Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Chaseman on June 23, 2024, 07:24:14 pm
-
I filed an appeal with LT as a collateral challenge on grounds that the Lambeth website was at odds with the PCN and was materially misleading on dates as well as demanding penalties be paid at risk of escalation to Charge Certificate notwithstanding that an appeal was in progress. A secondary line of appeal was that Lambeth had rescinded previous LTOs when it introduced a new one in 2024 and had not reinstated them hence the LTO under which I was charged was not in force at the time. Accompanied by Hippocrates I went to the LT to have the appeal heard by Mr EJ Houghton in mid-September.
The adjudicator reserved judgment at the hearing as he wanted a complete timeline set out of all actions by Lambeth, what appeared on their website and when and what entreaties there were to persuade me to pay up. As a secondary matter he wanted to think about the LTO point and was not persuaded by the evidence we produced as it might not effectively present the whole picture. I was able to put this together relatively easily together with screen shots that Hippocrates had usefully preserved; all the key dates were in the papers we had filed but Mr Houghton wanted them in an easily readable summary sheet before coming to his decision.
Written judgment came through on 16 October. Appeal allowed. Key paras:
The main challenge lies on procedural grounds, In bare summary the Appellant submits that the
Council's website was giving incorrect and/or confusing information regarding payment dates, and
that it was still showing a demand for payment after an appeal had been lodged. It seems to me that
even if the Statutory notices are in themselves technically correct what is shown on the Council's
website should be in accordance with those notices; and that if it is not, it inevitably has the effect of
undermining what is st[at]ed in the Notices.
The motorist is entitled to have
clear and correct information from a Council as to what is required to be paid and when; and in my
judgement these errors are serious enough for the Appeal to be allowed on the basis of a collateral
challenge.
He also said he concurred with the view of adjudicator Michael Greenslade that a LA should not be seeking any amount beyond the prescribed sum
"or any amount at all" while an appeal was in progress. He did not give me a "win" on the LTO point, seemingly requiring me to prove a negative rather than
asking Lambeth to prove positively that the LTO was in force at the time.
For anyone getting a PCN from Lambeth henceforth I would watch the website carefully and take screenshots of any obvious errors. These were
abundant in my case and my guess is that no-one at Lambeth is going to pick up my case and say "right, we had better overhaul the website or else
we will get more challenges of the same nature". In particular watch out for them threatening a CC when the PCN is already being taken to the LT.
Many thanks to Hippocrates and also to cp 8759 for help on this one.
Case ref at LT is 2240362722.
https://londontribunals.org.uk
-
I have never used the PI phrase. :) If allowed, it would be on the ground that the penalty exceeded amount.
-
I know I have until 13 August to file with LT. My more immediate decision is whether to appeal at all and if not to pay at discount rate by next Tuesday. I am as yet not persuaded that incorrect/misleading dates on the website is a slam dunk for PI. The Redbridge case hinged on premature issue of a CC which Lambeth haven't done .....yet.
-
Steady on. Do not file any appeal until after their whacko time frames expire. I sent you a Redbridge case recently won which would be similar.
I tell you they are in much disarray at present after a recent hearing.
-
Procedural Impropriety is not included as one of the allowed grounds for appeal on the TA form. I presume one would tick the box "penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable" on the basis that having committed a PI the LA should cancel the ticket and hence the applicable amount is nil.
If I appeal then, unless the LA shoots itself in the foot by issuing a CC while the case is still pending, I am arguing on the basis that the website can cause a PI to be committed, even if the PCN or NoR does not. It would be good to have some precedent that this argument holds water. I am in no doubt that I fell foul of the street signage leading to the PCN so my only ground for appeal is the PI. If we take the extension to the discount period to be 14 days from the date of the NoR then I have until 30 July (next Tuesday) to decide whether to pay at the discounted rate.
-
So under which appeal grounds would this fall?
A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by—
(a)the TMA 2004,
(b)the 2022 General Regulations, or
(c)these Regulations,
in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.
If publishing information on a website or even linking to a website - absent statements in a notice itself - was a PI then the vast majority of TPT appeals would succeed and similarly ETA because the Tribunals' key website info is flawed. But it's not their duty, it's the authority's.
Now, if a person acted upon and within their notice but, for example, payment was not accepted by the council then this would be a different matter IMO.
Reference was made to 'cases' which apparently support the PI claim. Could I suggest that the best two or three are referenced for the OP's purposes.
-
Your recommendation to appeal is based on the presumption that the website is a direct form of communication with the recipient of the PCN and hence errors here have as much weight as errors on the PCN itself?
Correct.
-
Thanks for this Hippocrates. All taken from the Lambeth website and I agree with you incorrect so far as date of NoR, date of potential issue of CC and the use of "will" not "may" are concerned. None of this replicated in the NoR itself. The NoR has two different dates for the extended discount period [14 days from date of letter or date of service of letter] although this is discretionary and probably not fatal to the NoR.
Your recommendation to appeal is based on the presumption that the website is a direct form of communication with the recipient of the PCN and hence errors here have as much weight as errors on the PCN itself?
So far as my original letter to them seeking clarification is concerned, I was trying to hold open the possibility of following up with a formal appeal but they took that as a formal appeal for cancellation and rejected it, claiming the discount period was correct and in any case re-offering it. So no opportunity to have another bite at the cherry.
-
Penalty Charge Notice details
• Ticket Reference
LJ2877492A
• Your PCN is at full rate stage. PCN process information
• Vehicle Registration Number
KY15HXG
• Colour
BLACK
• Make
SUZUKI
• Contravention
52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)
• Location
Larkhall Rise (C)
• First seen at
Sat, 15 Jun 2024 18:27
• Issued at
Sat, 15 Jun 2024 18:27
• Served by
Post
The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £195.00 on Mon, 5 Aug 2024. Please pay £65.00 now.
You have already made representations for this PCN and we replied on Sat, 13 Jul 2024. You cannot make representations twice
And they responded on 16th July not 13th July.
The date of 5th August is also wholly wrong! Whichever way you work out the 28 days!
Wholly wrong! NOR is dated 16th July. The earliest they could send a C.C. would be 14th August.
I say appeal it. I would even wager they would issue a Charge Certificate while an appeal is pending as is their want! :D
-
You have my email address.
-
Not surprisingly had a letter from Lambeth rejecting my representations which they took to be a request for cancellation in any case.
I have not uploaded the letter because I can't! I converted the pdf from my scanner to both jpeg and png and it was rejected by both imgur and tinypic. I am obviously doing something wrong but I have no idea what.
Anyway the key lines are
"Please be aware that the time to pay the discounted amount is correct. I have extended this discount time for a further 14 days from the date of this letter [16 July].
We sent you a PCN because our CCTV camera evidence shows your vehicle going where vehicles are not allowed. The sign is round white and has a red border, with a picture of a motorcycle and a motor vehicle.....there is no exemption applicable to your vehicle."
I don't think I have much in the way of grounds to fight this one. They may have been technically wrong with the discount period but now they are offering another 14 days anyway. I am minded to pay at the discounted rate.
-
I have bunged in representations on the Lambeth website
It's not a representation because of the way it's worded. If they ignore it and issue a charge certificate, you won't have any grounds to file a statutory declaration because you have not advanced the proposition that any of the statutory grounds of appeal are made out, nor have you asked them to cancel the PCN. If you make a statutory declaration anyway (which would be a criminal offence so I would urge you not to go down that route), you'll end up at the tribunal where the adjudicator will likely issue a direction to pay on the ground that representations were never made.
You need to make a proper representation that must advance the proposition that one of the statutory grounds of appeal is made out.
-
I would not have written this, sorry to state. You should have requested cancellation, not provided them with a list of provisional questions so that they can put the matter on hold. I would rescind and spell it out to them as previously advised.
-
I have bunged in representations on the Lambeth website - which I describe as requests for clarification -in the following form:
When I went on to your website to view the photographic evidence supporting the issue of this PCN I noted that it said words to the effect of "pay £65 now or else the charge will go up to £130 on 16 July". I seek two points of clarification here:
1. I thought I had 14 days from issue of the PCN to pay at the discounted rate of £65. This would take us to 3 July. Yet you seem to be saying that the charge only reverts to the full £130 on 16 July. Is that correct?
2. If you are saying that 16 July represents the day 28 days after issue of the PCN for payment in full, then I must disagree. The 28th day after issue of the PCN is 17 July. The PCN was issued on a Thursday (in this case 20 June). Therefore a 28 day period following must end on a Wednesday (in this case 17 July). It would appear you are not acting in accordance with London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 Part 2 Section 4 para 8 (a) (iv) and (v).
I will request that you put the PCN on hold, preserving the opportunity to pay at the discounted rate, pending your clarification on these points.
-
Yes but they have not seen the arguments we might be advancing unless they can link the VRN/PCN number to the thread.
They're not going to find the thread as they don't have time, and even if they did they could only find it if it's typed, if the PCN number is only shown as a scanned image it won't come up in a search. We've been advising people to share PCN numbers and VRMs with us for years and we've not seen a single case where a council has found the thread. Even if the council did find it, they typically won't find anything on here that would help them.
-
If a notice from the council includes such incorrect info then that's a different matter as would if the council platform refused to accept the correct penalty.
This is not a new issue. Please check the cases. The issue is that the website contradicts what the paperwork says and, to cap it all, the latter directs you to the website! ( A few years ago Merton took down from their website that no London council needed approval for their bus lane cameras. Imagine the effect of that. They removed it at my insistence.)
-
By all means pursue this avenue, after all according to what we know you don't have another argument.
But I am of the same view as you which is that the Act simply places obligations on the council as regards the contents of the PCN, it doesn't refer to extraneous sources/guides. Even the Statutory Guidance doesn't address this issue.
To give you an analogy, the tribunal websites(both TPT and ETA) are wrong in several parts regarding such matters as deadlines for submitting an appeal, but this can't be used as an argument unless this info is the only info upon which the council rely and they fail to use the mandatory references. So IMO it is here, but let's see how this plays out.
If a notice from the council includes such incorrect info then that's a different matter as would if the council platform refused to accept the correct penalty.
-
No informal challenge in this legislation as you know. I would just stick it in and let's see what they say - rather what AI Barbour Logic says!
-
But does the charge go up to £130 if I don't pay at the discount rate in the first 14 days, or does it only go up at the end of the 28 day period where they may be a day out? It seems to me that I am already in for the £130 on day 15. Secondly, is there no scope for an informal challenge preserving the discount with this ticket?
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/moving-traffic-pcns-and-disconnect-between-the-pcn-and-councils'-website/msg27456/#msg27456
Day one is the date of the PCN as the law states. They have curtailed by one day.
I would simply state they are playing fast and loose with the statutory scheme and are setting up a course of events which is not only wrong but also prejudicial, not that prejudice is relevant.
-
Hippocrates
Good detective work. Let me make sure I am clear on this:
PCN issued 20 June (this is a Thursday). The 14 and 28 day periods start running. If we take the generous view (to the LA) that the 20th is Day 1 and not Day 0 then 30 June is Day 11, 1 July is Day 12 and 17 July is Day 28. 17 July is a Wednesday and it does seem logical that a 28 day period that starts on a Thursday should finish on a Wednesday but to have the benefit of all 28 days it seems to me it finishes at one second to midnight on the 28th day. Now you may say that is still Weds 17 July but in practice unless staff were in the office at midnight the first day on which they could levy an increased charge would be Thursday 18th. But it's certainly not Tuesday 16th. [But see final para about what actually happens on Day 28].
To come to the next point, you are quoting from the Lambeth website where one can view one's PCN. It shows that date (Day 28) as 16 July and we believe that is wrong. BUT that date is not shown on the PCN itself so does it have legal standing? In other words, can we cry foul on the PCN because another document which makes reference thereto contains an error? Suppose we put in an appeal and the council just says "the PCN as a standalone document is correct. We recognise an error on the website and we have corrected it. Thanks for drawing it to our attention. You still owe us the money."
Do I assume that with this sort of CCTV offence you only get one shot at a formal appeal i.e. there is no informal challenge and "please put the discount on hold" stage? In which case I must decide by 3 July whether to pay at a discount or risk the full sum? So I am going to ask you for a view on whether the appeal you have suggested is a slam dunk or a 50-50?
Finally I am confused about when the charge goes up to £130. Doesn't it go up to this amount on Day 15 (4 July) if the PCN has not by then been paid at the discount and then up again (to £195) when a Charge Certificate is issued assuming the 28 day period has expired with the ticket unpaid? The ticket is charged at £130 ab initio, but with a discount being offered for early payment - which expires on 3 July - surely?
,
-
Your luck day. The emboldened part is wrong as it robs you of a day:
Penalty Charge Notice details
Ticket ReferenceLJ2877492A
Your PCN is at discount stage. PCN process information
Vehicle Registration NumberKY15HXG
ColourBLACK
MakeSUZUKI
Contravention52m - Failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor vehicles)
LocationLarkhall Rise (C)
First seen atSat, 15 Jun 2024 18:27
Issued atSat, 15 Jun 2024 18:27
Served byPost
The amount outstanding on the Charge Notice will increase to £130.00 on Tue, 16 Jul 2024. Please pay £65.00 now.
******
The law states this @ 4.8. iii-v to Schedule I:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
Your website shows that the price will increase to £130 a whole day before it is legally possible to do so. Therefore, this is a serious departure from the statutory scheme and it follows that the PCN should be cancelled.
-
It's confusing signage approaching that bridge in the permitted direction!
https://tinyurl.com/5c5d6ekp
Now I think I know why I made the mistake I did. I was going west to east through the "low flying motorbikes sign" but this used to be the one way permitted direction - if you creep along the GSV on Larkhall Rise from the west you initially see the "low flying motorbikes" sign dating from July 2022. As you get closer to the bridge the view changes to one dating from March 2019 which shows a One Way arrow (white on blue). This must have changed at some point between 2019 and 2022. Going from east to west there's a No Entry sign which was always there. So I went through in the direction you had always been able to go not noticing the signage had changed and metaphorically kicked myself for forgetting that it was One Way in the opposite direction - not true! So we now have the slightly ridiculous situation where it's No Entry east to west and No Thoroughfare for motor vehicles west to east which means only bicycles can go through in that direction in the centre of the road. They can also cross the bridge in the opposite direction as long as they come along the edge track i.e. between the sleepers and the kerb.
It's not a route I use a lot but subconsciously must have remembered I was OK going the way I did without paying attention to the signage. I think I am probably still bang to rights but at least I am not going completely mad. PCN is LJ2877492A and VRN is KY15HXG but the pictures on the site are the same ones shown in the PCN and the video does not really add anything.
-
@Chaseman: you should really discuss this privately with cp8759.
-
Er...why? I thought these details were normally kept hidden in case some snoop from the council was monitoring the site.
But they've already got these; they are on your PCN !
Yes but they have not seen the arguments we might be advancing unless they can link the VRN/PCN number to the thread.
-
It's confusing signage approaching that bridge in the permitted direction!
https://tinyurl.com/5c5d6ekp
-
Er...why? I thought these details were normally kept hidden in case some snoop from the council was monitoring the site.
So we can access the video etc and buy you a pint at Penderel's Oak afterwards.
-
Er...why? I thought these details were normally kept hidden in case some snoop from the council was monitoring the site.
But they've already got these; they are on your PCN !
-
Er...why? I thought these details were normally kept hidden in case some snoop from the council was monitoring the site.
-
We need VRM and PCN details please.
-
Was caught going over bridge on Larkhall Rise SW4 on my motorbike. The bridge is actually one-way and I was going the wrong way. Inattention, I know the place very well. I have no defence over the offence itself, can anyone see anything wrong in the PCN details?
(https://i.imgur.com/f4akd4W.jpeg)
(https://i.imgur.com/PIzDx2f.jpeg)
PS Upload for files is full. Therefore have to post on Imgur BUT this site does not accept pdf images so cannot scan but must use mobile to take a photo. Not that distinct. Could admin sort out the "files full" issue please?