appeal can be made to the tribunal just saying "I rely on my formal representations" and assuming they've not produced any better images, we get to the hearing and take the point that the photos do not prove anything. No strategy can give a 100% guarantee of success, but the best way to exploit the blurry images is to not mention them at all until the start of the actual hearing, at which point even if they attend the hearing (which is unlikely in the extreme) it will be too late for the council to do anything about it.
I would recommend you do not send a representation against the notice to owner without showing us a draft first.
-
Today is the last day for an informal appeal. I think I’ll not bother with an informal appeal and wait for the NtO to try and then appeal on the grounds that the contravention did not occur due to blurry images. Can throw in that procedural impropriety point in the mix too but main argument would be lack of evidence through blurry images.
-
You could put that in an informal representation, but most adjudicators no longer accept that argument
-
Still awaiting NtO but just wanted to check if I’m right in saying the working around the 28 days in the PCN does not comply with Schedule 2 para. 2 @ https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
Perhaps an informal appeal on this if I’m correct would be a decent strategy?
-
Okay, I’ll go ahead with the appeal and hopefully get someone to represent me.
I will let you know once the NtO arrives,
Thanks
-
I’ve always been told a decision on the papers have like 1% success rate.
It's actually 37%, but that's a bit rubbish really.
We often find that the CEO notes are inaccurate or wholly missing, so just because the CEO said he'd make a note doesn't mean that he did, nor does it mean the council will produce those notes at the tribunal stage.
As a general rule if the photos don't establish a contravention the appeal will be allowed, I can't think of a single case where blurry CEO photos have seen an appeal refused. The exceptions tend to be where the motorist produces photos of his own, or makes admissions in the representations, or turns up at the hearing and signs like a canary, so those pitfalls are all easy to avoid.
-
I’ve always been told a decision on the papers have like 1% success rate.
Also, the CEO told me that he had written a note in the system to say that I have paid for parking, so it may be in the councils evidence already that I’ve payed ..
The images are the only evidence the council have on me, and as far as I’m concerned they don’t show a contravention due to the poor quality and ineligible sign.. I get that it’s not actually a requirement to have pictures for a PCN to be enforced, but if you’re going to take pictures the council should at least ensure they are of decent quality
-
Most people can get someone to represent them but as a last resort you can always go for a hearing on the papers, though that is more risky.
-
I’m happy to go ahead with this strategy and don’t mind risking the discount if there is a chance an adjudicator would agree with your view.
So are you saying to not even appeal the PCN informally and just wait for the NtO to arrive. Would someone here be willing to take this case on for me and represent?
-
I'm going to suggest an unconventional approach, though it is ultimately your decision how you wish to proceed.
Essentially we know that Tower Hamlets of all places will never grant a discretionary cancellation based on the grounds you propose to use. However by saying you paid via RingGo, you're admitting that you were aware of the requirement to pay, which in this case is a somewhat unnecessary admission.
In essence we want this to get to the tribunal without the council giving the case any real thought or consideration, so if it were my PCN I would:
1) Ignore the roadside PCN and just wait for the notice to owner
2) Make a one line representation against the notice to owner saying that contravention did not occur
3) Make a one line appeal to the tribunal saying the contravention did not occur
4) Wait till the day of the hearing and then point out to the adjudicator that the photos do not show any contravention (though it would be best to have someone represent you because otherwise the adjudicator can simply ask if you paid / if you knew you had to pay, and you must tell the truth).
This could be seen as a high risk high reward strategy, but I can't see how else you could beat this particular PCN.
-
Draft below, thought I’d keep it short and sweet due to inevitable rejection:
Dear Tower Hamlet council,
I’m writing to appeal the PCN and ask the council exercise discretion on this occasion. I paid for parking via RingGo app and as I returned to my car I bumped in to the CEO who had just written the ticket. The CEO kindly took note of this and said that it would be taken in to consideration at appeal.
I ask the council to please take this in to account, and will ensure that my RingGo session extends to the full extent of my stay.
Thanks
-
Please post a draft of your representation on here before sending it.
-
Yeah the councils pictures are so blurry you can’t make out the sign. I will plea for discretion and if (when) rejected will challenge on the grounds of blurry evidence which doesn’t show a contravention - assuming NtO stage I will not mention this, only in tribunal.
The electronic payment receipt should be the last picture in initial imgur link.
-
@iispartan those have been 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 the council will say that the contravention wording does cover the grounds on which the CEO thought a penalty was payable.
Here are The Tower Hamlets (Parking Places) (Map Based) Order 2019 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/18h1pfNIANxEuxkrIUf3q6tPky0pCyhUe/view) and the map tile (https://store.traffweb.app/towerhamlets/documents/parkmap/msched/Q11_rv0_1.pdf), which from a quick glance appear to be in order.
However the CEO's photos do not show any contravention:
(https://i.imgur.com/VbprOOH.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MH1N94L.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/eg5PPzR.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/T9i48GF.png)
Obviously you don't want to mention that at any time prior to a tribunal hearing as you don't want to give them a chance to get some better photos of the signs. A plea for discretion is probably best at this stage.
Also can you show us a screenshot of your electronic payment please?
-
I’m just reading The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007, it states:
A penalty charge notice served under regulation 9 must, in addition to the matters required to be included in it by regulation 3(2) of the Representations and Appeals Regulations, state
(e)the grounds on which the civil enforcement officer serving the notice believes that a penalty charge is payable;
I’m wondering whether the fact that the PCN is defective and omits key words from the contravention if this satisfies the regs?
-
So, here is the sign for the bay where you parked :-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ntTv6QEa1HyFFW1V6
The PCN looks OK to me, so really, your representations would be on the lines of a grovelling apology, also pointing out you did pay for some time, albeit not enough. The PCN looks OK to me.
So why didn't you go and look at the sign ?
-
Hi all
I got a ticket today and it was a misjudgement on my part. I had a boxing session from 12.30 to 1.30 and payed for 30 mins of parking at 12.23 via Ringo and my session expired at 12.53. I thought that parking restriction end at 1pm but actually realised afterwards it ends at 5pm on a Saturday. I did bump in to the CEO as he was writing the ticket but said it was too late but and kindly agreed he’ll write a note in system explaining I’ve met him and that I’ve payed for parking which expired.
Anyways, I’m not too hopeful, I’m just hoping some discretion could be exercised as I did pay for a bit of parking albeit not the full time, and also having looked at the photos they’re all blurry - not sure if enforceable? Alternatively any fatal errors in the PCN that the eagle eyes can spot is another glimmer of hope in clinging on to.
Keen to hear your thoughts, below link with all evidence:
https://imgur.com/a/CQQveK7