Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: cicholasnage on August 05, 2024, 05:58:44 pm
-
You have not posted the NOR.
Did you even get one?
I don't remember any arguments advanced regarding the validity of the NOR, we haven't seen it.
The procedural impropriety was their letter of 26 July and them offering you the right to appeal when in law NONE exists for you, only them.
But you are where you are. We can but wait.
I would still like to see the Notice of Rejection of Representations which MUST be in the evidence otherwise their case must fail.
-
Update:
Went to hearing. The adjudicator threw out the claim that the NOR was misleading/not following procedure.
Case now rests on whether there is anything in the regs around 'statute of limitations', and whether or not the council's radio silence between Nov-23 and Jul-24 is/is not in breach of said regs/guidelines.
No decision made today, eta. 7 days tops.
-
Thanks chaps.
Here is what I believe is the NOR (i wish they would title these letters)
And the case summary.
https://imgur.com/U59QNxc (https://imgur.com/U59QNxc)
I've added the imagery of the parking signs "Permit Holders only" is ambiguous. We are (and were at the time of the PCN) a "permit holder".
Best,
-
EDIT: I see HCA has written a post whilst I've been writing this post. Make aure you take his points on board.
You seem to have been thorough (for the convenience of others I have put your case at the end of this comment).
Take a copy of all the papers with you tomorrow - highlight any points you particularly want to mention to the adj..
From the Evidence Pack the summary and the list of contents are the important papers for the experts here (I am not one) to see, particularly where they specifically counter points in your own case.
(https://i.imgur.com/SB7SzGA.png)
-
OP, where to start!!
Confusion reigns when narrative and responses based upon this precede docs which when read contradict the narrative and render responses potentially incorrect.
You do not have a resident's permit. You have an estate permit.
These are issued pursuant to tenancy etc. agreements.
This is where reference to your 'bay agreement' comes from. You were not parked on the public highway but on private land.
You were not sent a NTO following TEC's decision, instead they sent you an extra-procedural letter. IMO this and the copy NTO should be your focus.
Procedural Impropriety
Following receipt of TEC's revocation order the authority sent me a letter dated 26 July 2024 (is this in their evidence?). In summary, this letter stated:
That they had received TEC's revocation order;
That they had received my formal representations and responded on 17 October 2024(should be 2023)(a copy of this was included);
The authority then offered me the following choices:
If on reading the NOR I wished to settle the matter they would accept £65 if received by 13 Aug.
Alternatively, I could appeal to London Tribunals no later than the end of the period of 28 days beginning on service of the letter(in practice the 26 Aug.);
If I chose to neither pay by 26 Aug. nor appeal to London Tribunals then 'the case will be referred to the London Tribunals'. By whom is not stated.
I submit that this letter is a procedural impropriety for the following reasons:
The legal duty to register the appeal in the circumstances of my case falls wholly to the authority, not the owner. Even if for the sake of disposing of this matter expeditiously without the need to burden the tribunal system the authority wanted to re-offer the payment terms in the NOR, then their letter is confusing because it would accept payment of '£65' until 13 Aug. and an unspecified payment until 26 Aug. i.e. if £65 is accepted only until 13th Aug. then what sum would be acceptable between 14th and 26th?
However, the authority's actions to date have not revealed any inclination to deal with matters expeditiously as shown by the following timeline:
16/08/2023 - PCN issued;
18/09/2023 - Notice to Owner sent;
21/09/2023 - Received Notice to Owner;
29/09/2023 - Made representation via website;
22/11/2023 - Charge Cert issued;
Elapsed period of 8 months
July 2024 - Letter dated XX July 2024 received from Islington (order for recovery?)- you tell us!
I also notice in the NOR that the adjudicator has discretion to extend the period during which the recipient of a NOR may have an appeal registered, however, I do not believe this power is reserved to the adjudicator and may not be exercised by the authority as their letter purports to do i.e. I may appeal no later than 26 Aug. 2024
OP, have you posted their NOR? We needto see whether it states the above because, if it doesn't, then this is a potential PI in its own right.
And....
there are no prescribed signs for this 'off-street' parking. What you should see is a notice board with Ts and Cs of use.
Why?
Because they enforce against residents and non-residents so what you know by virtue of your 'bay agreement' is not the issue. Effectively they're treating it as they would any cat park.
-
Hello John UK, thank you so much for the response. Not at home to share their hefty document pack they submitted for the London Tribunal.
I have scanned what we submitted (see bottom minus; attachments, again not at home so can't just now)
Re. your questions:
What is the date of your hearing? 9/10/24.
- Is it telephone or face-to face? Face to face
- May we see a copy of what you actually wrote when you registered the appeal? See below
- May we see from the Council's Evidence pack will upload later
1) the list of contents
2) their summary as to why the Council thinks the Adjudicator should reject your appeal?
If I recall, the council are arguing that nothing improper has occurred on their side, the T&Cs of parking on the estate is to display a valid permit.
Whilst we haven't mentioned this, is there anything in terms of the actual signage? The Estate's signage is "Permit Holders only".
We think we should mention this with pictures tomorrow that we are indeed permit holders (as the signage does NOT state "valid permit must be displayed at all times".
Our argument stems from comments on this thread about procedural impropriety, the time line (the order for recovery being received 7 months after the Charge Certificate) and failing to consider the representation and any supporting evidence.
We also noted that in the timeline they supplied to the Adjudicator, they checked on teh day teh PCN was issued the "valid permit" 3 times with RingGo. We aren't sure why they are checking RingGo as the estate parking isn't public pay and display?
I did speak to a CSO on the street last month to ask him about their devices and what information they can find out... he told me if there wasn't a valid permit they could call up the office to find out the status of the vehicle and whether it was in contract for that particular estate bay parking. Whilst he didn't out and out say that he wouldn't issue a ticket, he did suggest that if they discovered the vehicle was in contract, he probably wouldn't issue a ticket.
The link/image is here of our appeal:
https://imgur.com/a/EfjrlZJ (https://imgur.com/a/EfjrlZJ)
-
I've finally got my time at the London Tribunal this week
There's been a big silence from August 7th until now??
Only you know the answer to the questions which follow, which may help others give some meaningful advice.
What is the date of your hearing?
Is it telephone or face-to face?
May we see a copy of what you actually wrote when you registered the appeal?
May we see from the Council's Evidence pack -
1) the list of contents
2) their summary as to why the Council thinks the Adjudicator should reject your appeal?
-------
A face-to-face hearing is not daunting: you may bring someone with you, the adjudicator will go through your case and will almost certainly ask questions at the end he may give a decision or reserve it or adjourn for additional eveidence. I've no experience of a telephone hearing.
The Tribunal's own website gives details of what happens:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/your-hearingpostal-decision
-
I've finally got my time at the London Tribunal this week. Tried to search this forum to understand what happens there, I'm guessing there's no jury and no judge/adjudicator to actually present my defence and closing statement?
My partner made me sit going through the appeal we submitted to the LT annotating the argument... will we even get a chance to present any of it?
We're arguing:
1. Procedural errors: receiving the TEC's response to cancel the charge certificate, Islington's response was to send us a letter with: "If you wish to settle the PCN... If you do not pay or submit an appeal... the case will be referred to the London Tribunals"
Based on the valuable assistance from this forum, their response is procedurally incorrect as they should have stated that they reject the TEC's response and will refer the case to the LT".
2. Time involved: The order for recovery was received 7 months after the charge certificate. This is questionable.
3. They didn't follow Part 6, Para 4 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Conventions in fairly considering any supporting evidence that we provided (such as proof from their own Parking department that shows we were a valid permit holder parking in our contractual parking bay.
Any final guidance would be most welcome!
-
The authority's DUTY on receipt of TEC's direction to cancel the CC and notification that they had revoked the OfR was to promptly refer the matter to the adjudicator, not send you a letter giving you 28 days to appeal.
You have no right to appeal because you did NOT receive a NOR following your reps. The authority MAY NOT purport to grant you this right, it is procedural nonsense.
IMO, your appeal grounds should at least cite procedural impropriety because of the above.
Ahh this seems to fit with Charge Certificate 21.3.C: where an adjudicator has, under regulation 7(8) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations,
recommended the enforcement authority to cancel the relevant notice, the date on which
the enforcement authority notifies P under regulation 7(9) of those Regulations that it does
not accept the recommendation;
Looking at "The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022", paragraph 7 "Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a recipient’s representations" sticks out which supports what you've said, further, no?
(8) If an adjudicator—
(a)does not allow an appeal, but
(b)is satisfied that there are compelling reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the enforcement notice should be cancelled,
the adjudicator may recommend to the enforcement authority that it cancel the enforcement notice.
(9) An enforcement authority to which a recommendation is made under paragraph (8) must—
(a)consider afresh the cancellation of the enforcement notice taking full account of any observations by the adjudicator, and
(b)within the period of thirty-five days beginning with the date on which the recommendation is given (“the 35-day period”), notify the appellant and the adjudicator as to whether or not it accepts the adjudicator’s recommendation.
(10) If the enforcement authority does not accept the adjudicator’s recommendation, the notification under paragraph (9)(b) must include the reasons for that decision.
(11) No appeal to the adjudicator lies against the decision of the enforcement authority not to accept the adjudicator’s recommendation.
(12) If the enforcement authority accepts the adjudicator’s recommendation, the authority must—
(a)cancel the enforcement notice, as soon as is reasonably practicable, and
(b)refund to the appellant any sum paid in respect of the penalty charge.
(13) If an enforcement authority fails to comply with paragraph (9) within the 35-day period, the authority—
(a)is to be taken to have accepted the adjudicator’s recommendation, and
(b)must—
(i)cancel the enforcement notice, and
(ii)refund to the appellant any sum paid in respect of the penalty charge.
-
The authority's DUTY on receipt of TEC's direction to cancel the CC and notification that they had revoked the OfR was to promptly refer the matter to the adjudicator, not send you a letter giving you 28 days to appeal.
You have no right to appeal because you did NOT receive a NOR following your reps. The authority MAY NOT purport to grant you this right, it is procedural nonsense.
IMO, your appeal grounds should at least cite procedural impropriety because of the above.
-
I've read through
The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions Regulations that was linked in the Google Sheet elsewhere on the forum, could I frame my argument around Regulation 23 Invalid Notices:
Significant Delay: The period from the PCN issuance (17th August 2023) to the ongoing tribunal by 17th July 2024 seems excessively long. If the council failed to follow procedural deadlines or caused undue delays, you might argue that this extended duration is unreasonable and potentially prejudicial.
Lack of Response: You mentioned not receiving a response to your submission on 27th September 2023. Regulation 23(2)(c) could apply here, which states that the enforcement process can be deemed invalid if a notice of rejection or a response to an appeal is not received .
Revisiting the timeline:
PCN on 17/08/23
NTO on 18/09/23, the charge certificate 22/11/23, the witness statement submission on 17th July 2024...
It seems a valid response to argue that the enforcement process is invalid due to the length of time involved?
-
The evidence pack "representations" I believe was what they sent out dated 17th Oct 23 (which we never received.
Islington's response to TEC's rejection:
https://imgur.com/Gzoml4J (https://imgur.com/Gzoml4J)
-
OP, we need docs pl. The authority did not write to you and say - - you've come this far... choose £65 now or London Tribunal and more later"
Pl post whatever was issued. NTO? is totally confusing and has nothing to do with correct procedure.
This is a legal process, we'll help you keep to the straight and narrow if we have docs.
26/07/2024 - Received Notice to Owner (?) from Islington re. outcome of witness statement. They attached the "rejection of representations letter dated 17/10/23". Two choices: pay the original £65 or appeal to London Tribunals.
Wholly improper and grounds for appeal, irrespective of the merits of the case.
You submitted a WS to the effect that you made reps but did not receive a response(NOR). The council were therefore required to refer the matter to the adjudicator, not you. It's NOT your task to register an appeal.
4).
(2) A witness statement must state one and only one of the following—
(a)....
(b)that P made representations to the enforcement authority under regulation 5 of the 2022 Appeals Regulations but a notice of rejection was not received from that authority in accordance with regulation 6 of those Regulations;
....
7) Where a witness statement is served including a statement under paragraph (2)(b), (c) or (d), the enforcement authority must refer the case to the adjudicator.
Have you received their evidence pack?
The adjudicator cannot exercise discretion therefore taken at face value you were in contravention and won't get any relief from the tribunal.
But face value can be misleading.
-
Yes, the TEC sent us a letter dated 2 days after we sent them our Witness Statement:
https://imgur.com/aKWTXn3 (https://imgur.com/aKWTXn3)
Islington council then sent out the letter with the "congratulations - you've come this far... choose £65 now or London Tribunal and more later"
-
Have the TEC cancelled the Charge Certificate etc?
-
Don't make sudden decisions without someone, who knows the ins and outs, seeing everything.
-
Ok so here's what I've managed to put together:
28/07/23 - Estate Parking Permit renewal letter
https://imgur.com/1AxZ8Ea (https://imgur.com/1AxZ8Ea)
28/07/23 - Parking Permit T&Cs
https://imgur.com/SvNlfvp (https://imgur.com/SvNlfvp)
17/08/23 - eTicket, code 85 (I can't find the original one from the windscreen)
https://imgur.com/Ye6OwYI (https://imgur.com/Ye6OwYI)
17/10/23 - A copy of Islington's response to our response/claim (never rec'd the original in Oct-23)
https://imgur.com/v3TadBD (https://imgur.com/v3TadBD)
22/11/23 - charge certificate issued (I cannot find this)
17/07/24 - Our Witness statement/TE9
https://imgur.com/LEmLUpb (https://imgur.com/LEmLUpb)
The Estate permit documentation is quite clear about displaying permits, hence why I'm wondering if I'm better off just paying the reduced rate of £65. Whoever arbitrates these tribunals know that councils need all the income they can get in today's COL crisis, so I'd get why they would uphold the case.
Just from my general knowledge when it comes to the UK law/legal/admin system, common sense never prevails...[attachurl=1]
-
I appear at London Tribunals every week.
Results are better for in person or telephone hearings than ones decided on the papers alone.
Results are better if an experienced representative acts for you. I have fought 2,000 + PCNs so have seen most things.
If you would like me to represent you please send me:
PCN no.
verification code
Surname
Vehicle reg
and I can then download the complete file from the tribunal portal. Email to mrmustard@zoho.com
-
16/07/2024 - submitted a "witness statement/TE9" to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Nottingham County Council
On what grounds e.g. did not receive NTO, paid penalty, made reps to authority but did not receive a response etc??
What happens after TEC's revoking letter depends upon the grounds on which your WS was made.
-
When you can, post the NTO and rejection letter. Leave in everything bar name and address.
I don't know if there is any time limitation on serving an order for recovery but you've successfully got rid of that.
-
Ahh apologies, I'm not home with the documents at present, and the filing my wife did was a bit scattergun (i.e. the initial ticket on the windscreen is nowhere to be found).
Timeline is real though, it really has been going on since last year:
2023
28/07/2023 - renewal of parking permit confirmed
12/08/2023 - 2022-23 permit expired
13/08/2023 - 2023-24 permit commences
16/08/2023 - Ticket issued, attached to windscreen.
18/09/2023 - Notice to Owner sent
21/09/2023 - Received Notice to Owner
29/09/2023 - Appealed via website (stated the automatic continuation of the parking bay and letter from 28/07)
**** no response received ****
22/11/2023 - Charge Cert issued
What we did… not pay as advised by Islington and Nottingham
NOTICE RECOVERY -> NEVER REC'D
**** went very cold, thought that was the end of it (yay)
2024
early July - letter received from Islington (order for recovery?)
16/07/2024 - submitted a "witness statement/TE9" to the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Nottingham County Council
17/07/2024 - DEADLINE FOR ORDER FOR RECOVERY (TE3) RESPONSE (TE9)
19/07/2024 - Letter from Traffic Enforcement Centre, Nottingham: "it is ordered that the order for recovery of unpaid penalty charge be revoked. It is further order that the charge certificate be cancelled. This order does NOT cancel the original PCN.
26/07/2024 - Received Notice to Owner (?) from Islington re. outcome of witness statement. They attached the "rejection of representations letter dated 17/10/23". Two choices: pay the original £65 or appeal to London Tribunals.
-
We all like a good story but it is documents we need to see. It seems a long time from PCN to tribunal. What has happened along the way? has there been undue delay at any stage?
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/
-
We need to see all the documents - is this really from a year ago?
Islington did have issues with permit renewals and cancelled some PCNs - and surely they are electronic?
Read this:
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/
-
Quick one and welcome any feedback.
I've read other council-related PCNs regarding a lack of a valid permit (Harringey, Tower Hamlets, both of whom had expired permits) but what if you get a PCN displaying an out-of-date permit despite your contract with the council being active and paid-in-full?
I'm due to go to the London Tribunal soon for this, with the PCN issued 16th August 23: not displaying a valid permit.
This is true. The permit displayed expired 12th August 2023.
What's also true is the letter from Islington council dated 28th July 2023 that stated the resident's parking space/permit had been renewed, "your letting bay agreement is automatically continuous".
I appealed with this information. I was out of town and hadn't gotten around to displaying the new permit. I supplied a timeline and evidence of the renewal letter.
I rang the Parking Team at the council. They explained they'd "swapped suppliers who do their tickets/PCNs and that they "don't communicate" with the Parking Dept regarding permits etc."
The council rejected the appeal: "[we are] satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly".
I plan to select either (a)"The contravention did not occur" or (b)"there has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority".
Asking people on here with much more experience in the matter:
1. Do I tick (a) or (b) for my grounds of appeal?
2. Should I just pay the initial £65 fine and be done with it?
I am conflicted: if they want to be completely "computer says no",nothing will change the fact that an invalid (expired) permit was displayed.
However, this forum often calls out councils' "public law duty to act fairly" and that the "personal computers" the ticket/pcn wardens use would/should give them access to resident permit holders' details, which if true would show that our car Reg No. possesses a valid parking permit, it just wasn't on display.
Advice greatly welcomed.