Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Mags_2024 on December 12, 2024, 03:51:17 pm
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-ave-bus-gate-33e-pcn-33e-using-restricted-to-certain-ve-957/msg14128/#msg14128
I will draft a better one.
Thank you Hippocrates
-
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/harrow-camrose-ave-bus-gate-33e-pcn-33e-using-restricted-to-certain-ve-957/msg14128/#msg14128
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference 2110212199
Appellant Chidi Egenti
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM EA02WFR
PCN Details
PCN IS2284987A
Contravention date 12 Feb 2011
Contravention time 12:06:00
Contravention location Drayton Park/Horsell Road N5
Penalty amount GBP 120.00
Contravention Entering and stopping in a box junction
Referral date -
Decision Date 07 Jul 2011
Adjudicator Teresa Brennan
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Mr Egenti appeals and raises a number of issues both in his initial representations and in the Notice of Appeal.
One of the issues that Mr Egenti raised was wither the Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable as he states that the third ground of appeal, box C on the Penalty Charge Notice inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further he says that by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided that this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. In his initial representations Mr Egenti specifically raised the issue of circumstances in which a relative might have taken the keys to the car without his consent.
In the Notice of Rejection issued on 30th March 2011 the local authority stated: 'If relative takes the car without permission the registered keeper of the vehicle is still liable for the charge unless they report the matter to the police' Whilst it may be that a local authority would not accept a representation made on this basis without a crime report there is no obligation on a registered keeper to provide a crime report and it is incorrect in law to state that a registered keeper must provide a crime report when relying on this ground of appeal. I find that the Notice of Rejection wrongly states the law and that it is therefore misleading.
The London Local Authorities Act 2003 imposes a duty on an enforcement authority to consider representations made and to then serve a notice indicating the decision that has been made. In this case I find that the London Borough of Islington has failed to properly consider the representations because the Notice of Rejection inaccurately states the law. As this could have misled the appellant into not putting forward a particular basis of appeal I find that the local authority failed in its duty to consider the representations. Therefore I find that the local authority cannot enforce this Penalty Charge Notice and I allow this appeal.
I will draft a better one.
The Penalty Charge Notice was enforceable since the third ground of appeal, box C on the website inaccurately reflects the statutory ground. Further, by stating that the insurance claim or crime report be provided, this fetters the basis on which a representation on this basis can be made. For example, it is entirely arguable yhat a relative might have taken the keys to the car without my consent. In such circumstance, I would not report the matter
DO NOT cite the case.
-
By demanding a police report, the council is limiting the ground by changing it from
taken without the owner's consent
to
taking it in the course of theft
which restriction they are not allowed to place on it, which amounts to procedural impropriety.
I didn't think Hippocrates was suggesting my husband had stolen the car, but didn't quite understand the point he was making to be honest.
I understand it now. Thank you, and thanks to Hippocrates for picking up this point
I cannot locate the statement regarding the request for a police report online. I've looked at the various files on the Camden website https://www.camden.gov.uk/parking-policies-guides and can't see it there. Can you point me in the right direction?
If we challenge the PCN, does this stop the clock on the 14 days for reduced payment?
-
Hippocrates is not suggesting that your husb. was stealing yr car !
There may be legitimate reasons why a vehicle was being driven without the owner's consent (e.g. by a garage, but not in the course of repair work - that is not theft -others may think of better examples).
By demanding a police report, the council is limiting the ground by changing it from
taken without the owner's consent
to
taking it in the course of theft
which restriction they are not allowed to place on it, which amounts to procedural impropriety.
--------------EDIT
All that said, on checking the backs of the PCNs, I cannot see the clause @Hippocrates identified
(please provide a copy of the police crime report or insurance claim).
not could I advance far enough on the challenge PCN pages to see if it appears there?
(PCN nos/reg mark not recognised?)
-
The online taken without consent ground clearly limits to theft:
At the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner (please provide a copy of the police crime report or insurance claim).
There was no theft, my husband was driving.
I'm guessing that we don't really have much of an argument and should just pay for one and get in touch with Camden regarding the second?
-
The online taken without consent ground clearly limits to theft:
At the time the alleged contravention or failure took place the person who was in control of the vehicle was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner (please provide a copy of the police crime report or insurance claim).
-
I would pay the first and make reps on the second saying you've paid the first and would they kindly exercise discretion on the second owing to the close timing and difficulty in navigating the area to a hospital appointment.
That is unless Hippo has something.
That sounds like a good plan, thank you.
I haven't heard anything from Hippocrates but hopefully he'll get back to me over the weekend.
Thanks again.
-
I would pay the first and make reps on the second saying you've paid the first and would they kindly exercise discretion on the second owing to the close timing and difficulty in navigating the area to a hospital appointment.
That is unless Hippo has something.
-
Is anyone able to offer any advice on whether there's an argument to be had regarding our two PCN's or should we just bite the bullet and pay up before the 14 days runs out?
-
Can you see all 4 pages now, Hippocrates?
-
This should be the second PCN from Tottenham Court Road/Howland Street two minutes later at 14:58
https://imgur.com/zjLkq5Z
-
This should be the first PCN from Tottenham Court Road/Chenies Street:
https://imgur.com/QFSUERf
-
3 only.
-
There are 2 PCNs which have two sides, 4 pages in total. The reverse of both PCNs looks exactly the same to me but I've posted them both in case I've missed something.
Can you see all 4 pages, Hippocrates?
-
Just the two, one of which you have repeated?
-
Hi Hippocrates, thank you for your msg.
Back page to 1st PCN - Tottenham Court Road/Chenies Street at 14:56:
https://imgur.com/ImjlDsC
Back page to 2nd PCN - Tottenham Court Road/Howlands Street at 14:58:
https://imgur.com/bbjhEqR
-
All pages please of the PCN so that I can get my hole-puncher out. ;D
-
Thank you. That will be worth a try if all else fails.
I'm hoping there aren't more in the pipeline as we travelled the length of Tottenham Court Road! I could only see two on the Camden website.
-
can we argue for payment of one PCN rather than two?
Of course you can, basically on the basis of a disproportionate penalty for a simple mistake of navigation in London. However you will be arguing in mitigation as each PCN is for a different location.
That's my view, others may differ. In addition, there may well be a 'technical'defence based on the council's management of the enforcement process. One of our experts on here is expert at finding holes in their armour plate, or even punching through it !!
-
We managed to pick up not one, but two Penalty Charge Notices on Tottenham Court Road on 5 December within 2 minutes of each other.
We were in London for a hospital appointment and then drove into the West End. We normally drive home via the Euston Road but we had real problems on the way into London because of various road works so decided to use an alternative route home. Unfortunately, that had roadworks too so we ended up on the Tottenham Court Road.
We had no idea that restrictions have been in place for some time and didn't see any signs, but one is clearly visible in the video for the 14:58 PCN. The 14:56 PCN sign is not as visible in the video.
First PCN at 14:56: https://imgur.com/Y95gbTv
GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/1XSxXUDuC5UA9r4K6
Second PCN at 14:58: https://imgur.com/g4qDGiy
GSV: https://maps.app.goo.gl/6g6VMTUffzGrfBX28
Do we have an argument here at all?
If nothing else, can we argue for payment of one PCN rather than two?
Many thanks