Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: anonymous on September 26, 2024, 04:32:40 pm
-
Good news folks, Redbridge have accepted the representations and cancelled the PCN! Thanks for all your help.
Well done for staying the course. May we see their letter of retreat please? ;D
Of course!
https://ibb.co/S5DySK7
-
Good news folks, Redbridge have accepted the representations and cancelled the PCN! Thanks for all your help.
Well done for staying the course. May we see their letter of retreat please? ;D
-
Good news folks, Redbridge have accepted the representations and cancelled the PCN! Thanks for all your help.
-
Just an update, I have submitted representations as I was coming to the end of my 28 days using the post previous to this.
Your representation has been received
Your representation was submitted on Tue 26/11/2024 12:33.
Your case reference number is: TF00537498.
-
Ok so I am assuming that they will reject this appeal and it will go to the tribunals. At any case, I assume I need to make representations now.
Am I correct in saying that I will select Procedural Impropriety as the reason and then submit the following text supplied by H C Andersen:
PCN ******
Procedural Impropriety
I refer to the NTO issued on **** in respect of the above PCN.
When I made my initial representations I included a copy of my PCN and described the printing as being misaligned. At that time I did not realise that it would be necessary for me to go into regulatory detail given that the CEO's error was so blatant and one which a proper consideration of those representations could not have failed to recognise.
Your subsequent rejection and the NTO show that I was wrong.
As the authority will see, the amount of penalty demanded in the PCN is £11 but in the NTO it is £80. Self-evidently therefore the PCN is defective and constitutes a procedural impropriety given that the 'amount of the penalty charge' is a 'regulatory matter' which must be included in the PCN. So, either £11 or £80 is incorrect or perhaps both. But whichever is correct still represents a procedural impropriety as regards the PCN or the NTO.
The authority cannot have it both ways and I submit would do well to accept now what is manifestly the case rather than let the adjudicator determine the same outcome.
-
Also the website fetters discretion.
cp usually advises to raise the website issue at the Tribunal.
-
OP, you are obliged to comply with the instructions on the NTO as regards making reps.
The NTO offers two methods: online and by post.
Each must offer the same contents.
I think the point being made is that the website grounds and those in the NTO are materially different.
So you are saying that because they have not listed the same points on the NTO and their online portal, their response is inherently incorrect? Does that fall under procedural impropriety? What does it mean in this case?
If that was the case then does that apply to all their NTOs they send out because I assume its the same in all cases.
-
OP, you are obliged to comply with the instructions on the NTO as regards making reps.
The NTO offers two methods: online and by post.
Each must offer the same contents.
I think the point being made is that the website grounds and those in the NTO are materially different.
-
That's the one.
I am not sure I see anything that applies to my current situation.
-
That's the one.
-
There is usually a page with hoops to jump through. Tick this box etc. re grounds which do not apply. In your case same?
Apologies, yes there are a couple pages I missed.
(https://i.ibb.co/z85Fm1Q/Screenshot-2024-11-15-112107.png) (https://ibb.co/k3yJGp5)
(https://i.ibb.co/1Zsh5LF/Screenshot-2024-11-15-112117.png) (https://ibb.co/b1HqZPc)
(https://i.ibb.co/Z6SgrMS/Screenshot-2024-11-15-112128.png) (https://ibb.co/KjDsgrD)
(https://i.ibb.co/M87bvkq/Screenshot-2024-11-15-112245.png) (https://ibb.co/5YLd0hq)
-
There is usually a page with hoops to jump through. Tick this box etc. re grounds which do not apply. In your case same?
-
So should I post the original PCN?
-
Please screenshot all pages of their website and get back.
(https://i.ibb.co/FnBChZp/Screenshot-2024-11-13-140121.png) (https://ibb.co/FnBChZp)
.
(https://i.ibb.co/yXpCndV/Screenshot-2024-11-13-140157.png) (https://ibb.co/yXpCndV)
.
(https://i.ibb.co/RTrBzFw/Screenshot-2024-11-13-140203.png) (https://ibb.co/RTrBzFw)
-
Please screenshot all pages of their website and get back.
-
I think the time for thin submissions on this point is over.
I suggest.
PCN ******
Procedural Impropriety
I refer to the NTO issued on **** in respect of the above PCN.
When I made my initial representations I included a copy of my PCN and described the printing as being misaligned. At that time I did not realise that it would be necessary for me to go into regulatory detail given that the CEO's error was so blatant and one which a proper consideration of those representations could not have failed to recognise.
Your subsequent rejection and the NTO show that I was wrong.
As the authority will see, the amount of penalty demanded in the PCN is £11 but in the NTO it is £80. Self-evidently therefore the PCN is defective and constitutes a procedural impropriety given that the 'amount of the penalty charge' is a 'regulatory matter' which must be included in the PCN. So, either £11 or £80 is incorrect or perhaps both. But whichever is correct still represents a procedural impropriety as regards the PCN or the NTO.
The authority cannot have it both ways and I submit would do well to accept now what is manifestly the case rather than let the adjudicator determine the same outcome.
Thank you so much for this. When I went online to appeal, they are asking for evidence. I presume I send the original pictures of the PCN?
-
I think the time for thin submissions on this point is over.
I suggest.
PCN ******
Procedural Impropriety
I refer to the NTO issued on **** in respect of the above PCN.
When I made my initial representations I included a copy of my PCN and described the printing as being misaligned. At that time I did not realise that it would be necessary for me to go into regulatory detail given that the CEO's error was so blatant and one which a proper consideration of those representations could not have failed to recognise.
Your subsequent rejection and the NTO show that I was wrong.
As the authority will see, the amount of penalty demanded in the PCN is £11 but in the NTO it is £80. Self-evidently therefore the PCN is defective and constitutes a procedural impropriety given that the 'amount of the penalty charge' is a 'regulatory matter' which must be included in the PCN. So, either £11 or £80 is incorrect or perhaps both. But whichever is correct still represents a procedural impropriety as regards the PCN or the NTO.
The authority cannot have it both ways and I submit would do well to accept now what is manifestly the case rather than let the adjudicator determine the same outcome.
-
OP, here are the regs which apply:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2/made
I have not referred to the 'appeals' regs because they don't bear upon this matter.
Whether what's printed on the PCN is misaligned is not material because the regs don't refer to alignment! You are concerned with the regs and if the 'information' from one or more of the mandatory matters is not 'included' then these are your grounds(others will deal with any website issues).
So, what's not included?
IMO, it's obvious i.e. the penalty charge. And this is only obvious now because you've received the NTO.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your PCN states:
Penalty charge £11
You have subsequently found out from the NTO that this figure should be £80.
Once one knows what the sum should be, then it's possible to see this in the PCN albeit that the reader has to ignore what is printed - £11 - and view the next line under a microscope knowing what one is looking for.
But as drivers are not blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, it would be and was impossible to determine with confidence the penalty being demanded by reading the PCN alone, and this is the correct procedural test.
In the council's response to these representations, I would take it badly if they repeated the non sequitur of their rejection to my challenge with a reference to 'you also made an informal challenge' as if this undermines my grounds which it does not i.e. this permanently printed part was readable, because it was acted upon, which shows that all free field information must have been similarly readable.
So I should appeal the NTO by saying the ticket states £11?
-
OP, here are the regs which apply:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2/made
I have not referred to the 'appeals' regs because they don't bear upon this matter.
Whether what's printed on the PCN is misaligned is not material because the regs don't refer to alignment! You are concerned with the regs and if the 'information' from one or more of the mandatory matters is not 'included' then these are your grounds(others will deal with any website issues).
So, what's not included?
IMO, it's obvious i.e. the penalty charge. And this is only obvious now because you've received the NTO.
Correct me if I'm wrong but your PCN states:
Penalty charge £11
You have subsequently found out from the NTO that this figure should be £80.
Once one knows what the sum should be, then it's possible to see this in the PCN albeit that the reader has to ignore what is printed - £11 - and view the next line under a microscope knowing what one is looking for.
But as drivers are not blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, it would be and was impossible to determine with confidence the penalty being demanded by reading the PCN alone, and this is the correct procedural test.
In the council's response to these representations, I would take it badly if they repeated the non sequitur of their rejection to my challenge with a reference to 'you also made an informal challenge' as if this undermines my grounds which it does not i.e. this permanently printed part was readable, because it was acted upon, which shows that all free field information must have been similarly readable.
-
thank you John
-
Edit: For some reason I still cannot seem to link pictures here with thumbnails.
Here you go
(https://i.ibb.co/bg5wvM4/1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PZGXWv2)
(https://i.ibb.co/WFSQ2kt/2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nfhTL7C)
(https://i.ibb.co/Bfz5DJW/3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WHx49X8)
(https://i.ibb.co/gjcfmzp/4.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vwMTVZG)
-
Hi All,
I received a NTO a few days ago. Apologies I was quite ill so I did not post it here earlier. The NTO is dated 29 October.
What would be my next steps?
Edit: For some reason I still cannot seem to link pictures here with thumbnails. Its broken for me. Here are the links to the NTO:
https://ibb.co/PZGXWv2
https://ibb.co/nfhTL7C
https://ibb.co/WHx49X8
https://ibb.co/vwMTVZG
(https://ibb.co/PZGXWv2)
(https://ibb.co/nfhTL7C)
(https://ibb.co/WHx49X8)
(https://ibb.co/vwMTVZG)
-
Wait for the Notice to Owner. This will go all the way and you may well win on the website's publication of the grounds which are rubbish. I would more than happy to assist at the Tribunal.
-
ok challenge submitted on other grounds. Not overly optimistic but we shall see I guess. Thanks for all your help thus far.
Please show a copy of the exact challenge you submitted.
Reason for challenging the PCN?: Other grounds.
the PCN is not compliant owing to misalignment of the printer
-
ok challenge submitted on other grounds. Not overly optimistic but we shall see I guess. Thanks for all your help thus far.
Please show a copy of the exact challenge you submitted.
-
What would my next steps be in this case?
-
Please could you repost the right way up? Thnx.
Apologies. Here you go.
https://ibb.co/MGXrcFL
-
It's a pretty illiterate rejection but presumably they say it's OK.
(https://i.imgur.com/QbVXFLz.jpeg)
-
Please could you repost the right way up? Thnx.
EDIT - Done. Thanks to Stamfordman.
-
Hi All,
I had to leave the country on the 3rd, and just got back today. On my return it seems that they have rejected the challenge put forth.
https://ibb.co/dB27c9F
-
ok challenge submitted on other grounds. Not overly optimistic but we shall see I guess. Thanks for all your help thus far.
-
I would not cite any of the grounds. Choose other grounds.
-
So if I am correct in understanding, I should just write in the contest "the PCN is not compliant owing to misalignment of the printer" and enclose a picture of the pcn without the payment slip. What would the reason be to challenge the PCN? Procedural impropriety or Other grounds?
https://ibb.co/dDnwK4d (https://ibb.co/dDnwK4d)
Don't include the payment slip in the pic although that's where the PCN number and VRM are printed clearly. But the slip is not part of the PCN (I believe).
A good test is if you give the PCN to someone and ask them to immediately read out the key details.
Everyone I give it to jumps straight to the fine being £11.
-
Don't include the payment slip in the pic although that's where the PCN number and VRM are printed clearly. But the slip is not part of the PCN (I believe).
A good test is if you give the PCN to someone and ask them to immediately read out the key details.
-
+1
-
I would just challenge saying the PCN is not compliant owing to misalignment of the printer and enclose a pic.
They may just cancel it.
-
Why £11? Pay the discount: £5.50 and see what they come back with. If this were mine, I would.
I already have two complaints in against these clowns.
-
So I should only attempt to pay them the £11 as full and final payment?
-
Wait to see what others say, but I'd be tempted to post them a cheque for £11 "in full and final settlement". It'll get rejected, but I think you'd be in a pretty strong position at adjudication given that the actual amount is the least readable part of the PCN.
I half agree. After all, it is purportedly the first legal document in the chain. Give them £5.50.
mrmustard sent me this yesterday:
Case Details
Case
reference
2240242447
Appellant Yocheved Goldmeier
Authority London Borough of Barnet
VRM LN12CGG
PCN Details
PCN AG44813617
Contravention
date
06 Feb 2024
Contravention
time
09:17:00
Contravention
location
Penshurst Gardens
Penalty
amount
GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked without payment of the parking charge
Referral date
Decision Date 02 Aug 2024
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal
decision
Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant accurately submitted ‘The EA on
page 2 paragraph 5 of their NoR state that;” As a
goodwill gesture, we are willing to reoffer you the
opportunity to pay at a discount price of £65, if paid
within 14 days from the date of this letter”. However
further down the same page of the same NoR
namely on page 2 paragraph 9, the EA state the
discount amount to be £40, ie; “Pay within 14 days
of the date of service of this letter at the amount of
£40 and the case will be closed”.’
The Council apologised ‘ for the typographical error
made by the officer in the NOR. The PCN was
issued at the statutory rate of £80, reduced to £40 if
paid within 14 days of the date of the PCN. The
Council then re-offered the discounted rate when
NOR was issued for a further 14 days of the date of
the NOR. It should be noted that this was done as a
gesture of goodwill. The Council was not required
under the regulations to re-offer a discount. The
PCN was set at £40 during the discount period and
this would have appeared as the charge payable for
the appellant had they chosen to pay the PCN.’
However the statutory scheme requires practical
certainty about the level of penalty to be paid and
when a penalty is to be paid. In this instance the
typographical mistake caused a real scope for
material confusion on an important aspect of the
enforcement process.
-
Hang on. When you go to challenge, first screenshot the page and report back with what grounds are provided please.
https://ibb.co/dDnwK4d
Edit: Apologies, inserting the image is broken for me it seems. Ive changed the link to remove the [img]
Clearly not the whole grounds:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/regulation/5/made
-
Wait to see what others say, but I'd be tempted to post them a cheque for £11 "in full and final settlement". It'll get rejected, but I think you'd be in a pretty strong position at adjudication given that the actual amount is the least readable part of the PCN.
-
Hang on. When you go to challenge, first screenshot the page and report back with what grounds are provided please.
https://ibb.co/dDnwK4d
Edit: Apologies, inserting the image is broken for me it seems. Ive changed the link to remove the [img]
-
Hang on. When you go to challenge, first screenshot the page and report back with what grounds are provided please.
-
The PCN distortion is rather thin gruel for an appeal to London Tribunals, and you'd have to risk the full PCN penalty as well. It is virtually inevitable any representations submitted to the council will be refused, but submit them anyway, as they may ****-up their reply, which then gives you a stronger appeal argument.
Can I play on the argument that the PCN states £11 as a fine but the online portal shows £40?
-
The PCN distortion is rather thin gruel for an appeal to London Tribunals, and you'd have to risk the full PCN penalty as well. It is virtually inevitable any representations submitted to the council will be refused, but submit them anyway, as they may ****-up their reply, which then gives you a stronger appeal argument.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/Cm3g01q/Screenshot-20240926-162758.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
(https://i.ibb.co/9WGB3v0/Screenshot-20240926-162800.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
I am inclined (pace Stamforman) to feel that an Adjudicator may say that it is not sufficiently distorted for the man on the Clapham omnibus not to be able to make sense of the misprint. Therte may well be mistakes in the 'small print'on the back, but that is above my pay-grade!
-
I'd say this isn't compliant in multiple places but others will no doubt comment.
(https://i.imgur.com/S2rt0Ri.png)
-
Hi All,
need your help once again. I searched on this forum about similar cases and found this topic (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/pcn-not-printed-correctlyclearly/msg15454/#msg15454) but the original poster never got back to responding so I am starting this thread.
The driver parked in a pay and display in Redbridge and registered for an hours parking. Unfortunately the driver got back to the car a bit late and found the dreaded pcn attached to the windscreen, 17 minutes after the paid parking had lapsed. Was a bit shocked and delighted to see that it was supposedly only going to cost £11, but on closer inspection it seems that the printer was misaligned and everything had shifted down.
The driver is wondering if there is any leg to stand on?
Paid Parking: https://ibb.co/sVDCGqt
PCN Front: https://ibb.co/ydctsfD
PCN Back: https://ibb.co/hVCr1MN
GSV: Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5500404,0.0747229,3a,24.6y,208.85h,81.28t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1shtI3m12xJGZk1cBGUwNJKg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D8.718596704556205%26panoid%3DhtI3m12xJGZk1cBGUwNJKg%26yaw%3D208.849968393526!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkyMy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)