Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: HackneyVisitor on August 06, 2023, 08:31:53 am
-
Thanks, but I’m satisfied that the individual notices are in order and prefer not to publish my car registration here. Your assistance is much appreciated and I will post back if I am successful in requesting that they exercise their discretion to cancel some of the fines.
If you go to the tribunal, your registration will be published on the tribunal website anyway, so if preventing your number plate from being online is the top priority, you might as well pay everything now.
That being said, in this particular case I'm not particularly bothered about looking at the council evidence, I wanted to look at something completely different because there is another angle to be pursued here, but if you want to be difficult and refuse to show us the paperwork, well suit yourself.
-
Thanks, but I’m satisfied that the individual notices are in order and prefer not to publish my car registration here. Your assistance is much appreciated and I will post back if I am successful in requesting that they exercise their discretion to cancel some of the fines.
YOu'd be amazed at how many PCNs we come across that contain fatal errors of content, but hey, if you don't want us to see them, carry on ! Your reg number is on view every time you park on-street or drive around. It's probably on several hundred CCTV records by now.
-
May I respectfully suggest that as your representation needs to be very carefully worded, you post a draft here for comment before sending.
As I see it, you need to make identical reps on each PCN asking for them to be considered together, offering to pay first and asking for remainder to be cancelled on the grounds of disproportionate and exorbitant penalty, quoting previous LT cases (see earlier posts here), stapling them together and sending on one envelope so they get considered by one officer at the Council rather than their arriving on different desks..... .
Post 1st class at Post Office obtaing (free) proof of posting.
-
Thanks, but I’m satisfied that the individual notices are in order and prefer not to publish my car registration here. Your assistance is much appreciated and I will post back if I am successful in requesting that they exercise their discretion to cancel some of the fines.
-
Please post all sides of all pages of one of the PCNs, just redact your postal address.
-
Some nuggets from http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103910
That case ended up at LT 2160068174 but many PCNs no apparent appeal. She had 10 cases in all at the Tribunal
Case Reference Date Registered Surname Forename PCN PCN Location Latest Outcome Date Outcome
2160068174 15/02/2016 Chiu Doreen BZ96258994 - 14/03/2016 Appeal allowed
2160067251 10/02/2016 Chiu Doreen m BZ96250245 Waldegrave Rd 14/03/2016 refused
2160067411 15/02/2016 Chiu Doreen BZ96266675 Waldegrave Road 14/03/2016 refused
2160068108 15/02/2016 Chiu Doreen BZ96261795 - 14/03/2016 Appeal allowed
2160067309 10/02/2016 Chiu Doreen BZ96250460 - 16/02/2016 Appeal allowed
2160068436 15/02/2016 Chiu Doreen BZ96259454 - 14/03/2016 Appeal allowed
2160067331 10/02/2016 Chiu Doreen BZ96251521 - 16/02/2016 Appeal allowed
2160067273 10/02/2016 Chiu Doreen - BZ9625053A - 16/02/2016 Appeal allowed
2160067375 10/02/2016 Chiu Doreen - BZ96251066 - 16/02/2016 Appeal allowed
2160068254 04/04/2016 Chiu Doreen - BZ96258837 - 11/04/2016 Appeal allowed
row(s) 1 - 10 of 10
Gerald Styles in LT case 2140191859
I consider I have however a duty in cases where there are cumulative penalties for the same, effectively a continuous contravention, to have regard to a general principle that the total demand for penalties should not be exorbitant.
Gerald Styles again 2140263304
The Council may not have been at fault in issuing three separate penalty charges for Tuesday Wednesday and Thursday that is to say three consecutive days.
What I think has been unfortunate is that the Council has not really responded to the main point which is for the cases to be met by a single penalty charge.
I consider that when I adjudicate on multiple penalty charges each deriving from the same mistake I have a duty to proceed so that the total penalty charge amount is not exorbitant, not disproportionate.
In the present case the Council has not really dealt with this multiple aspect of the charges.
I consider the correct response taking all in all is for me to uphold the penalty charge of £130 solely in respect of Thursday 13 March (the Adjudicator at the adjudication stage is not able to reset the initial discount).
I am allowing the appeals arising from penalty charges incurred by mistakes on the two previous days.
Gerald Styles again, but although criticising the Council, does not find the penalty disproportionate/exorbitant.
2150359534
I intend to record here what I wrote following the attendance in person of the appellant.
"I heard in person from the appellant in connection with this appeal and have corresponded thereafter with the Council in the case, principally with regard to the quantum of cumulative penalty charges.
It is now established that there are solely four outstanding penalty charges, all essentially similar, and these arise from occurrences on consecutive days.
The appellant was fundamentally mistaken in any belief that residency or indeed a resident permit permitted him to override the prohibition that was indicated by a pair of posts bearing signage prohibiting vehicular entry at times, times when the his car was recorded passing them.
The appellant has been fundamentally mistaken in believing that I would be entitled to overturn the penalty charge because of the extended time/inconvenience issues involved in selecting another route or indeed the extent of CO2 or toxic emissions that his and other vehicles might create by selecting another route.
I am not persuaded issues regarding the positioning of the posted signage and the design of the signs justify any cancellation of the four penalty charges sought from the appellant and which are today pending my adjudication. I am satisfied that on four occasions reported the alleged contravention occurred. I consider the signs and their import obvious to an alert and experienced driver.
The Council has in the correspondence it has conducted since the hearing, one attended by the appellant but no Council representative, described how warnings were dispatched by post to the DVLA registered address for the vehicle. I have noted that the Council appears reluctant to reduce the penalty charges sought, either by number or amount in this case. It references the warnings described as part of its justification for persisting in its pursuit of four penalty charges. Despite any warnings despatched I remain of the opinion that there is very substantial mitigation, that is to say fair reason to mitigate the financial extent of the cumulative penalties.
It seems to me that in seeking to pursue four full penalty charges for repeated instances on consecutive days totalling £520 the Council is being rigid in a manner which I continue to view and indeed condemn as exceptionally harsh and on that account wrong.
I am pleased to say that in the document entitled Adjournment Evidence Form the Council an officer corresponding with the Tribunal on the Council's behalf has written that it will give due careful consideration to recommendations that I make.
Being currently satisfied that the contraventions did occur on each of the four days I currently consider I shall in the absence of additional submissions be obliged to record the appeals as refused.
Had these proceedings been brought under the Traffic Management Act 2004 I would have very probably decided to have issued formal recommendations urging the Council to cancel the second and third in the sequence of four.
I do not consider that I have legal powers to direct the cancellation of that pair nor do I have powers to make formal recommendations given this is not a Traffic Management Act 2004 case.
I am encouraging the Council to consider carefully and again mitigating the £520 indicated as sought. In view of the Council remarks about recommendations I shall await its reply on these before giving any final ruling in this case."
I shall also record that since writing the above the Council on 15 January notified me that it was agreeable to re-offering the discount so that each of the four outstanding penalty charges could be settled by the appellant at the rate of £65 each.
As I am satisfied the Council has proved its case and the contraventions under appeal did occur. I have now concluded the adjudications as pending before me. I have recorded the penalty charges for the appeals in the Tribunal register as £65.
It will be sensible therefore for the appellant to now pay the outstanding penalty charges at the £65 at level as sought by the Council and to do so promptly (28 days).
I am unable to assist the appellant with the total cancellation of penalty charges. In my ruling the total penalty charges as now sought is not demonstrably exorbitant given the repetition of what occurred and I have concluded the adjudication accordingly.
Authority Response Recommendation not accepted due to
-
I wrote over at PPP
There was a similar sort of case, some years ago, involving a clutch of postal PCNs, where agreement was reached with the Council (cannot remember if Adjudicator was involved) to cancel subsequent ones incurred before the 1st PCN had been received by the OP. Sadly I can no longer use PePiPoo's search function,
Not much luck with Pepipoo's search but
That said, I did find one multiple PCN case,
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=103910
which might be relevant
or have some useful nuggets and case numbers to help.
I am not sure that this was the one I was thinking of.
Incandescent on PPP also recalls a case
There was a case some time ago at London Tribunals, (I think it was when they were called PATAS). Essentially PCNs after the first one, but dated before the first one had been received were ordered to be cancelled.
So if you can list all the PCNs with PCN date and date received it would help to give better advice. It is clear that you, like so many others, didn't know what the "Flying Motorbike" sign meant. Would you have passed a No Entry sign ?
-
This is reposted from PepiPoo as I understand that forum has technical issues and was advised by another poster to repost here.
The sign was as attached:
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Post #1
New Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Joined: Today, 01:07
Member No.: 120,692
I have received 20 PCNs of £65 each for driving repeatedly into a very short section of road prohibited to motor vehicles between 7am and 7pm. I misunderstood the signs but, having reviewed them on Streetmap, now see they were clear. The road is painted with a rainbow but there are no planters, road-narrowing chicanes or the like.
The prohibited area is a very small section of road. I crossed it 4 times a day for the whole week while dropping and picking up my child from a holiday camp. The fines are in pairs, ten minutes or so apart, two in the morning and two at about 5pm. The camp venue is opposite a council-run car park about 30 seconds drive from the prohibited area. I am not local to Hackney, was driving in from a neighbouring borough.
Is there any chance I can appeal this on the grounds of proportionality? £1300 is a very high sum to pay.