Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: da3533 on November 24, 2024, 12:02:43 pm
-
Thanks!
My God, they're incompetent and visit this on poor motorists rather than addressing their shortcomings.
Enough of my editorial.
The PCN is missing 2/3rds of the mandatory Appeals Regulations content and you would succeed at adjudication on this point alone(believe it, you would).
So, what must this type of PCN (known colloquially as a Reg. 9 PCN) tell the recipient?
Penalty charge notices for parking contraventions: service by civil enforcement officers
9(7) A penalty charge notice given under this regulation must include the information set out in—
(a)Schedule 2, and
(b)regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.
Oh no, not more regulations! Nobody said this was easy, this is why it's useful to have this forum's resource. How is a motorist supposed to know whether an authority has followed procedures if they omit these procedure from official notices when the law requires them to be included?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/part/2/chapter/1
CHAPTER 1
Information to be included in regulation 9 penalty charge notices and enforcement notices
Information about right to make representations or appeal to be included in regulation 9 penalty charge notices and enforcement notices
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;
(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.
You will see that the PCN omits 3(1)(b) and IMO 3(1)(c) because although some of of the words are there, it loses its effect without the context of 3(1)((b). They've only been doing this for 16 years, so let's no be too hard on them.
Before I draft something for you pl post exactly what you received in response to your follow-up letter, the 'sorry can't consider this.....' nonsense so that I can reference this in your next letter.
Hello
Hope you are well. they have now sent the Notice to Owner. See attached:
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks!
My God, they're incompetent and visit this on poor motorists rather than addressing their shortcomings.
Enough of my editorial.
The PCN is missing 2/3rds of the mandatory Appeals Regulations content and you would succeed at adjudication on this point alone(believe it, you would).
So, what must this type of PCN (known colloquially as a Reg. 9 PCN) tell the recipient?
Penalty charge notices for parking contraventions: service by civil enforcement officers
9(7) A penalty charge notice given under this regulation must include the information set out in—
(a)Schedule 2, and
(b)regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.
Oh no, not more regulations! Nobody said this was easy, this is why it's useful to have this forum's resource. How is a motorist supposed to know whether an authority has followed procedures if they omit these procedure from official notices when the law requires them to be included?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/part/2/chapter/1
CHAPTER 1
Information to be included in regulation 9 penalty charge notices and enforcement notices
Information about right to make representations or appeal to be included in regulation 9 penalty charge notices and enforcement notices
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;
(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.
You will see that the PCN omits 3(1)(b) and IMO 3(1)(c) because although some of of the words are there, it loses its effect without the context of 3(1)((b). They've only been doing this for 16 years, so let's no be too hard on them.
Before I draft something for you pl post exactly what you received in response to your follow-up letter, the 'sorry can't consider this.....' nonsense so that I can reference this in your next letter.
Thats unbelievable
see attached response via email it was.
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks!
My God, they're incompetent and visit this on poor motorists rather than addressing their shortcomings.
Enough of my editorial.
The PCN is missing 2/3rds of the mandatory Appeals Regulations content and you would succeed at adjudication on this point alone(believe it, you would).
So, what must this type of PCN (known colloquially as a Reg. 9 PCN) tell the recipient?
Penalty charge notices for parking contraventions: service by civil enforcement officers
9(7) A penalty charge notice given under this regulation must include the information set out in—
(a)Schedule 2, and
(b)regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.
Oh no, not more regulations! Nobody said this was easy, this is why it's useful to have this forum's resource. How is a motorist supposed to know whether an authority has followed procedures if they omit these procedure from official notices when the law requires them to be included?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/part/2/chapter/1
CHAPTER 1
Information to be included in regulation 9 penalty charge notices and enforcement notices
Information about right to make representations or appeal to be included in regulation 9 penalty charge notices and enforcement notices
3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—
(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;
(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;
(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.
You will see that the PCN omits 3(1)(b) and IMO 3(1)(c) because although some of of the words are there, it loses its effect without the context of 3(1)((b). They've only been doing this for 16 years, so let's no be too hard on them.
Before I draft something for you pl post exactly what you received in response to your follow-up letter, the 'sorry can't consider this.....' nonsense so that I can reference this in your next letter.
-
Unfortunately, we cannot relook into your challenge as this has already been reviewed by an officer.
More nonsense, but is this surprising?
The recipient of a PCN may make reps at any time up to the issuing of a NTO. These must be considered if raising fresh grounds. The letter did so in detail.
This would all be grist to the costs mill should this get to adjudication.
May we pl see the full PCN, both sides and their full replies.
Hello
see attached:
PCN:
[attachimg=1]
[attachimg=2]
Challenge Reply:
[attachimg=3]
[attachimg=4]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Unfortunately, we cannot relook into your challenge as this has already been reviewed by an officer.
More nonsense, but is this surprising?
The recipient of a PCN may make reps at any time up to the issuing of a NTO. These must be considered if raising fresh grounds. The letter did so in detail.
This would all be grist to the costs mill should this get to adjudication.
May we pl see the full PCN, both sides and their full replies.
-
They replied to me:
Good Afternoon,
Thank you for your email.
Unfortunately, we cannot relook into your challenge as this has already been reviewed by an officer.
As previously advised If you do not wish to accept this decision you are able to appeal further to the Councils Parking Appeals section. To do this you must wait for a Notice to Owner to be sent to the registered keeper of the vehicle at the full charge of £130.00. Once this has been received you will be required to follow the instructions given to make a formal representation.
Regards,
We will wait.
-
Thank you so much. We are both BB holders, and we are now scared of parking. I will message on here when we get a response of the final letter
My wife, who was with me is the RK of the car... does it make a difference or make a issue goign forward?
None. The NTO (if at all)for the full penalty would be addressed to her and she would sign her reps which you would draft with our help, merely procedural.
what sort of costs? Against you, none. Against them (in your wife's favour) if they continued to and lost at adjudication, quite possibly. But these are nominal in any event. Sadly, they are judges in their own cause until adjudication, but once the glare of the adjudication spotlight is shone on them I'd expect them to scatter like cockroaches.
Sorry to be so serious about this, but I served local government for 25+ years and this sort of abuse wouldn't have happened on my watch, and it shouldn't now.
But it's your PCN and you must decide what to do.
-
My wife, who was with me is the RK of the car... does it make a difference or make a issue goign forward?
None. The NTO (if at all)for the full penalty would be addressed to her and she would sign her reps which you would draft with our help, merely procedural.
what sort of costs? Against you, none. Against them (in your wife's favour) if they continued to and lost at adjudication, quite possibly. But these are nominal in any event. Sadly, they are judges in their own cause until adjudication, but once the glare of the adjudication spotlight is shone on them I'd expect them to scatter like cockroaches.
Sorry to be so serious about this, but I served local government for 25+ years and this sort of abuse wouldn't have happened on my watch, and it shouldn't now.
But it's your PCN and you must decide what to do.
-
Hi
I was driving, i am a named driver on on insurance. My wife, who was with me is the RK of the car... does it make a difference or make a issue goign forward?
what sort of costs?
Next stage would be a Notice to Owner addressed to the registered keeper who would be able to make further(also know as formal) representations which if rejected would allow them to access the tribunal.
Are you the RK with current DVLA details?
If this ever got to Tribunal, then you'd phrase any formal reps in order to line you up for a costs award against the authority. This sort of misapplication of established legal framework should not exist and should not be tolerated.
The law on footway parking came into effect in 1974; authorities' enforcement powers in 2008 and the signs Regs in 2016.
The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance (which requires councils to ensure they train their staff to the required standard gives the following:
Once a solid foundation of policies, legitimate TROs and clear and lawful signs and lines are in place, the success of civil parking enforcement will depend on the dedication and quality of the staff that deliver it.
It is essential to give staff at all levels the skills and training to do their jobs effectively if the service is to command public confidence and respect.
This should also improve the self-esteem and job satisfaction of staff, resulting in higher retention rates. Training should be a legitimate and important aspect of running costs and training budgets should be protected from cuts.
The office processes involved are important and staff carrying them out need similar levels of skill, training and professionalism as the more visible on-street enforcement officers.
Enforcement authorities should provide enough staff for the volume of work. They should also make sure that those staff (whether employed directly by the authority or by a contractor to deal with informal challenges) have the skills, training, authority and resources to give the public a high quality, professional, efficient, timely and user-friendly service.
Yeah!
-
True, but it doesn't alter the position in law which is that a motorist is entitled to rely upon traffic signs whether they reflect an underlying resolution etc. or not.
Even better if there is one.
-
There are no parking bays and there doesn't seem to be a traffic order permitting footway parking there, so there is probably a resolution disapplying the footway ban, which you should ask for. Or they've just slapped some signs up as it's customary there.
-
Next stage would be a Notice to Owner addressed to the registered keeper who would be able to make further(also know as formal) representations which if rejected would allow them to access the tribunal.
Are you the RK with current DVLA details?
If this ever got to Tribunal, then you'd phrase any formal reps in order to line you up for a costs award against the authority. This sort of misapplication of established legal framework should not exist and should not be tolerated.
The law on footway parking came into effect in 1974; authorities' enforcement powers in 2008 and the signs Regs in 2016.
The Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance (which requires councils to ensure they train their staff to the required standard gives the following:
Once a solid foundation of policies, legitimate TROs and clear and lawful signs and lines are in place, the success of civil parking enforcement will depend on the dedication and quality of the staff that deliver it.
It is essential to give staff at all levels the skills and training to do their jobs effectively if the service is to command public confidence and respect.
This should also improve the self-esteem and job satisfaction of staff, resulting in higher retention rates. Training should be a legitimate and important aspect of running costs and training budgets should be protected from cuts.
The office processes involved are important and staff carrying them out need similar levels of skill, training and professionalism as the more visible on-street enforcement officers.
Enforcement authorities should provide enough staff for the volume of work. They should also make sure that those staff (whether employed directly by the authority or by a contractor to deal with informal challenges) have the skills, training, authority and resources to give the public a high quality, professional, efficient, timely and user-friendly service.
Yeah!
-
Thanks alot. i have written to them.
if they dont write back and just sends the notice to pay the full amount, would you recommend me go to the tribunal? it is 65£ now and after 14 days, its £130.
-
IMO, I suspect you didn't lead them by the nose.
I suggest you write back.
PCN *******
I refer to the above, my initial representations and your response dated *** rejecting those representations.
I feel I should write to you again because, although I thought that the matter was clear-cut, the authority have either not understood the law or misapplied it, either of which requires me to write to you again.
To reprise my representations, I parked at the location which is situated on the same side of the carriageway and approximately 25m ahead of a footway parking sign which carries the following meaning in law:
Vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway
The Regs provide that 'An arrow pointing to the left or to the right may be added'[indicating that it applies in either direction]. The absence of arrows carries the meaning that parking with two wheels(whether nearside or offside) is permitted until terminated by the sign at Item 16 in the Part 2 Sign Table of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 -https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7/made
The objective evidence is clear in that are no arrows on the sign, neither is its effect terminated between the sign and my car.
A motorist is entitled to act upon this sign i.e it is not mandatory upon a motorist. However, an enforcement authority has no lawful power to disregard it, which in its rejection of my initial representations it purported to do. This issue has nothing to do with the Highway Code but relies upon the council having exercised its power under s15 Greater London etc. Act 1974 to permit footway parking anywhere within the scope of the permissive signs which the council itself erected. If no such relief has been given then the council should consider its position on this matter, not penalise motorists acting lawfully.
I suggest that further consideration should be given to your decision.
(for info, footway parking permission may co-exist with any other restriction but has no effect upon it e.g. double yellow lines etc. If a motorist parks on DYL, whether this be on or off or straddling the carriageway, then unless an exemption applies- which coincidentally it did here(but is not germane to the central issue) - then they are in contravention of that restriction, footway parking has no part to play).
-
Hello
the road was tight, i thought it would help the flow of traffic.
PCN attached:
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Post the PCN.
-
But you parked on the double-yellow lines. The part-footway parking sign applicable to all motorists, can only apply to the road where there aren't any double-yellow lines, which mean No Waiting 24x7. As a BB holder you are entitled to park on the carriageway where there are double-yellow lines, not off the carriageway as you did.
-
Hello received a PCN from a local council.
Reason:
Contravention: Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of a road other than a carriageway
Part of the pavement was tarmac. Everyone else on the road . There’s a clear sign that you can park partially on the pavement
I am disabled with a blue badge too.
See photos of evidence and their photos that the officer took
Image of the place I parked over on to the tarmac.
![attachimg=1]
Image: sign on the road that allows you.
[attachimg=2]
Image of the images the council has when the traffic warden placed the ticket
[attachimg=3]
I challenged this and they rejected the challenge. This is the councils letter of rejection:
[attachimg=4]
Do you think it’s maybe because the front wheel tyre is on the pavement ‘tiles’ ?
Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]