Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: FocusDriver on December 03, 2024, 06:25:08 pm
-
Surely 'Penalty exceeds' applies here, as the council has admitted demanding three times the allowed sum.
-
Honoured to know that our decisions are now being flagged. 8) "It ain't not over until the fat lady sings".
-
Outcome (https://drive.google.com/file/d/12Po7WldGo0wAmR9rjNEHR1TbK7_pZbpQ/view).
-
>:( Failure to consider. Etc etc.!!
225012277A
-
I am. No brainer now as they do not reoffer the discount. I will PM you my details and phone number as I find it much better to explore the pros and cons directly. 11th is the deadline but I wish to file the appeal on your behalf asap i.e. today if convenient.
-
Hi all,
Apologies for the delay - it took a long while for Havering council to respond and since then I have been slow on the uptake.
I have uploaded their reply here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HPTxwTIecirYBT1xZKdG9RxanyxSI14f/).
Essentially, they have cancelled the duplicate PCNs but are insistent that one is still outstanding and needs to be paid.
Would someone here be willing to represent me at London Tribunals and explain the process that I need to go through? Very conscious that the 28 deadline is fast approaching - sorry, I should have posted sooner.
@Hippocrates, would you be willing to take this on?
Many thanks in advance!
-
Just caught up with this. Fine.
-
Hi all,
Thanks for your input once again, it's hugely appreciated.
I replied to all PCNs just now as follows (attaching the 12 page scan of them plus the screenshot in my previous post):
Representation against PCN x:
"To whom it may concern,
1. There appear on the PCN two lists of grounds, which clearly do not agree with each other and, indeed, another incorrect ground concerning the TWOC: "The vehicle had been permitted to rest in the place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner." Clearly, this and the aforementioned ground belong to parking legislation and are irrelevant to the alleged contravention.
2. This issue is further compounded by the council’s website (attached as a screenshot), which contains additional grounds pertaining to parking legislation and other irrelevant grounds. This discrepancy between the PCNs and the council’s website is misleading and prejudicial. I would add that the council has had similar issues with its Code 34J PCNs, as evidenced in decisions such as Gar Poon v London Borough of Havering (223043932) and Tal Ofer v London Borough of Havering (2230533614). In the latter case, the council did not contest the costs application.
3. Specifically, I rely upon the following decisions, allowed by the following adjudicators, which highlight the importance of clarity and consistency in the grounds for representation:
- 2230228494, 2180498755, 2230274232, 2230398949, 2230446542, 2230494501, 2230541860, 2230539585, 2230487415, 2230464748, 2230545861, 2230483130, 2230496595, 2230534763, 2240258389, and 2240138955.
- The adjudicators in these decisions are Miss Alderson, Ms Brennan, Mr Greenslade, Mr Harman, Mr Styles, Mr Teper, and Mr Walsh.
The case of Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2230483130) is particularly relevant. The adjudicator in that case ruled that discrepancies between the grounds for representation listed on the PCN and those on the council’s website rendered the enforcement unfair and invalid. This precedent underscores the council’s duty to ensure clarity and consistency in communicating grounds for representation, a duty that has clearly not been met in this instance.
4. In addition to the procedural inconsistencies noted above, I have received three PCNs (x, y, z) for what is evidently the same alleged contravention at the same location. While the PCN numbers and evidence differ slightly in framing and duration, all three pertain to a single continuous event. This triplication of penalties:
- Unfairly inflates the penalty from £130 to £390 for one alleged contravention.
- Violates the principles of fairness and proportionality inherent in the enforcement process, as the penalty is grossly disproportionate to the alleged contravention.
- Demonstrates a failure in the council's enforcement processes.
The principles of fairness and proportionality are essential to ensure that enforcement actions remain just and reasonable. Issuing three PCNs for one alleged continuous contravention constitutes an excessive response and undermines the legitimacy of the enforcement process.
For the reasons stated above—procedural inconsistencies, errors in the grounds provided for representation, and the unfair issuance of three PCNs for the same continuous alleged offence—I respectfully request that all three PCNs be canceled in full."
I will keep you all posted on what happens next.
-
You have 3 PCNs which are for the same contravention and yet I cannot find any reference to this in your draft.
IMO, you should start with the glaringly obvious.
PCN *****
I refer to the above which you will see is exactly the same in all particulars and two other PCNs which I received at the same time i.e. PCNs **** and *****. When you consider these and their associated videos you will suffer from a feeling a deja vu and I am sorry to add to this by making representations against each in exactly the same form.
Clearly the council have made a blunder in demanding 3 penalties for the same alleged contravention. Therefore at least 2 must be cancelled, the authority's next problem is which two because none of them shows any signs related to the contravention and therefore which of the three happened first?
Given the additional procedural errors in each PCN I submit that your best course of action is to cancel all three, draw a veil over this sorry episode and investigate what went wrong.
..and then whatever you want about the grounds..
PCN ****
I refer to the above which you will see is exactly the same in all particulars and two other PCNs which I received at the same time i.e. PCNs **** and *****. When you consider these and their associated videos you will suffer from a feeling a deja vu and I am sorry to add to this by making representations against each in exactly the same form.
Clearly the council have made a blunder in issuing demanding 3 penalties for the same alleged contravention. Therefore at least 2 must be cancelled, the authority's next problem is which two because none of them shows any signs related to the contravention and therefore which of the three happened first?
Given the additional procedural errors in each PCN I submit that your best course of action is to cancel all three, draw a veil over this sorry episode and investigate what went wrong.
PCN *****
I refer to the above which you will see is exactly the same in all particulars and two other PCNs which I received at the same time i.e. PCNs **** and *****. When you consider these and their associated videos you will suffer from a feeling a deja vu and I am sorry to add to this by making representations against each in exactly the same form.
Clearly the council have made a blunder in issuing demanding 3 penalties for the same alleged contravention. Therefore at least 2 must be cancelled, the authority's next problem is which two because none of them shows any signs related to the contravention and therefore which of the three happened first?
Given the additional procedural errors in each PCN I submit that your best course of action is to cancel all three, draw a veil over this sorry episode and investigate what went wrong.
-
Dear Sirs
1. There appear on the PCN two lists of grounds, which clearly do not agree
with each other and, indeed, another wrong ground concerning the TWOC: The
vehicle had been permitted to rest in the place in question by a person who was
in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner. – Clearly, this and the
aforementioned ground belong to parking legislation.
2. This issue is further compounded and exacerbated by the council’s
website (attached as a screenshot) which contains further grounds pertaining to
parking legislation and some irrelevant grounds. Its contents are selfexplanatory;
however, I would wish to add that the council has had similar
issues with its Code 34 j PCNs as the costs decision in Gar Poon v London
Borough of Havering 223043933 proves. Similarly, in that case, they included
procedural impropriety as a ground and also in Tal Ofer v London Borough of
Havering Case No 2230533614. In the latter case, they did not contest the costs
application.
3. With particular regard to the grounds on the website, I rely upon the
following decisions allowed by the following adjudicators, some of which agree
with other’s decisions: 2230228494; 2180498755; 2230274232; 2230398949;
2230446542; 2230398949; 2230446542; 2230494501; 2230541860;
2230539585; 2230487415; 2230464748; 2230545861; 2230483130;
2230496595; 2230534763; 2240258389; 2240138955. The Adjudicators who
allowed these appeals are in alphabetical order: Miss Alderson, Ms Brennan, Mr
Greenslade, Mr Harman, Mr Styles, Mr Teper and Mr Walsh. For example, I
rely upon Mr Harman’s decision in Case no 2230483130. Mr Murray-Smith, for
the appellant company, attended the hearing today via telephone. The council
did not attend the hearing either in person or via telephone nor did it seek an
adjournment. Mr Murray-Smith made submissions in accordance with those set
out in his skeleton argument uploaded to the case on 17/12/23. I reserved my
decision. I accept Mr Murray-Smith's argument that the grounds upon which
representations can be made were correctly stated on the PCN but not on the
council's website. My noting his submissions on the point supported by the
decisions upon which he relies (one of which is mine) I am not accordingly
satisfied that the council's online system adequately conveys to motorists the
grounds upon which they can make representations the council thus I find being
in breach of its duty to act fairly. I am satisfied for that reason that enforcement
may not be pursued. That being so I need make no finding as to any other issue
raised by either party to the proceedings. Of course, in this instance the grounds
are not correctly stated on the PCN as it includes two which are wrong. It
follows, therefore, that this scenario presents an appellant with a somewhat
aleatoric predicament to put it mildly, which is hardly legally valid.
Thanks so much for your swift and insightful response, @Hippocrates!
Just to clarify for the uninitiated (myself): I am to use the response you’ve provided above when making representations via the webcodes for each of the 3 PCNs online. The focus should be entirely on the procedural error regarding the inconsistent grounds between the PCNs and the council’s website, supplemented with the precedents you’ve highlighted to strengthen this argument, rather than the issue of the triplicate PCNs issued for the same continuous alleged offence. I should also include the screenshot with the representation reasons I included in my previous post as supplementary evidence to highlight these inconsistencies.
I trust this approach aligns with your advice? Please let me know if I've understood this correctly and I will go ahead.
Thanks again for your invaluable guidance — your advice is hugely appreciated!
-
The deadline for payment on an LLA&TFL 2003 PCN is 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. So the deadine is today the 4th Dec. My apologies, where I said Tues above I meant today Wednesday. Since the deadline for the discount expired on the 20th Nov then you might as well pursue this all the way. Stick to the deadlines and the charge cannot increase further.
However the deadline to submit representations (challenge) is 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN. In theory Sunday the 8th Dec. But I wouldn't push it that far. Try to get your challenge delivered by close of business on Friday 6th Dec.
One representation for each PCN and on each representation cross reference the other two.
-
By my reckoning though, 28 days from 07/11/2024 (date of issue) is 05/12/2024, which makes the deadline either today or tomorrow?
7th Nov is day 1, so day 28 is the 4th. Dec.
28 days from the date of service which is not the 7th. Deemed date of service is 11th November.
Sorry, my bad.
-
@FocusDriver: I have tried last week to file a representation and their website is clearly not right. I had to write to the council leader and parking manager. If you have any problems, please get back to me.
-
By my reckoning though, 28 days from 07/11/2024 (date of issue) is 05/12/2024, which makes the deadline either today or tomorrow?
7th Nov is day 1, so day 28 is the 4th. Dec.
28 days from the date of service which is not the 7th. Deemed date of service is 11th November.
-
Dear Sirs
1. There appear on the PCN two lists of grounds, which clearly do not agree
with each other and, indeed, another wrong ground concerning the TWOC: The
vehicle had been permitted to rest in the place in question by a person who was
in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner. – Clearly, this and the
aforementioned ground belong to parking legislation.
2. This issue is further compounded and exacerbated by the council’s
website (attached as a screenshot) which contains further grounds pertaining to
parking legislation and some irrelevant grounds. Its contents are selfexplanatory;
however, I would wish to add that the council has had similar
issues with its Code 34 j PCNs as the costs decision in Gar Poon v London
Borough of Havering 223043933 proves. Similarly, in that case, they included
procedural impropriety as a ground and also in Tal Ofer v London Borough of
Havering Case No 2230533614. In the latter case, they did not contest the costs
application.
3. With particular regard to the grounds on the website, I rely upon the
following decisions allowed by the following adjudicators, some of which agree
with other’s decisions: 2230228494; 2180498755; 2230274232; 2230398949;
2230446542; 2230398949; 2230446542; 2230494501; 2230541860;
2230539585; 2230487415; 2230464748; 2230545861; 2230483130;
2230496595; 2230534763; 2240258389; 2240138955. The Adjudicators who
allowed these appeals are in alphabetical order: Miss Alderson, Ms Brennan, Mr
Greenslade, Mr Harman, Mr Styles, Mr Teper and Mr Walsh. For example, I
rely upon Mr Harman’s decision in Case no 2230483130. Mr Murray-Smith, for
the appellant company, attended the hearing today via telephone. The council
did not attend the hearing either in person or via telephone nor did it seek an
adjournment. Mr Murray-Smith made submissions in accordance with those set
out in his skeleton argument uploaded to the case on 17/12/23. I reserved my
decision. I accept Mr Murray-Smith's argument that the grounds upon which
representations can be made were correctly stated on the PCN but not on the
council's website. My noting his submissions on the point supported by the
decisions upon which he relies (one of which is mine) I am not accordingly
satisfied that the council's online system adequately conveys to motorists the
grounds upon which they can make representations the council thus I find being
in breach of its duty to act fairly. I am satisfied for that reason that enforcement
may not be pursued. That being so I need make no finding as to any other issue
raised by either party to the proceedings. Of course, in this instance the grounds
are not correctly stated on the PCN as it includes two which are wrong. It
follows, therefore, that this scenario presents an appellant with a somewhat
aleatoric predicament to put it mildly, which is hardly legally valid.
-
By my reckoning though, 28 days from 07/11/2024 (date of issue) is 05/12/2024, which makes the deadline either today or tomorrow?
7th Nov is day 1, so day 28 is the 4th. Dec.
-
The website is pants. Procedural impropriety is not a ground. The PCN also contains two incorrect grounds AND there are two lists of grounds which do not tally with each other.
I was the representative in the case mentioned. I would not use it at this stage. as this will alert them to their error.
-
If Havering prove obdurate, you absolutely MUST take them to London Tribunals. You might also consider putting them into the national press as well.
Fingers crossed it doesn't come to that, but thanks for giving me some food for thought!
These are London Local Authority and Transport for London Act 2003 PCNs. There is no procedural impropriety ground in the legislation and you shouldn't have been offered it. So I suggest you use grounds E and I and not F. You are being told you have to pay £390 when the penalty is £130. And mention that the possible grounds for a challenge available on the website don't agree with those stated on the PCNs and that is misleading or even prejudicial.
Of more concern is that the PCNs are dated the 7th Nov, the deadline to pay was yesterday, Tuesday. So you are about to run out of time to get formal representations (challenge) submitted against the 3 PCNs.
Post up a draft of what you think your challenge should say for a credibility check
Some great points there, thank you for raising them. By my reckoning though, 28 days from 07/11/2024 (date of issue) is 05/12/2024, which makes the deadline either today or tomorrow?
Either way, here is my draft response. Some feedback would be very much appreciated:
I am challenging PCN x on the basis that the penalty exceeded the amount applicable.
I have received three PCNs (x, y, z) for what is clearly the same alleged contravention at the same location. Although the PCN numbers and web codes are distinct, and the associated videos have slightly different frames and durations, all three penalties pertain to the same alleged incident. The issuance of three PCNs for one alleged contravention constitutes a systemic error in the enforcement process, which breaches the statutory principles of fairness and proportionality under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
The issuance of three PCNs for one alleged contravention:
1. Inflates the penalty unfairly, increasing it from £130 to £390 for what is clearly a single continuous event.
2. Demonstrates a failure in the council’s enforcement processes, which undermines the validity of all three PCNs.
Furthermore:
- The video evidence provided does not clearly demonstrate that my vehicle passed the prohibition signs. Similar issues were raised in Jonathan Neeson v. London Borough of Havering (2240407139), where the adjudicator ruled that footage failing to show a vehicle encountering signage was insufficient to prove a contravention. In this case, too, the council has failed to provide conclusive evidence of the contravention.
- The council's challenge options are misleading and prejudicial. While the website lists “procedural impropriety” as a ground for appeal, this is not a valid ground under the relevant legislation, nor is it included as an option in the PCN letters themselves. This inconsistency creates confusion for appellants and undermines the fairness of the representation process.
Given these procedural flaws, the lack of clear evidence, and the breach of enforcement principles, I respectfully request that all three PCNs be canceled.
-
These are London Local Authority and Transport for London Act 2003 PCNs. There is no procedural impropriety ground in the legislation and you shouldn't have been offered it. So I suggest you use grounds E and I and not F. You are being told you have to pay £390 when the penalty is £130. And mention that the possible grounds for a challenge available on the website don't agree with those stated on the PCNs and that is misleading or even prejudicial.
Of more concern is that the PCNs are dated the 7th Nov, the deadline to pay was yesterday, Tuesday. So you are about to run out of time to get formal representations (challenge) submitted against the 3 PCNs.
Post up a draft of what you think your challenge should say for a credibility check
-
If Havering prove obdurate, you absolutely MUST take them to London Tribunals. You might also consider putting them into the national press as well.
-
Yes, choose F.
I think you can have some fun with this. For each one send:
I am challenging the PCN because it is a triplicate of PCNs xxxxx and xxxxx which you have also sent to me. This is a procedural impropriety and it must be cancelled.
Obviously vary the PCN numbers for each challenge.
We have to be careful of Havering because they don't reoffer the discount but I can't see how any of these can stand.
Wait for other views.
Fantastic, thank you! Unfortunately, I felt like I had no choice but to challenge these out of the sheer sense of injustice of it all, so I figured whether I did so within a 14 day or 28 day period was immaterial. This effectively waives my ability to pay at the discounted rate as you've pointed out and as I noticed in the small print. I'm hoping that this doesn't have to go to tribunal and the council chalks this off, but I'll patiently await someone else's input who is far more experienced with these things before I get back to them.
-
Yes, choose F.
I think you can have some fun with this. For each one send:
I am challenging the PCN because it is a triplicate of PCNs xxxxx and xxxxx which you have also sent to me. This is a procedural impropriety and it must be cancelled.
Obviously vary the PCN numbers for each challenge.
We have to be careful of Havering because they don't reoffer the discount but I can't see how any of these can stand.
Wait for other views.
-
Hi both, thanks for the quick replies!
That's bonkers - their system has gone haywire. Obviously two can't stand and I would challenge all three on the same basis of duplication to try and get all cancelled.
These are the options that are available to me when I go to challenge the PCN online:
(https://i.ibb.co/9GtMn6n/Screenshot-2024-12-03-23-33-01-3440x1440.png) (https://ibb.co/t3XdBgB)
I'm guessing I should choose F and go for the procedural impropriety angle? Is there any further advice you'd be able to offer in terms of wording my argument?
Are all the PCNs for the same time and date ? You have yet to post any of the PCNs, so please do so.
Sorry in case it wasn't clear in my long post above - you can see the PDF with all 3 of the scanned PCNs
here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JsyMSVnIkdD4KmTn3N8i9kMre1axRsSY/view?usp=sharing).
Three letters were delivered with a 2 x double sided A4 pages (12 sides of A4 total). You can see that the alleged offence is the same in the video links in my original post above - all three videos start at with a slightly different frame and their duration is slightly different too. The PCN numbers are all distinct, however, with a distinct web code allowing me to view the evidence and contest the alleged offence.
-
Are all the PCNs for the same time and date ? You have yet to post any of the PCNs, so please do so.
-
That's bonkers - their system has gone haywire. Obviously two can't stand and I would challenge all three on the same basis of duplication to try and get all cancelled.
-
Hello,
I’ve received three separate PCNs from Havering Council for the same alleged 52M contravention (failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles). All three PCNs pertain to the same location and are supported by video evidence, but I strongly believe there are solid grounds for challenging them.
PCN details:
Location: South St RM1 / Eastern Rd RM1
Date and Time: 20/10/2024, 19:42
Contravention Code: 52M (Failing to comply with a prohibition on motor vehicles)
Signage in Question: Google Maps street view here (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5741292,0.1837883,3a,50.1y,354.15h,85.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saNrrf5Vc0SpjnrGWKS6VXw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D4.677522272402612%26panoid%3DaNrrf5Vc0SpjnrGWKS6VXw%26yaw%3D354.1467874769275!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTEyNC4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D).
The PDF containing scans of the 3 PCNs can be found here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JsyMSVnIkdD4KmTn3N8i9kMre1axRsSY/view?usp=sharing).
Key points:
1) Multiple PCNs for the same offence:
I have been issued three PCNs for what is essentially the same alleged contravention. All three videos provided as evidence by the council appear to be identical, showing the same alleged offence occurring at the same location. From my understanding, councils are not permitted to issue multiple PCNs for the same continuous contravention.
Offence 1: Video 1 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FaGdyDuDbMuGV-k8T7wMgDZDMM5u8mi0/view?usp=drive_link)
Offence 2: Video 2 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FGGBp5x6fMBypSfsPMmDGyrrGXUgFd1_/view?usp=drive_link)
Offence 3: Video 3 (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hTEBKzo6lyXioX_HFuksztkPFCh41eAX/view?usp=drive_link)
2) Evidence issues:
While the council has provided video evidence, the footage does not clearly establish that I failed to comply with the signage in a manner that warrants the penalties. The footage simply shows my vehicle driving through the area. There is no proof that I knowingly ignored or contravened the signage, nor is there any indication of advance warning.
3) Signage issues:
The sign in question (link to the sign image) is poorly positioned and easy to miss, especially late at night. Additionally, there is no advance warning signage at this location, which I believe could be grounds for an appeal.
Actions taken:
1) I have reviewed the video evidence provided by Havering Council. All three videos are identical and pertain to the same incident.
2) I am reviewing similar cases to identify potential grounds for an appeal. The one that is most similar has recently been dealt with in the forums here (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/havering-council-no-evidence-of-pcn-contravention-shown-in-video-footage/). The only difference between this offence and mine is that I am driving straight, and not turning out of the left hand lane. I have also been issued with 3 PCNs, instead of just 1 as in that case.
Questions:
1) Has anyone successfully challenged Havering Council for issuing multiple PCNs for the same alleged contravention?
2) Are there specific legal arguments I can raise regarding the improper issuance of multiple PCNs?
3) What advice can you offer regarding signage placement and the lack of advance warning as grounds for appeal?
I am conscious that I have left this late as the 28 days from the date of the notice is this Thursday 5th.
Thank you so much for taking your time to offer help and advice in advance - it is truly appreciated.