Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: LondonTraveller84 on May 06, 2024, 03:32:01 pm
-
have you got that in writing? if not then do so.
Hi, Yes I received a letter shortly after, Should I keep hold of this for a x period of time before I can discard?
-
have you got that in writing? if not then do so.
-
All a quick update, good news! 2 days before the adjudication hearing, I had a call to let me know the issuing council will no longer be taking this forward, so the incorrect signage was sufficient enough to counter this PCN
-
There is a deadline after which you usually cannot enter any more evidence, but you don't have to inform the council, it is done by London Tribunals, who will pass you their evidence pack so you can read their case.
-
OP, IMO there are several glaring procedural improprieties in the NOR which can be added to your appeal once registered.
HC Anderson - May I ask what additional procedureal improprieties that you are referring to are?
Incandescent - Noted, I thought the information has to be sent to council also so they can see and make a defence, if we were to add prior to the hearing date then surely this is not possible? Also surely it makes sense to just add all the points in one go? Will 'I rely on my formal representations' be sufficient for the adjudicator :O
-
OP, IMO there are several glaring procedural improprieties in the NOR which can be added to your appeal once registered.
-
Any news with your case? did you take it to the tribunal?
I have a similar PCN for not registering the free session with the app, because I missed the small letter on the notice. My appeal was rejected and wondering if I should go down the 'official representation' road or just pay the reduced 40£ fine...
If you want advice, please start your own thread. However you can observe this one if you want.
-
Any news with your case? did you take it to the tribunal?
I have a similar PCN for not registering the free session with the app, because I missed the small letter on the notice. My appeal was rejected and wondering if I should go down the 'official representation' road or just pay the reduced 40£ fine...
-
Well, with no re-offer of the discount, it is a complete no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals as the penalty does not increase, and there are no additional costs. Their letter of refusal gives instructions on registering an appeal at London Tribunals. All you need do at this stage is to state for your appeal "I rely on my formal representations" You can add things in later before the hearing date if necessary, which is normally by phone.
-
Just nudging this one up :) any thoughts
-
Understood! have re-added and love the way you've worded that additional section... If this doesn't over turn the appeal god knows what will, hopefully will be sending this all across tonight.
In most cases the council refuses the representations and we have to appeal to London Tribunals, but frankly if this case is argued properly you can't lose. Just let us know if you get a notice of rejection from the council, and don't be tempted by the discount if they reoffer it.
So looks like the council discard my appeal and points I made, and ignored the fact their signage was incorrect! Their take is I should have paid online simple as.. Adjudication it will have to be.. Question is waht more can I add to adjudication if my points already covered the fact the signange stated a machine was, but there wasnt, by which point the ticket had been placed.
https://imgur.com/a/PdmrG06
Please do let me know how to go about this, as its the first time, a bit daunting..
Do you guys think the council actually check this forum to find and assist them in responding to appeals (ie premempting and knowing what our case will be and all reason discussed)?
-
Understood! have re-added and love the way you've worded that additional section... If this doesn't over turn the appeal god knows what will, hopefully will be sending this all across tonight.
In most cases the council refuses the representations and we have to appeal to London Tribunals, but frankly if this case is argued properly you can't lose. Just let us know if you get a notice of rejection from the council, and don't be tempted by the discount if they reoffer it.
-
Understood! have re-added and love the way you've worded that additional section... If this doesn't over turn the appeal god knows what will, hopefully will be sending this all across tonight.
I've taken a photo of the road that shows no visible machines, also have taken a photo of the machine on the side road, but as it says not in use etc should I avoid attaching this - https://imgur.com/a/ccVcYf6
-
No, it's for your reps.
No, don't abandon the wrong contravention angle, it just gets introduced ...
..in any event, even if the Ts and Cs of use, which the driver subsequently understands require a P&D ticket to be obtained at a cost of £0.00, were conveyed the contravention grounds are incorrect: in short the council are demanding a penalty of up to £80 on the basis that a ticket was not purchased for the sum of £0.00. There are several adjudication decisions on councils' attempts to pursue a penalty on this basis, including the following: *****.
The authority will notice that the council against which the adjudicator ruled in this case was Redbridge. It should therefore follow that officers would consider the driver's initial representations against this framework. However, as far as I can see from your reply dated *** the authority disregarded this decision which IMO constitutes a procedural impropriety, which is my second grounds of representation.
But wait for the views of others.
-
In order to pre-empt any attempt by the council to deny their duty under the regulations, the fact that there was a phone option, which presumably carried the Ts and Cs on which the council rely, is not a defence available to them because paying at the machine was a lawful alternative. It could never be the duty of the driver to search for a machine - effectively to 'traipse the streets' (which is an expression used by adjudicators on this point)- and then, in its absence, to use a phone(even assuming one was held) to discover these terms. The duty lies with the council who, having placed this traffic sign, were obligated to ensure that a machine was placed accordingly.
This bit was more for the forum response correct, ie I would not be including this?
-
Thank you for providing a much better worded letter to work with, world of a difference compared to mine. This will go to the council again, only after this I believe if rejected it'll go for another appeal to the independant adjudicator.
As the NTO is addressed and has to be responded by the owner of the car (Father), the letter will have to refer to me as a 3rd person, unless I add a cover letter from father giving me permission being the driver of the car.
Lastly am I to discard and leave out the entire case around referring to the case 2210237357 and incorrect contravention code used?
-
You are making formal reps, so start with:
I am making formal representations against PCN ****** on the following grounds:
The alleged contravention did not occur;
Procedural impropriety.
Contravention
As is shown in the council's photos, the traffic sign which conveys the restriction gives the following information:
Pay by phone or
'Pay at machine'; an arrow conveying that the machine to be used is to the left; Display ticket;
Presumably this machine would have conveyed the detailed terms and conditions which, according to the council, included a requirement to obtain a free ticket. However, as the council will know there isn't a machine which can be consulted by a driver. In my case, my search for a machine took me considerably outside the parking place, **including crossing the road. I did locate a machine at **** but I could not be confident that this and its conditions applied to where I was parked. Please see my recent photos** attached to prove the above.[ I even enquired in adjacent shops [I don't know whether to include this, did the CEO see you coming out of the shop]
It follows that the council has not conveyed the restriction as is their duty under the applicable regulations(s18 applies: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made) and therefore there was no contravention of the restriction.
In order to pre-empt any attempt by the council to deny their duty under the regulations, the fact that there was a phone option, which presumably carried the Ts and Cs on which the council rely, is not a defence available to them because paying at the machine was a lawful alternative. It could never be the duty of the driver to search for a machine - effectively to 'traipse the streets' (which is an expression used by adjudicators on this point)- and then, in its absence, to use a phone(even assuming one was held) to discover these terms. The duty lies with the council who, having placed this traffic sign, were obligated to ensure that a machine was placed accordingly.
As a base for discussion. But I cannot put words into your mouth or invent things which did not happen, therefore unless 'I' applies, you should refer to matters in the third person as in 'a driver cannot be expected' etc.
-
Looks like I was searching and using the site wrong! first time, so thank for showing me the correct way to search. Looks like the wordings used was exactly that of the Adjudicator, so I can reference as I have done in my rep :)
-
Only issue is I am unable to find the case ref mentioned on the London Tribunal :/ maybe searching incorrectly
It's there: go to
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
Click on 'Access Statutory Registers'
scroll down to
Environment and Traffic Adjudicators (ETA)
and on down to and click on 'Search'
Enter case number in first box, scroll down and hit search, and voila
1 Case(s) found
Case Reference Date Registered Surname Forename Company Enforcing Authority PCN PCN Location Latest Outcome Date Outcome
2210237357 10/05/2021 Carmody John - London Borough of Redbridge AF87600097 Gaysham Avenue 24/06/2021 Appeal allowed
Hit the case reference.
-
HC Anderson, would the following be sufficent
*** Start of Rep *****
I would request Redbridge council review the my representation seriously rather than dismissing it as they have done, the PCN has been issued without following procedure/policy correctly on a number of grounds, presented below
Case 1: No Machine.
I had exited vehicle to make payment using the machine and determine Ts and Cs, one of the options available as per the signage on post (attached evidence).
Having followed the direction shown for where the machine can be found, unfortunately I was unable to find any machine (attached evidence). I crossed over and checked both sides of the road, further enquiry with passersby, I was told that the machine is actually in the opposite direction to that shown on the signage, at the start of the X road. Not only was there no machine, the PCN observation would have made it practically impossible based on the above to make payment via a machine within the time the PCN was issued.
Case 2: Incorrect Contravention
In my initial appeal I highlighted this and it seems Redbridge council has decided to ignore this point completely without considering it. Therefore I would like you to refer to case 2210237357 at the London Tribunal with the enforcing authority also being Redbridge! where a PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in X at X am on X 2021 without payment of the parking charge.
In the exact words of the adjudicator “The appeal was allowed because the PCN was issued for the wrong contravention. A vehicle cannot be parked without payment of the parking charge when no charge is payable. The PCN should have been issued for the alleged contravention of being parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.”
This is exactly the same situation in my case with the PCN issued for the wrong contravention, as rightly stated ‘A vehicle cannot be parked without payment of the parking charge when no charge is payable’
*** End of rep ***
Only issue is I am unable to find the case ref mentioned on the London Tribunal :/ maybe searching incorrectly
-
Understood let me draft up my rep based on the above and post it today for review..
-
The wrong place is that unless there's a machine then the driver is left in limbo as to what to do if they wish to use this method in preference to using the phone which they are perfectly entitled to do. Their enquiries could even extend to going into an adjacent shop to ask!
Without the evidence of a P&D machine with its associated Ts and Cs, then how the hell is a driver supposed to know what to do?
Taking the sign issues further, IMO they must know that there isn't a contravention for this restriction because non-display of itself is not concrete evidence of not paying. What it appears they should have done, as suggested, is to remove reference to the P&D, but as long as it's there then the missing machine is the starting point before you get to paying or not paying because these details only become apparent from Ts and Cs on a missing machine!
-
Read this case 2210237357
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in Gaysham Avenue at 11.32am on 5 March 2021 without payment of the parking charge.
The CEO's images show that Mr Carmody's vehicle was parked with a pay and display ticket displayed in the windscreen. The ticket was valid from 11.27am to 12.27pm. The vehicle registration had not been completed. It is not in dispute that there was an hour's free parking at this location with the display of a pay and display ticket.
I allow the appeal because the PCN was issued for the wrong contravention. A vehicle cannot be parked without payment of the parking charge when no charge is payable. The PCN should have been issued for the alleged contravention of being parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.
The circumstances are not identical, but the reason for allowing the appeal are. You did not fail to pay as there was nothing to pay, you failed to display or register but that is a different contravention
HCAnderson - Would referring to this case also as a second defence be a strong case? or should I avoid and stick to the sign and no pay adn display machine?
-
So if you can prove this point then you're starting in the wrong place with your argument.
Thank you for your advice and guidance, slightly confused by the above, if i prove there is no machine, its a wrong argument?
For the evidence to support there being no machine, I can only really take a video (doubt I can attach to apeal), so really only a picture showing the length of the road/footpath to capture no visible machine, or is there another way? If so I'll try take this today, so I can attach to rep tomororw.
Noted, will stay away from the point around timing, rather maybe include as a side point in rep at the end, although their policy states no observation time is required. I could make it a rep that their policy is flawed or unfair if one was to get a ticket from the machine.
-
The evidence shows a traffic sign giving optional means to pay. Each is therefore valid. There is an arrow indicating the direction of the machine.
This is hard evidence.
You now say that there isn't a machine within the parking place in the direction indicated, but haven't posted evidence in support. GSV and other map sources are not contemporaneous evidence.
So if you can prove this point then you're starting in the wrong place with your argument.
You have until 10 July to make formal reps. If you don't want this to drag out into an appeal then you need to have a clear argument supported by evidence.
And pl get away from the focus on obs period unless you saw the CEO the first moment they arrived at your car because an obs time isn't required on a PCN and their notes are likely to show that they did observe as required. You could add to reps that the obs time on the PCN suggests that council policy wasn't followed, but don't make it the main plank of your defence pl.
-
Just to add to this, I had a look at the sign, which states you can pay by machine also (i think they were supposed to cover this section as they've done on other boards due to the removal of many machines), see attached - https://imgur.com/a/HztlvHk
The direction it points to though there were no machines and neither across the road, the machine is on the side road, thus having to come back past the car within this period the CEO would issue a ticket as Redbridge policy is 0 minute observation for P&D.
I think I have two grounds
1st - Not given sufficient time to pay at the machine, they could argue the ownes is on me to ensure a ticket is in place before exiting the car, near impossible if one was to pay at the machine.
2nd ground - Wrong contravenetion code, as it was suggested earlier in this thread, but I think I'll need something to back this up rather then my own take on it.
-
My rep was as follows:
1. The warden had said to me there was a 2 minute observation period before issuing a PCN, however it can be seen he had only observed for less then 1 minute, with the PCN itself only showing 1 minute start and end observation.
2. The ticket has been issued with an incorrect contravention code, as a vehicle cannot be "parked without payment of the parking charge" when no charge is applicable (as the first hour is free), therefore the PCN should have been issued for the alleged contravention of being "parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket". The borough of Redbridge is familar with this has I have seen pervious cases with similar scenario that have reached an independant adjudicator who accepted the wrong code was used resulting in cancellation of the PCN and appeal being accepted. Therefore I will be taking this further to the independant appeal process if this is rejected, with reference to such cases to aid the appeal."
There are no parking machines near the bays on the road (have been removed), although there is one at the beginning of the side road, just a tad bit further up. See https://imgur.com/a/1nzl6xB, shows where I was parked and x is where the machine is - Although it has a different pay and display number/code, so not sure what the parking rules are around this, ie can you pay at a different machine/code that is associated to a different road?
-
Thanks.
Where are your reps? What have you already conceded to the authority as regards what you did on the day?
'Must pay as soon as you park' is tosh given that paying at a machine is an option and therefore this machine has to be consulted to determine Ts and Cs. But the photos suggest that machines are situated within the parking place, therefore IMO on this point the issue is one of leaving the parking place.
-
But until your initial reps and their response - including rationale- are in play we don't know what ground has been given by either side.
Please see attached PCN and Initial resp to my appeal, which I posted on this thread May 07, 2024, 03:52:44.
PCN/Resp: https://imgur.com/a/7TWX3Kw
From what I can tell it seems the most solid case would be around the wrong contravention code but how would I make it a solid and backed up case, happy to add anything else
I'm looking to respond by 8th, as I asked the council about the +2 days in respect to the 28 days, they were like no, so guess rather play it safe then sorry.
-
NTO dated and posted 11 June - reps window closes on 10 July.
As regards your posts, your initial reps and their response have disappeared. Pl repost.
Can we get back to the restriction and what evidence the CEO would need to produce. In this respect, would you pl forget about the photos and what they show. You are mistaking the beginning of obs with the time of the first photo when there's nothing to suggest it's a valid assumption. Indeed, it would be common-sense to first observe and check the windscreen for a valid P&D otherwise the CEO would be photographing every car they saw.
A logical sequence would be:
Check for P&D; if not visible then
Check HHC for 'by phone' bookings; then if none found
Take photos.
I've set matters out in this way because IMO it's your way into the approach you should take in your reps.
But until your initial reps and their response - including rationale- are in play we don't know what ground has been given by either side.
-
Hi All,
Just giving this a nudge, to see if there's any suggestions I can add to my initial appeal, in my response to the NTO? otherwise it'll be the same response going back to the council.
-
Hi All,
Sorry for the radio silence, I received the rejected appeal to PCN as expected and also the NTO, which I have around 4-5 days to respond to, see attached links for all including initial PCN.
Would I be responding with the same points I made on the appeal or can I add to it to support my case further?
https://imgur.com/a/hpMZdHh
-
@LondonTraveller84 it hardly matters what you say at the informal stage, really it's only at the tribunal that you get a fair hearing, but we must go through the motions. Send the representation off and let's see what comes back.
-
The case is a London tribunals case and can be found on their website The enforcing authority in that case was also Redbridge so they should know better
Sure will check, so would the appeal summary I've written below be sufficient and should I reference the said case in it or leave it?
"I would like my PCN Cancelled as the contravention code on two basis
1. The warden had said to me there was a 2 minute observation period before issuing a PCN, however it can be seen he had only observed for less then 1 minute, with the PCN itself only showing 1 minute start and end observation.
2. The ticket has ben issued with an incorrect contravention code, as a vehicle cannot be "parked without payment of the parking charge" when no charge is applicable (as the first hour is free), therefore the PCN should have been issued for the alleged contravention of being parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.. The borough of Redbridge is familar with this has I have seen pervious cases with similar scenario that have reached an independant adjudicator who accepted the wrong code was used resulting in cancellation of the PCN and appeal being accepted. Therefore I will be taking this further to the independant appeal process if this is rejected, with reference to such cases to aid the appeal."
I am 101% confident they will reject this, as Ive noticed may councils do, currently have one that I have recieved a notice for (will be posting seperatly) where Newham council have rejected a appeal without looking into it properly!
-
The case is a London tribunals case and can be found on their website The enforcing authority in that case was also Redbridge so they should know better
-
Pastmybest. Understood, so really my appeal should be that the ticket should be cancelled because it was issued under the wrong contravention code?
Although I didn't pay at all, where as in that case you listed, a ticket was paid and displayed (not sure if the finer details) - how would I find that case, is it a search on a official external website?
-
Read this case 2210237357
This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in Gaysham Avenue at 11.32am on 5 March 2021 without payment of the parking charge.
The CEO's images show that Mr Carmody's vehicle was parked with a pay and display ticket displayed in the windscreen. The ticket was valid from 11.27am to 12.27pm. The vehicle registration had not been completed. It is not in dispute that there was an hour's free parking at this location with the display of a pay and display ticket.
I allow the appeal because the PCN was issued for the wrong contravention. A vehicle cannot be parked without payment of the parking charge when no charge is payable. The PCN should have been issued for the alleged contravention of being parked without displaying a valid pay and display ticket.
The circumstances are not identical, but the reason for allowing the appeal are. You did not fail to pay as there was nothing to pay, you failed to display or register but that is a different contravention
-
As you put it I guess the version does not go down well, in hindsight lesson learnt I should have paid before even leaving the car as I had no reason not to pay, it's free, why would anyone not pay.. the only mistake was it wasn't paid instantly, rather I took the person that I was with into the shop out of courtesy, in admist getting them settled, I remembered the ticket (although within a minute still), then came back out to check and pay. Had it been after 20 minutes taht I guess the question could be asked why?
I guess what I am trying to understand is, should there have been an observation period or not, as the CEO said he observed for 2 minutes, which he didn't and the ticket also states the same time? would this be enough to cancel teh ticket?
-
You parked; you left the car park to go to a shop; you exited the shop then saw the CEO.
So which version would the council/adjudicator buy?
As per your account, but if 'has to be booked via the app or phone,' then why were you returning to the car anyway? But as you were, perhaps to leave, then what did you gain from only being parked for, according to you, a few minutes.
I seem to recollect a similar 'free' time-limited parking in an on-street case but in that case a ticket had to be obtained and displayed and the adjudicator
found that the 'pay' in 'pay and display' covered '£0.00.
But this is 'simply' non-payment of the parking charge.
Would the same principle apply?
-
But you didn't fail to pay, you paid the required sum £0 but you did fail to display a different contravention code 06 Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher
If you're referring to paying as booking (ie via the Ringo App) then this was not done, as the ticket had been issued by this point.
-
As I left the car, I had entered the shop just ahead with a friend, then came back out to make payment (ie book the free hour), at which point I saw the inspector giving the ticket, I ran up to him to explain i was about to book, but he had said it was too late as he had given the ticket and had apparently observed for 2 minutes, at this point I then saw no need to pay as it would have had no benefit or changed the course or events, although maybe having now thought about it, it could have come in handy in my defence?
-
I had made a note of the parking number, had exited and walked up, as I was about to book, ...
So, at what time did you actually book? You must have continued to do this because you didn't know the PCN had been issued until you returned.
For all the CEO knew, the driver bought their parking rights 10 seconds after they consulted their HHC.
-
But you didn't fail to pay, you paid the required sum £0 but you did fail to display a different contravention code 06 Parked without clearly displaying a valid pay & display ticket or voucher
-
All,
I recieved a PCN on 23rd (Code 11 Parked without payment of the parking charge), think either today or will it be tomororw for my last day to appeal?, it was pay and display with the first hour free, although has to be booked via the app or phone,
I had made a note of the parking number, had exited and walked up, as I was about to book, the inspector had already slapped a ticket, in under 1 minute. Attached is the PCN, on which it shows the first photo at 13:37:21 and las with ticket at 13:38:04 (43 seconds), although the PCN when viewed online show approx.
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-1721.DPNyX1
https://tinypic.host/image/IMG-1722.DPXBpG
Googling, it seems to say that the observationt time is 0, (https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/media/11362/parking-enforcement-policy.pdf - page 7) although the inspector had said observed for 2 minutes before ticketing but the ticket was given within 43 seconds or less based on photos.
Any thoughts on what reason or if any valid reason to appeal this?