Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: EVMGK on July 09, 2023, 09:50:02 pm
-
I would write to the tribunal asking for a clerical revision, specifically for the reference to The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 to be replaced with a reference to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022.
As for costs, the adjudicator found as a fact that you were in contravention, in such circumstances I see no chance of you getting a costs award. If you want to have a go anyway, just make an estimate of how much time you've spent on the matter since you received the notice of rejection. Whatever amount of time you have spent on this (including taking part in the hearing), you claim £19 an hour.
-
Case reference: 2230400654
Any rough indications on how much I should try to claim for?
-
As something for the future perhaps..
The order presented in evidence does NOT designate any of the parking places listed - looks like the whole borough - as parking for EVs only, it simply designates them as parking places. The EV link presumably comes from its references to specific articles in 'the order of 2010', but that order isn't in evidence as far as I can see.
-
What's the case number please?
-
Judgement was passed in my favour;
Thanks all, much appreciated with the assistance :)
any examples for cost request? It says to provide evidence to cost which may assist the acceptance? Time for research I can provide logs?
-
They use the hourly rate prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules for litigants in person, which is set by statute at £19 an hour, see para 3.4 here: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-46-costs-special-cases/practice-direction-46-costs-special-cases#3.1
It might seem arbitrary, because it is, but if courts and tribunals had to start determining what an individual is worth an entire branch of law would grow out of that, so The Civil Procedure Rule Committee has decided to just set an amount and that's that.
-
How do they decide the rate? I mean do they not take into account time taken to fight the tickets or to research? I thought they might take into account roughly a persons per hour rate (optimistic thinking) would probably force the industry to function properly if they could end up being made to pay out
-
If you go to the hearing centre (which does stay open on Thursday evening and Saturday morning), you get travel time to the tribunal and back, plus the time you spend in the hearing itself.
-
Find their new response which they have uploaded ahead of the tribunal; quite a few contradictions mainly the appendix stating times allowed in bays on Macaulay road “3 hours” where as signage states 4 hours. Not relevant to my case but does show they fail to maintain accurate documentation on their Local Parking zones
This is Lambeth, no great surprise that the muppets are still trying it on, even though they are on a loser.
Probably a good time to add a couple of points. Both PIs
Failure to consider.... they totally ignore that the very thing you are cited for failing to do was happening.
Taking a step not allowed... trying to enforce a contravention by citing something not alleged on the PCN, ie overstaying your welcome
Being muppets... though unfortunately that is not a PI and probably should not be said.
Assuming they actually do not DNC, ask for costs the moment the adjudicator dismisses the PCN.
Words like Wholly Unreasonable and vexatious are good to use.
Have some figures in your head, ie 5 hours at £19 per hour.... which is about the limit an adjudicator is likely to accept for a lay person defending themselves.
Time is allowed for research, investigations, preparing and writing appeal but it ain't a great deal.
-
And then a claim for cost after the adjudicators decision as this has taken a fair bit of time
-
To be honest the council's evidence pack is built around the fact that your were parked for longer than permitted, which is irrelevant because that's not the contravention on the PCN.
All you need to do is explain to the adjudicator that your car was in fact charging, and that should be the end of the matter. This is the sort of appeal where you should be in and out in five minutes (if that).
-
Yes, I have; any tips based on their preliminary pack would be appreciated
-
Have you requested a hearing?
-
Find their new response which they have uploaded ahead of the tribunal; quite a few contradictions mainly the appendix stating times allowed in bays on Macaulay road “3 hours” where as signage states 4 hours. Not relevant to my case but does show they fail to maintain accurate documentation on their Local Parking zones
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Can we see the other page please?
If you want to appeal yourself make sure to request a hearing, failing to do so can lead to this sort of disaster (http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149680). Also it's entirely a matter for you, but I should make you aware that we do see cases that end up like this (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/warwickshire-cc-pcn-code-24-not-within-markings-of-bay-lakin-road-warwick/).
If you're happy to carry on yourself, I'd suggest you register the appeal with "I rely on my formal representations" and wait for the council evidence pack before making any detailed submissions.
-
Please find the Notice of Rejection. No, I should be fine at tribunal, wouldn’t be surprised if they don’t contest at trial
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Please post up the rejection. Would you like representation at the tribunal?
-
Got the letter today saying they rejected the formal appeal with the exact same reason as from the informal appeal. Time to take it to the adjudicators
-
I appreciate that it’s quite waffly, will look to refine it. Should I keep the indicative statement regarding cost aligned with my time? I found it annoying as it could have ended at the informal point
Frankly I would go with DancingDad's draft, it says everything that needs to be said.
-
I appreciate that it’s quite waffly, will look to refine it. Should I keep the indicative statement regarding cost aligned with my time? I found it annoying as it could have ended at the informal point
I wouldn't.
If it comes to adjudication (which I doubt) then costs can be claimed and TBH, though a high bar, would expect an adjudicator to agree.
Alternatively, even if they cancel at NTO stage, you can raise a complaint with council asking for recompense, follow it through to ombudsman and possibly get something.
What won't happen now is that the council will do anything more then reject or accept.
They certainly will not present an apology and a gift voucher.
Keep the challenge clean and to the point, dealing solely with the allegation.
Doing anything else risks diluting the challenge and any chance of costs
-
I appreciate that it’s quite waffly, will look to refine it. Should I keep the indicative statement regarding cost aligned with my time? I found it annoying as it could have ended at the informal point
-
Fully agree with Ugly Duckling, far too waffly, contentious and dilutes the main point.
Dear Sirs
Ref PCN ?????
The vehicle was charging.
This can be seen from the CEO photos which clearly show the green charging light on the charger
As such the alleged contravention did not occur and the PCN must be cancelled.
I look forward to your Notice of Acceptance
Hugs and Kisses
That is all that is needed.
You can add in a comment on that they sought to continue to enforce on another contravention within the informal rejection, a step that is not allowed within the regulations and therefore a Procedural Impropriety, could even throw in that ignoring the main point is a failure to consider.
But these weaken the main point and can be added to better effect if the council reject with the same reasons.
As an aside, it seems that they are seeking to use the underlying contravention in similar ways that some try with time arguments in Disabled Bays, totally ignoring that they could and should have applied a Parked over Permitted Time PCN
-
Far too waffly and misses the key points. If you're certain about your charging status in the photo....
As you can see from your photos, my car was in fact charging when the PCN was issued, a point I made in my earlier representations and which was not challenged by the council in their response dated 5 July. Instead, you sought to defend your CEO and the PCN by stating that the car was parked 'owner(sic) that the 4 hours permitted'.
As regards the contravention this is irrelevant, the contravention is for being parked without charging and your evidence shows that the car was charging. The PCN must therefore be cancelled.
****** I leave it it to you whether you want to add an apology for parking for longer than 4 hours, my own view is that you should but it's not essential.
-
I’ve received the NTO and I am planning for the following response:
The Civil Enforcement officer issued a Contravention Code 14 stating the vehicle was not charging however within the pictures illustrated you can clearly see the colour on the MG is green indicating that it was indeed charging. I do not appreciate the part of the Local Authority to cause me to take time out of my day to fight a ticket for a contravention that did not happen. The lacklustre approach your CEO has taken to not even look at the charging station screen which would have clearly shown the vehicle was currently charging. I await your prompt response, should this exceed the current stage I would like to enquire with the LA as to how I can apply for reimbursement for wasting my time. Here is a link if your 3PT vendor does not understand what the lights mean https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lm4HUY3ggOc&feature=share7 ; I have highlighted in the pictures your CEO took that show the vehicle was charging.
As previously stated, the council has no grounds to enforce any contravention other than the one listed on the NTO and the original PCN which states contravention 14 “Parked in an electric vehicles' charging place during restricted hours without charging”; The LA has no right to append additional context to the accused Contravention 14 to state the charge was longer than is permitted given this would then not be a Contravention 14 but a contravention 30 “Parked for longer than permitted”. The LA only has the authority to implement action based on that which was documented on the original contravention which happens to be Contravention 14; this did not take place as I was clearly charging and have provided the invoice to that effect. I have also attached my own invoice for the lost time attributed to challenging this PCN which could have been avoided had the LA taken the letter of the TMA with regards to prosecution alongside Department for Transport Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions.
-
Yes V5C and address are up to date
-
The Notice of Rejection is drivel and you should 100% wait for the Notice to Owner. The council can only enforce the contravention stated on the PCN, which either occurred or did not occur. The fact that something else might have occurred is irrelevant.
Do you have the V5C and is the address up to date?
-
[attach=1][attach=2][attach=3][attach=4]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The council only gets one shot at issuing the PCN, if they've used the wrong code then they can't fix that at a later stage. Based on what you've said, you should 100% carry on with this.
That being said, please post up the paperwork as there are other things we can check for, see the guidance here: https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
Location: Macaulay Road
Civil Enforcement Officer: LH2380
Who had reason to believe that the following parking contravention had occurred and that a penalty charge is now payable: 14
14 Parked in an electric vehicles charging place during restricted hours without charging
Contested Argument:
The Civil Enforcement officer issued a Contravention Code 14 stating the vehicle was not charging however within the pictures illustrated you can clearly see the colour on the MG is green indicating that it was indeed charging. I do not appreciate the part of the Local Authority to cause me to take time out of my day to fight a ticket for a contravention that did not happen. The lacklustre approach your CEO has taken to not even look at the charging station screen which would have clearly shown the vehicle was currently charging. I await your prompt response, should this exceed the current stage I would like to enquire with the LA as to how I can apply for reimbursement for wasting my time. Here is a link if your 3PT vendor does not understand what the lights mean https://youtube.com/watch?v=Lm4HUY3ggOc&feature=share7 ; I have highlighted in the pictures your CEO took that show the vehicle was charging.
LA Response:
We have clearly considered what you say but have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
You were issued a PCN for parking in a bay for electric vehicles to charge their batteries. There is a sign explaining this. Even if you have an electric vehicle you can only park there if you are charging your battery.
We have noted that you parked to charge your vehicle. The CEO believes that your vehicle parked owner then the 4 hours permitted. Your vehicle was first observed at 09:15 before returning at 14:33 which was when the PCN was issued.
Is it worth further challenging this as the incorrect contravention code was used. This seems more inline with a contravention 30 which would be Parked for longer than permitted. Should I challenge this further or would you recommend conceding and paying given the incorrect contravention code appears to have been used