Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: notagain on May 18, 2024, 07:52:02 pm
-
Outcome here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V0D0u9OfHP9r4iIMAdaNoaUnh2MORLyH/view), I don't see any realistic chance of getting a costs order against the council. The threshold for conduct to be "wholly unreasonable" is incredibly high and this is a rather routine case.
@notagain in order to succeed you'd have to show that the council knew that the PCN had not been served and deliberately chose to pursue the case anyway.
-
Well done for sticking with it. Most people pay-up before they get to the Adjudicator.
As to the costs and compensation. In essence:
the Adjudicator has no power to award compensation for stress or anxiety to either party,
costs and expenses may only be awarded by the adjudicator in very rare circumstances if the adjudicator determines that you or the enforcing authority has acted ‘frivolously’, ‘vexatiously’ or ‘wholly unreasonably’ in bringing or contesting the appeal.
You can read the guidelines (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/costs) for yourself here.
For the financial year ending March 2023 (the last year for which figures are available) awards of costs against Hounslow were £0. Most councils are £0. So it's highly unlikely you will succeed in getting a costs award.
I'd sit back and relax. You won your case. It was a learning experience that you will benefit from going forward. And believe me it is certain that you will get more PCNs in the future as Councils get more and more desperate for cash.
-
Just bumping the thread up.
Would be great if anyone could advise re. compensation as detailed above =
Thanks!
-
Update:
Just got back from the tribunal.
Success!!
I had 3 pages of defence ready, but the adjudicator took only 5 minutes to review the council's bundle and cancel the PCN immediately.
The adjudicator agreed that the PCN was full of inconsistencies and errors. Due to these multiple errors, the council had no credibility. The final ruling was that the PCN was not served.
I now want to explore compensation. It's ridiculous that a CEO can hand out fines with just a registration number. This means they could technically fine cars at will without needing any photographic proof.
CEOs are motivated by financial incentives.
Police officers are motivated by a commitment to public safety and protecting the vulnerable.
The credibility of a police officer cannot be equated to that of a civil enforcement officer. Yet, here we are so willing to accept the words of a CEO without any proof to back it up.
The case caused significant stress to my father, who is disabled with nervous system problems and high blood pressure. He now fears that upsetting anyone who knows a CEO could result in more fines. Additionally, we've spent countless hours dealing with this issue. My appeal to the NtO was clear, and the PCN should have been cancelled at that stage instead of dragging us through this process.
So my question is, does anyone know how to take further action?
And big thank you to all for spending your free time looking into this with me. It's incredible that a bunch of strangers online could be so willing to help.
When I asked the adjudicator rewarding costs and compensation, he made a remark "If this is the worst thing that's happened to you in your life, count yourself lucky" And "Well I've cancelled the PCN, that should be enough". Personally, that's ridiculous. How many people does this happen to? How much stress, and time goes into defending a PCN when the enforcement is unlawful? Why should we tolerate the council's misuse of their authority and their willingness to inconvenience everyday people to such an extent? I absolutely want to make Hounslow council pay; this was extremely unfair.
-
Thanks H C.
The issue here is that my father denies his vehicle ever being present on the road where the contravention occurred.
And I do believe him, not just because he's my father. But because I know how the CEO's in Hounslow conduct themselves.
At this moment, considering the hearing is in 2 hours, I don't think I have any other argument other than to argue the following:
1. PCN Service: No PCN was found on the car; council’s evidence does not prove service other than CEO's account. We deny the vehicle ever being present, therefore deny the PCN being handed to driver. Regulation 10 postal PCN was not issued within the required timeframe IF it's agreed that PCN was technically not served.
When viewing PCN information on the council's portal, the 'key events' section starts with the NtO. If the PCN was correctly served, surely that should be the first key event.
2. Delay in issuing NtO: Council took 4 months to issue NtO without exceptional circumstances, which is unfair and against statutory guidelines (without exceptional circumstances which so far has not been provided).
3. Council inconsistencies in evidcence: Discrepancies in observation times, dates of representations, and rejection letters undermine council’s credibility and evidence.
Depending on how the hearing goes, I will then fall back on requesting an adjournment and asking for the CEO to be present to confirm their account. Then I'll need to reassess from there.
-
OP, as I said..evaluate.
The CEO's notes state that the PCN was served. They explain why only one photo was taken. Nothing to do with PIs and reg. 10 IF their account is correct.
Your father didn't tell you that the CEO was at the vehicle, did they? If they had then all the effort about only one photo would have been explained ages ago.
Yes, there are inconsistencies BOTH as between your father's account and the CEO's and the authority's processes and successive comments.
So, who will the adjudicator believe?
-
So the point of contention is that the CEO says the PCN was handed to the driver, and your father says no PCN was handed to him. This is one of those situations where the adjudicator must decide which person is most credible in his evidence. I would therefore say it is essential your father attend the adjudication. This can, of course, be by phone.
There is, of course, the other element, namely excessive delay in issuing the Notice to Owner.
-
Just looking at the council's rejection of my appeal to their NtO. Photo is in my initial post.
This paragraph specifically
"In regards to evidence of the contravention, photographic evidence is considered as secondary evidence, and is not required to be taken for the PCN to be valid. The CEO makes notes of various details on their handheld computer including the location of the vehicle, how the PCN was served, and whether anything was displayed in the vehicle. In this instance, the information shows that the PCN was correctly issued and served".
The council claim their CEO noted how the PCN was served (must be the HTD in the notes).
But then, clearly distinguish between issued and served in the part I highlighted red.
Again more inconsistencies from the council. Is there anything here? I still think the argument is valid but would be great if someone could clear this up.
-
... The Civil Enforcement Officer's notes in the evidence pack state;
"A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY TO TAKE photos".
Therefore the Council's own evidence shows that no Penalty Charge Notice was actually served on the appellant or his vehicle...
... If you do not understand the point and wish to explore it further then I suggest you request an adjournment at tomorrow's (Monday's) hearing.
Just playing Devil's Advocate but do the CEO's notes say the the driver drove off before the PCN was served?
The note says the driver returned after the PCN had been issued* and drove off before the CEO could photo it. What does "HTD" mean at the beginning of the note?
Seems odd to me that the council would be arguing that the PCN had been handed to the driver if they thought their own CEO's notes contradicted that argument. (OK - I know, it's not odd - they're just incompetent :) )
*I know it says issued and not served but I'm not certain that that note says unambiguously that the driver drove off before it was served. It's open to interpretation...
Hmm I see what you're saying ManxTom, and thanks for looking into this.
HTD means Handed to Driver.
If Driver is handed the PCN before driving off. Technically, has the PCN been served if it's still 'incomplete' and CEO notes they were still taking photos?
And..how would the PCN be classified as being served, if the CEO is basically saying the driver drove off? Doesn't driving off then mean the PCN was not served?
I do think it's still probably one of the stronger arguments I have so far. But I'm a little confused now.
-
... The Civil Enforcement Officer's notes in the evidence pack state;
"A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY TO TAKE photos".
Therefore the Council's own evidence shows that no Penalty Charge Notice was actually served on the appellant or his vehicle...
... If you do not understand the point and wish to explore it further then I suggest you request an adjournment at tomorrow's (Monday's) hearing.
Just playing Devil's Advocate but do the CEO's notes say the the driver drove off before the PCN was served?
The note says the driver returned after the PCN had been issued* and drove off before the CEO could photo it. What does "HTD" mean at the beginning of the note?
Seems odd to me that the council would be arguing that the PCN had been handed to the driver if they thought their own CEO's notes contradicted that argument. (OK - I know, it's not odd - they're just incompetent :) )
*I know it says issued and not served but I'm not certain that that note says unambiguously that the driver drove off before it was served. It's open to interpretation...
-
The 2007 regs have been superceded by those of 2022.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/contents
Look at Regulation 10(2)(c)
@Incandescent, I'm grateful for that information.
Seems to me that the situation is not any different. There has been a "Procedural Impropriety" on the part of the Council.
The Civil Enforcement Officer's notes in the evidence pack state;
"A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY To TAKE photos".
Therefore the Council's own evidence shows that no Penalty Charge Notice was actually served on the appellant or his vehicle.
As such the Council may have had justification to serve a postal Penalty charge Notice under regulation 10 of the The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, paragraph 10(2)(c).
The case progression log confirms that the Council never issued any such Regulation 10 Penalty Charge Notice. And certainly not within the 28 days stipulated by regulation 10(6) of the regulations.
10(2) An enforcement authority may give notification of the penalty charge by serving a penalty charge notice by post where—
(a).....
(b).....
(c)a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice to be given in accordance with regulation 9, but the vehicle concerned was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or had given it in accordance with regulation 9.
(3).....
(4).....
(5).....
(6) Subject to paragraph (8), an enforcement authority may not give a penalty charge notice under this regulation after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the contravention date (“the 28-day period”).
No such PCN has been lawfully served and is therefore unenforceable and null and void.
@notagain
See what others might have to add.
However I suggest that the above is your strongest argument.
If you do not understand the point and wish to explore it further then I suggest you request an adjournment at tomorrow's (Monday's) hearing.
Enceladus, massive thank you for this. I fully understand the point. I'm in the process of writing up our defence and this will be the first argument I rely upon. Hearing is at 12PM tomorrow.
I'm reading some of the references you and others have posted here, so may have a few more questions in due course.
Thanks again!
-
The 2007 regs have been superceded by those of 2022.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/contents
Look at Regulation 10(2)(c)
@Incandescent, I'm grateful for that information.
Seems to me that the situation is not any different. There has been a "Procedural Impropriety" on the part of the Council.
The Civil Enforcement Officer's notes in the evidence pack state;
"A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY TO TAKE photos".
Therefore the Council's own evidence shows that no Penalty Charge Notice was actually served on the appellant or his vehicle.
As such the Council may have had justification to serve a postal Penalty charge Notice under regulation 10 of the The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022, paragraph 10(2)(c).
The case progression log confirms that the Council never issued any such Regulation 10 Penalty Charge Notice. And certainly not within the 28 days stipulated by regulation 10(6) of the regulations.
10(2) An enforcement authority may give notification of the penalty charge by serving a penalty charge notice by post where—
(a).....
(b).....
(c)a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice to be given in accordance with regulation 9, but the vehicle concerned was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or had given it in accordance with regulation 9.
(3).....
(4).....
(5).....
(6) Subject to paragraph (8), an enforcement authority may not give a penalty charge notice under this regulation after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the contravention date (“the 28-day period”).
No such PCN has been lawfully served and is therefore unenforceable and null and void.
@notagain
See what others might have to add.
However I suggest that the above is your strongest argument.
If you do not understand the point and wish to explore it further then I suggest you request an adjournment at tomorrow's (Monday's) hearing.
-
OK I've found the log and notes. I believe there is a procedural impropriety.
The notes say "A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY To TAKE photos"
The above mentioned PCN is a Regulation 9 PCN which are served on-site by attaching to the windscreen or handing to the driver. But it wasn't served as the driver drove the car away before it could be served. That's what the notes say.
So the correct procedure would have been to serve a Regulation 10 PCN on the Registered Keeper within 28 days. They did not do so, if they had done so then it should be in the log. Instead they waited nearly 4 months and served a Notice to Owner. This is not the correct procedure.
Please see here. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/10/made#:~:text=Penalty%20charge%20notices%20%E2%80%94%20service%20by%20post&text=(3)%20A%20regulation%2010%20penalty,the%20penalty%20charge%20is%20payable.) Perhaps somebody can confirm that Regulation 10 has not been superseded?
Thanks for looking into this sir - yes the notes were in my initial post.
RE: Case progression history etc. the closest thing I could find in the bundle was the following
(https://i.imgur.com/ZXpvpTU.jpeg)
-
The 2007 regs have been superceded by those of 2022.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/contents
Look at Regulation 10(2)(c)
-
OK I've found the log and notes. I believe there is a procedural impropriety.
The notes say "A WC DS PT NLS UL NVDD NDBD HTD OS 376 DRIVER RETURNED AFTER ISSUED PCN AND DROVE OFF WHILE GETTING READY To TAKE photos"
The above mentioned PCN is a Regulation 9 PCN which are served on-site by attaching to the windscreen or handing to the driver. But it wasn't served as the driver drove the car away before it could be served. That's what the notes say.
So the correct procedure would have been to serve a Regulation 10 PCN on the Registered Keeper within 28 days. They did not do so, if they had done so then it should be in the log. Instead they waited nearly 4 months and served a Notice to Owner. This is not the correct procedure.
Please see here. (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2007/3483/regulation/10/made#:~:text=Penalty%20charge%20notices%20%E2%80%94%20service%20by%20post&text=(3)%20A%20regulation%2010%20penalty,the%20penalty%20charge%20is%20payable.) Perhaps somebody can confirm that Regulation 10 has not been superseded?
-
Is there a copy of the Civil Enforcement Officer's notes in the evidence pack? If so, please post up a photo or scan of the notes?
Is there a case progression history/log or an analogously titled document? Please let's have a look at that.
-
H C Anderson, thank you for taking the time!
I actually totally missed that first paragraph of the case summary. That’s another thing they’ve been inconsistent with then. I will be sure to point that out tomorrow.
And yes, I cannot say I know what happened. And I do understand your remarks about the council and their CEO. But it’s my dad - if it’s his fault, he’ll admit to it and ask if there’s a way out. Otherwise he’d pay.
Correct me if I’m wrong but I would argue the following supports my dad’s claims.
1. No picture of my dads car in any of the evidences, so cannot prove/disprove the displaying of blue badge.
2. ‘First events’ of PCN, shown on councils portal when viewing evidence, claims first event was the NtO being issued in March. Not the handed to driver PCN occurring allegedly in November.
3. General inconsistencies such as how long vehicle was observed for
Let me know what you think. And thank you again.
-
Incandescent, this is great, thank you for the advice and the reference!
With regards to the only picture being the signage, and this inconsistency where their PCN says 12 mins observed but they say 5 mins on the court bundle - is there any defence I can explore here?
Thank you!
-
Read the first para. of their Case Summary:
The PCN was issued because...'..the vehicle was parked ..in a pay by phone bay beyond the expiry of a parking session.'
WTF is this all about?
And OP, pl be realistic. If you were not in the car then you don't know what happened. You found out in May 2024 about matters which occurred in Nov. 2023.
So, while I can understand your desire to help, just accepting everything you're told isn't any different to the council accepting their CEO's notes and account.
Consider examine and evaluate pl, don't just accept everything you're told as being Gospel.
-
Two things come to mind immediately: -
1. Possible non-service of PCN
Service of a PCN is fundamental to the whole process. Without such service, every subsequent enforcement action is a nullity. Your father claims no PCN was found on the car, and the council claim that the CEO notes say "handed to driver" which he denies. In this case, it is who is believed, your father or the CEO, so it is imperative your father attends the adjudication to emphasise this. It may be that at the adjudication you ask for an adjournment so that the CEO is made to attend the adjudication to confirm that this is what occurred.
2. Late delivery of NtO
The council have been extremely tardy in issuing the NtO. The law expects that councils act promtly and fairly when administering the enforcement process. Here they haven't.
This is what the Statutory Guidance on Parking (Oct 2022) says on issuing the Notice to Owner: -
Issuing the notice to owner
If the penalty charge is not paid the enforcement authority may issue a notice to owner (NtO). The purpose of this is to ensure that the PCN was received by the vehicle owner and to remind the vehicle owner that the payment in full is now due and, if it is not paid within a further 28 days, it may be increased.
The NtO may be issued 28 days after serving the penalty charge, and we expect authorities to send them within 56 days. The ultimate time limit, in exceptional circumstances, is 6 months [footnote 33] from the ‘relevant date’. There should be a very good reason for waiting that long to serve an NtO. The regulations set out the information that the NtO must [footnote 34] give.
My Bold & Underline
These are my thoughts, but others may also comment. I think you have quite a strong case, frankly.
PS: Here is the Statutory Guidance
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
-
Hi all,
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to look at this. I appreciate any help I can get with this issue.
My elderly and disabled father is going to court on Monday regarding a penalty charge notice for parking in London. I only found out yesterday, as he hasn't been able to keep me updated. I urgently need assistance, as I plan to attend with him to help argue his case.
To keep this initial post concise, I'll summarize our experience:
1. My father received a Notice to Owner on March 5th. This was the first correspondence we received about the parking fine. No ticket was given before this—nothing was affixed to my father's vehicle or handed to him; as the council claims.
2. He informed me on the same day, so I went to help him. We wrote the appeal and tried sending it via their website, which failed due to technical issues on their side. My father called them, and they provided an email address (hounslow.challenges@nsl.co.uk). We re-wrote the appeal and sent it there.
3. On March 22nd, we received the council's rejection via post.
4. We promptly submitted the case to court.
I would greatly appreciate help with the following points:
1. The CEO took 12 minutes to observe the vehicle and process the PCN, which is quite long. Yet, the only picture taken was of the signage. There is no proof that my father's car was present on that road. The council claims they don't need a photo as it's only 'secondary evidence.' In the council's court bundle, the summary section states the CEO observed the vehicle for 5 minutes. However, they include a copy of the original PCN, showing an observation time of 12 minutes. This discrepancy suggests the council's information on the PCN is inconsistent. Can their evidence be trusted if their basic facts are incorrect?
2. My father has been a disabled driver for quite some time and always displays his blue badge. Without picture evidence, can the council legitimately claim the blue badge wasn't displayed?
3. The council claims the fine was 'HTD' (handed to the driver). My father and I have never experienced this. Is this a common practice? Can they legitimize the PCN by claiming it was handed to him? The included PCN in the court bundle looks like something typed up on Microsoft Word, with no time-stamping or solid proof that it’s the same PCN issued on the alleged date of November 7th, 2023.
4. When viewing evidence on the council's website after receiving the NtO, the 'key events' section lists the first and only event as the NtO being issued. Shouldn't the first event be the PCN being issued and 'handed to the driver' as they claim?
5. Lastly, after reviewing the images I’ve attached, any advice or noticed contradictions would be greatly appreciated. Please also let me know if we have no leg to stand on and are wasting our time. Hounslow is a small area, people know people. And we’ve encountered corrupt CEOs in the past willing to act in avengement for their friends over petty neighbourly disputes. It's concerning how easily someone could issue a fine without any photo evidence of a contravention occurring. All you need is a reg number, and the make/model of a car. The road the alleged contravention occurred on is a 5 minute walk away from my dad's house. He'd park at home if he needed to park somewhere 5 minutes walk away. And this is increasingly making us more and more sceptical.
Thank you again for any assistance you can provide.
Opening pages in Hounslow's court bundle:
(https://i.imgur.com/7DLq9kZ.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/b78rupD.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/v7umc4z.jpeg)
Hounslow Council's summary of the case:
(https://i.imgur.com/WnuYXr5.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/thEVLVW.jpeg)
Hounslow Council's recorded notes re. this PCN:
(https://i.imgur.com/Z2GkQLT.jpeg)
The alleged PCN that was 'handed to driver':
(https://i.imgur.com/PJqnGaU.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/NKq1eBd.jpeg)
The only contravention image included in their bundle:
(https://i.imgur.com/EBMD5gx.jpeg)
The notice to owner:
(https://i.imgur.com/YFh6yt9.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/KxK57IB.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/5jq6oUT.jpeg)
Our appeal in response to the NtO
(https://i.imgur.com/SbbmF6J.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/xnEW2w0.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/zG4zQa9.jpeg)
Council's rejection of my appeal:
(https://i.imgur.com/laPPKmX.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/zFOe4dj.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/Dyf3ncm.jpeg)
The 'key events' page on Hounslow Council's website when viewing PCN - this was part of the evidence included in my appeal of the NtO.
(https://i.imgur.com/6ytDPdD.jpeg)