Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: TrixBear on September 30, 2024, 01:43:45 am
-
Just had confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled! :D Thanks all for your help!
Well done !
-
Good - this was not a contravention by any reasonable terms.
-
Just had confirmation that this PCN has been cancelled! :D Thanks all for your help!
-
The reasons are somewhat dodgy.
What does the hire agreement say?
-
Sorry, I just went to make my representations online and now I have another question.
The form asks me to complete a field stating whether I'm the driver, keeper, driver and keeper, or incorrectly registered keeper. This was a hire car so I tried selecting 'driver', but I'm met with an error message saying 'Sorry but only the keeper can make a challenge'.
How do I proceed? The hire company have transferred liability to me, so do I count as both the driver and keeper in this scenario?
Screenshots here: https://imgur.com/a/ew3qA6L
Thanks once again for your assistance!
*Edit
I think I've figured it out if this distinction is correct: "if you hire/lease a car, the lessor/hire company are the "registered keeper" and you are the day to day "keeper".
-
Alright, thanks so much. I'll get it sent off and let you know how it all goes.
-
I think it's best to just say no contravention at the start.
The bit I think you should replace then says there was a minimal contravention so contradicts this.
It doesn't matter much as if Hackney is minded not to cancel it will do so no matter what you say and you'll have to take it to the tribunal but you may as well be consistent.
-
You don't want to claim no contravention and de minimis.
So change this para:
Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since this took place over such a short distance and time, I would also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under the rule of de minimis.
To:
As I was reversing out of Regent's Row the van was turning in and I had little alternative but to carry out the manoeuvre you can see in your video to give us both space to proceed.
Ok, thank you. Happy to change the last paragraph to what you've suggested, I'm a little confused though. On your advice, I opened the letter with "I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no contravention".. so isn't that claiming no contravention? (Apologies, first time receiving and challenging a PCN so it's all new to me)
And to confirm, I'm good to send it off once I've changed that paragraph?
Thanks again!
-
You don't want to claim no contravention and de minimis.
So change this para:
Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since this took place over such a short distance and time, I would also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under the rule of de minimis.
To:
As I was reversing out of Regent's Row the van was turning in and I had little alternative but to carry out the manoeuvre you can see in your video to give us both space to proceed.
-
Ok, 2nd draft:
Dear Hackney Council,
I am writing to submit representations against Penalty Charge Notice (PCN:) QZ17185364.
I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no contravention - as you can see from the video, I had to reverse briefly to allow a large van to proceed and did not drive through the restriction going forwards.
I’m a Blue Badge holder with a limited walking ability that requires I park as close as possible to my final destination. I had turned onto Regent’s Row searching for such a spot before this incident occurred. I quickly discovered it was a narrow 'No Through' road already full with parked cars and other obstructions like the bike dock and large bins partially obstructing the way.
Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since this took place over such a short distance and time, I would also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under the rule of de minimis.
Based on all the above, I kindly request that the PCN is cancelled.
-
It's very long - you could just send:
I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no contravention - as you can see from the video, I had to reverse briefly to allow a large van to proceed and did not drive through the restriction going forwards.
In any case you should start with this to make the grounds clear and then add the rest. I would certainly include the info about being a disabled driver looking for a space near to where you were going.
Thanks for this, I do have a habit of over explaining myself. ;D I thought the restriction still counted even if I had reversed into it, so I was trying to pre-empt questions about other moves I could have made instead. I also wasn't sure if I should be challenging based on mitigating circumstances or no contravention.
-
It's very long - you could just send:
I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that there was no contravention - as you can see from the video, I had to reverse briefly to allow a large van to proceed and did not drive through the restriction going forwards.
In any case you should start with this to make the grounds clear and then add the rest. I would certainly include the info about being a disabled driver looking for a space near to where you were going.
-
Finally completed my draft letter of representation! Would love your feedback.
Dear Hackney Council,
I am writing to submit representations against Penalty Charge Notice (PCN): QZ17185364.
I was heading to a venue on Broadway Market and searching for a parking spot that would be accessible for me when this incident occurred. While this PCN is not for a parking infraction, this detail does provide context for the actions leading to this PCN being issued.
I’m a Blue Badge holder with a limited walking ability that requires I park as close as possible to my final destination, so my initial plan was to park on Broadway Market itself where there are on-street parking spaces. However, I was thrown when barriers blocked entry onto Broadway Market at multiple points despite signs indicating vehicles are permitted after 8pm and the time being past that.
The alleged contravention has been time stamped at 20:20 and takes place at the Pritchard Road junction, just 40 metres away from the Ada Street entrance/barrier to Broadway Market. This shows I was there after the barriers should have been open. I also have photographic evidence from Saturday 19th October at 21:10, of the barrier being locked again at a time when the signs indicate permitted entry.
After I couldn’t progress right onto Broadway Market from Ada Street, I turned onto Regent’s Row hoping to find a parking spot or place to turn around there but I quickly discovered it was a narrow 'No Through' road already full with parked cars and other obstructions like the bike dock and large bins partially obstructing the way. Further down, car headlights faced me just before the road turned a corner. This made it difficult to tell what the road layout was like and if there were more obstructions; I did not feel comfortable continuing down this road. I didn't know when I'd next be able to safely turn around, and I was driving alone in an unfamiliar area, getting further away from my destination and any parking space I could walk from.
Considering this, I decided to return to a parking space I had seen earlier. It was still further away than the ones I’d originally been aiming for on Broadway Market, but now seemed like the closest I could get to the venue. However, I was now blocked from going back the way I came by the white van waiting to turn into Regent's Row where I was.
To stop obstructing the van, I reversed into the entrance of Pritchard's Road up to 5m and waited until the van had completed the turn before I could safely move off again, which was less than 10 seconds later. This is clearly evident in the video footage you provided. My only alternative would have been reversing straight back onto Andrews Road, but this would have meant reversing for longer than necessary and potentially into oncoming traffic partially hidden by the van and the road decline.
Reversing into Pritchard’s Road and allowing enough clearance between the two vehicles felt like the safest action I could take in this situation, therefore giving me good reason. Since the infraction took place over such a short distance and time, I would also suggest the minimal incurrence is taken into account under the rule of de minimis.
Based on all the above, I kindly request that the PCN is cancelled.
--
Questions: Would I need to provide anything in way of supporting evidence, like my blue badge or proof of disability or photos? I’ve since revisited the site and have photos of the barrier / sign on Broadway Market and the view from my position on Regent’s Row in case they would be needed too.
Thanks all again for your time and support!
-
A question for the experts: if the original PCN has been cancelled, should the new PCN have a new number or does it not matter?
(https://i.imgur.com/umgoUJz.jpeg)
-
I did already share all the pages of the original PCN received by the hire company here: https://imgur.com/a/XoZsovD
The one sent to me is exactly the same, only with my name/address instead of theirs and none of the details on the representation page filled in yet.
The number on the original PCN is PCN QZ17185364 - is that the same as on the PCN with yr name & address?
What are the dates on the new PCN?
It would be best if you post up the front page of the new PCN, as Enceladus suggested.
Yeah, it's the same number. The new PCN is dated 7th October and I've now uploaded the front page as requested here: https://imgur.com/a/Nusu7VB
-
I did already share all the pages of the original PCN received by the hire company here: https://imgur.com/a/XoZsovD
The one sent to me is exactly the same, only with my name/address instead of theirs and none of the details on the representation page filled in yet.
The number on the original PCN is PCN QZ17185364 - is that the same as on the PCN with yr name & address?
What are the dates on the new PCN?
It would be best if you post up the front page of the new PCN, as Enceladus suggested.
-
The Act:
8)Where the ground that is accepted is that mentioned in sub-paragraph (4)(d) [hired vehicle] above, the person hiring the vehicle shall be deemed to be its owner for the purposes of this Act.
Cancellation of penalty charge notice
2(1)Where representations are made under paragraph 1 above and the enforcing authority accept that the ground in question has been established they shall—
(a)cancel the penalty charge notice; and
(b)state in the notice served under sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 1 above that the penalty charge notice has been cancelled.
(2)The cancellation of a penalty charge notice under this paragraph shall not be taken to prevent the enforcing authority serving a fresh penalty charge notice on another person.
Actual words are not required, but the correct meaning must be conveyed clearly.
The letter says: '..we are transferring responsibility to another person.....'. OK, this is followed by what might be considered an equivocal statement about reviewing the matter but IMO this is nothing more than a statement of the legal position which I believe means that if the keeper knowingly provided the council with false documents then, notwithstanding any acceptance of those reps, the council would still be able to pursue the keeper. But others might throw more light on this.
-
If the wording isn't specific enough to constitute a NoA, what would that mean? Would my letter of representations then be based on denying to take responsibility?
-
Ask the hire company if they received a written Notice of Acceotance (NoA) of representations cancelling the original PCN.
Hi John, I was able to call the hire company today. They received a letter on the 10th October telling them responsibility for the PCN is being transferred to another person/organisation. I've uploaded the letter here:
(https://i.imgur.com/uWm8waj.jpeg)
I am not sure the wording is specific enough to constitute a Notice of Acceptance cancelling the first PCN but others will know.
-
Ask the hire company if they received a written Notice of Acceotance (NoA) of representations cancelling the original PCN.
Hi John, I was able to call the hire company today. They received a letter on the 10th October telling them responsibility for the PCN is being transferred to another person/organisation. I've uploaded the letter here: https://imgur.com/a/3vRbpXa
-
Ask the hire company if they received a written Notice of Acceotance (NoA) of representations cancelling the original PCN.
-
Thanks. I'll get a draft written up ASAP.
The date of the postal notice is 7th October.
I did already share all the pages of the original PCN received by the hire company here: https://imgur.com/a/XoZsovD
The one sent to me is exactly the same, only with my name/address instead of theirs and none of the details on the representation page filled in yet.
-
What's the date of issue of the postal PCN?
Might be best to post up all pages of the PCN in case there's anything useful in the small print. Just redact or obscure your name and address.
And yes, please convert your opening post into a draft formal representation and post it up for scrutiny.
-
Thank you for all the replies so far. I'm glad you all also think I have a case! I've received the notice directly from the council now, so was just wondering how I'd go about challenging it. Would I just repeat what I wrote in my original message?
Thanks again for your time.
-
That has to be the most money-grubbing PCN I have ever seen. Shame on you, Hackney Council for your rapacity and venality !! I would have no hesitation in taking this to London Tribunals.
-
The reversing manoeuvre is clear on the video but it's not a given that they'll cancel as you did go half-way past the signs but I think if they were to push this to the tribunal you would win.
As said you need the PCN in your own name. You may also be charged an admin fee by the hire firm, which is though doing what it should do.
(https://i.imgur.com/8K6xX21.gif)
-
To answer your last question. You currently have no standing in the matter because the PCN is addressed to the hire company. Please wait until you actually receive a PCN in the post addressed to you at your address. That's the PCN that you make representations (challenge) against.
You should receive it before the 22nd October. Post an image of the PCN on here when you get it. All of the pages and redact your name & address, please leave everything else visible.
Is there a video of the contravention?
-
Hello,
Thank you all in advance for your time and advice. The company I'm hiring a car from have received a PCN (code 52m) involving my vehicle. They have sent Representation to Hackney notifying them of my details as the hirer then forwarded a copy of this and the PCN to me.
The PCN is for entering a motor vehicle prohibited zone. The photo stills make it appear like I've just driven out of the prohibited area of Pritchard's Road, but the video shows I may have briefly entered it while making a reverse turn.
I was looking for a place to park close to the venue I attended that evening as I'm a Blue Badge holder. My initial plan to park on Broadway Market was blocked by barriers despite signs indicating vehicles are permitted after 8pm, so I went to try Regent's Row instead. However, I quickly discovered it was a narrow 'No Through' road already full with parked cars and other obstructions like the bike dock, bins, and if my memory serves me correctly, an oncoming car.
It was an unfamiliar road and I didn't know when I'd next be able to safely turn around. From what I could see, it looked more difficult further down the road and I couldn't tell if more obstructions lay around the corner. Continuing in that direction would have also taken me too far from where I wanted to be, so I decided to return the way I had come, which was via Broadway Market.
This was now blocked by the white van who wanted to turn into Regent's Row where I was. To stop obstructing the van, I reversed approximately 5m or less into the entrance of Pritchard's Road. I cannot remember if I could easily see the signs on this road from where I was on Regent's Row as my concentration was focused on ensuring the cyclists had passed before I started my manoeuvre.
After reversing, I had to wait for the van to make the turn before I could continue my own journey unobstructed too and I was able to safely move off again in less than 10 seconds.
My only alternative would have been reversing straight back onto Andrews Road, but this would have meant reversing for longer than necessary and potentially into oncoming traffic partially hidden by the van and the road decline.
Do you think I have a case for getting the penalty charge cancelled? Also, the hire company say I do not need to act until I get a notice directly from Hackney. Is that right, and if so would it be better to wait or appeal now?
Here is the letter from the car hire company which included a copy of the PCN and a copy of the representation they returned to Hackney. Council photo and video evidence can be found here too:
https://imgur.com/a/XoZsovD
Location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xHu5DGBEmv2i8Nqo7
Thanks so much again, your time and advice are greatly appreciated.