Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: lofi234 on April 25, 2024, 10:07:52 pm
-
Video is always better than telephone, having done thousands of hearings I'd never opt for telephone where video is an option. The adjudicator's body language will tell you which arguments are better received than others, whether they have a question in mind etc. Also being able to see the appellant will help the adjudicator when it comes to assessing credibility.
It is sensible to write a skeleton argument outlining the points to be argued at the hearing and uploading this to the tribunal portal at least a week before the hearing, so I'd recommend you post up:
1) A draft skeleton argument
2) All the evidence you propose to upload to the tribunal portal.
If there is room for improvement or anything that needs clarifying or expanding, you want to find out now rather than during the hearing.
-
Basic defence currently is procedural impropriety for missing info from the PCN.
Procedural impropriety for implying 29 days for various time frames when they are required to be 28 on the PCN and Rejection letter. The way I’ve explained this is “two days from Monday” would always be Wednesday. So 28 days from a date would commonly not include day one. The wording they are supposed to use is “within”.
She is also happy to bring up the lack of proof of a sign showing the area is a residential parking only street. As such they only have a photo of a repeater over a yellow line and her car wasn’t on a yellow line. She has lots of evidence that lines do exist on the road and obviously a driver can only respond to the information available where they park on that day. Not online information which they have supplied as evidence it’s a residents parking area.
I feel like they are all sensible and strong arguments and she seems happy enough to talk them through.
-
Yes she requested a telephone hearing. I think it’s the end of the month. Any advantage to video over telephone? She wasn’t too fussed either way.
-
@lofi234 have you requested a hearing? If not, you should do so asap. Ask for a video hearing, that is always preferable. I'll have a look at the evidence pack this evening and give you my feedback.
-
Ok she has added her comments on their evidence. I told her it’s best to submit nothing in relation to them not showing the large sign on entry to the zone as she can raise this at the telephone tribunal. The argument being they have no evidence the sign existed or was visible.
Is that good advice?
For the 28 day stuff my understanding is that the council using “from” instead of “within” could mean you have 29 days instead of 28. The meaning is ambiguous and could cause the driver to misunderstand what the timeframe is. Is that correct?
-
So I need to respond to the appeal in the next few days. Any advice welcome.
We’re going to raise the procedural impropriety from the formal appeal.
Is it worth mentioning they haven’t shown an image of the main signs showing it’s a residential parking only area? They just have the repeater. She genuinely didn’t see the larger sign just the repeater over a yellow line.
Is there anything else we should include?
Thanks.
-
@lofi234 it's a permit parking area, you can see the PPA sign here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/m6e2EmZQRFLG8WTZA
That being said, the council seems to be in complete disarray, they don't seem to know the difference between a PPA and a CPZ, they've got no evidence of signage (do not point this out to them!), and I suspect that by now the sign is completely engulfed in foliage.
To top it off the discount is not on offer, so there's no reason not to appeal and see what they put in the evidence pack.
I'm going to drop you a PM in case you would like to be represented.
The evidence shows the repeater sign only. I took this photo today of the main sign.
https://imgur.com/a/90yogKe (https://imgur.com/a/90yogKe)
-
They also added the NTO and other letters I have already uploaded at the start of the thread.
They also uploaded the parking order for the road and an amendment to that order.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Map
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Notes from case
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Informal appeal
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
case Report
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
PCN evidence
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Evidence is in
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The authority have a fundamental problem in that they fail to understand and use the mandated 28-day period in all of their letters.
And whether an owner is 'detrimented' (aaagh!) don't enter into it. '28 days from' is glaringly wrong and as they've used this in the NOR should ensure you win on procedural grounds alone:
6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the representations, its decision notice—
(a)must—
(i)state that a charge certificate may be served on the recipient unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice—
(aa)the penalty charge is paid, or
(bb)the recipient appeals to an adjudicator against the penalty charge,
NOT 28 days from.
These differences are not 'minimal', they're fundamental.
-
Ok thanks. We’ve done that.
Will post back here once we have more info.
-
@lofi234 we always recommend you just register the appeal with "I rely on my formal representations in the first instance" and wait and see if the council contests, and what evidence they provide. There is literally zero to be gained from showing your hand first.
With the traffic penalty tribunal everything is done online from start to finish, you just need to go to https://foam.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/ to register the appeal.
Once you have the council evidence (assuming they contest) post it on here and we'll take a look.
-
Ok understood. Thanks for the offer but I don’t want representation.
For this adjudication phase my understanding is it’s all done online?
Has anyone got any advice for the adjudication phase. Specifically are there previous cases I can use as examples of the procedural impropriety leading to the PCN being invalid. I believe Tunbridge Wells have history of issues in this area.
Cheers.
-
Of they disagree with appeal we wouldn’t go any further. Mainly due to time and effort vs reward.
The first PCN I fought 16 years ago took me weeks. It was worthwhile even if I had lost; but, I won and the rest is history. If anyone wants to mug me for £130, they have to pay for it. I would take up cp's offer.
-
I mean going as far as and including adjudication but accepting whatever outcome that leads to.
Well adjudication at the tribunal is the end of the line, so you don't really have any choice as you can't take it any further.
If you'd like to be represented at the tribunal please just follow the instructions I sent you.
-
I mean going as far as and including adjudication but accepting whatever outcome that leads to.
I’m not saying we’d accept that nonsense reply from the council.
-
We’re prepared to go as far as the adjudicator. Of they disagree with appeal we wouldn’t go any further. Mainly due to time and effort vs reward.
The whole point of taking the matter to the adjudicator is you disagree with their rejection of your representations. I'm really puzzled, I have to say.
-
We’re prepared to go as far as the adjudicator. Of they disagree with appeal we wouldn’t go any further. Mainly due to time and effort vs reward.
-
For the adjudicator stage do we just submit something very similar to the above appeal. Covering the issues with the PCN?
I believe this council have history of issues with their PCN and have never bothered to fix them. Can I submit any evidence to show they have been told about this before?
We’ve never reached this stage before so any help much appreciated.
-
@lofi234 it's a permit parking area, you can see the PPA sign here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/m6e2EmZQRFLG8WTZA
That being said, the council seems to be in complete disarray, they don't seem to know the difference between a PPA and a CPZ, they've got no evidence of signage (do not point this out to them!), and I suspect that by now the sign is completely engulfed in foliage.
To top it off the discount is not on offer, so there's no reason not to appeal and see what they put in the evidence pack.
I'm going to drop you a PM in case you would like to be represented.
-
Yeah I was perplexed by their response to that.
-
I would say it is TPT time. I expect cp8759 will be along shortly. Omission of statutory text does not equate to making matters easier to understand.
-
Notice of Rejection of Representations
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
This is the text we used for the appeal to the council which has led to the "Notice of Rejection of Representations" letter in the next post.
"I appeal the provided PCN due to multiple procedural improprieties.
The wording used on the PCN did not include legally mandated text and as such is invalid. Specifically, as per The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 the PCN is required to contain the following information:
“(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.”
The PCN also misstates the authority's power to serve a NTO. The PCN states that the authority may serve a NTO 'after 28 days from its[the PCN's] date of service' whereas the regulations state that the authority may serve a NTO once ' b)the period of 28 days specified in the penalty charge notice as the period within which the penalty charge is to be paid has expired without that charge being paid,' (regulation 20(1)(b) refers).
This is also a procedural impropriety.
For this purpose, it is immaterial that the PCN's wording adds a day to the mandated period, the meaning of this period is required to be conveyed accurately and not unilaterally amended by the authority or their agent.
Given that these are formal representations whose grounds demonstrate substantive failures on the part of the authority, then I should be grateful if whoever considers them takes legal advice and does not simply respond to the effect that the wording must be compliant because it's been agreed by the enforcement authority.
I would also like to raise the inappropriate use of road markings within this area marked as residents only. Larger sections of the area contain single yellow road lines which would indicate parking restrictions and areas without yellow markings indicating unrestricted parking. The vehicle in question was not parked on any road markings and as such it was assumed the restrictions only applied to the areas marked with yellow lines. Can it be clarified what purpose the road markings have in this area as they seem to have no purpose other than to be confusing to the average road user."
-
First Rejection letter:
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Hi,
This is something I was getting support with on the other forum so we're already as far as a "Notice of Rejection of Representations" which came today. So we're at the stage where we can appeal to the Parking adjudicator.
I will add all the scans in subsequent posts so please bear with me.
The background is as follows. My partner parked on the road to pick up the kids from school. She knew there were parking restrictions in place but the road has double yellow lines in large sections. She parked where there are no road markings, assuming the restrictions only cover the marked areas. It's a residential parking zone and we have subsequently found out that road markings are not required.
Her first informal appeal was that the road markings are confusing and she was not parked on any yellow lines as per their own evidence (photos). This was rejected.
The more formal appeal was more based around missing information on the PCN. This was rejected by letter today.
I will scan and add the various letters next. Any help for the adjudicator stage would be much appreciated.
Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/p2BTyf56uB92yjqGA (https://maps.app.goo.gl/p2BTyf56uB92yjqGA)
[attachment deleted by admin]