Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: buscalls on December 14, 2024, 04:07:20 pm
-
IMO, you need to state the grounds on which you are asking for a review.
As you understand it, the appropriate grounds are that 'a review is required in the interests of justice'.
The specific facts are that:
The vehicle subject to the PCN was a hire vehicle.The registered keeper and therefore presumed owner for these purposes was *****. If the authority wished to pursue the hirer in lieu of the registered keeper, and therefore be considered to be the 'owner' for these purposes, the regulations required the authority to have taken prescribed steps to satisfy themselves that 'ownership' may be transferred which would therefore have provided the lawful power to issue a PCN to the hirer.
However, the authority's evidence does not include the mandatory evidence i.e. notice of acceptance in respect of the registered keeper's representations and the mandatory evidence required under the Appeals Regulations.
Absent this evidence, which issue was not even considered by the adjudicator in this case as a precedent condition, I respectfully submit that the adjudicator could not find that the authority's demand for the penalty charge from the appellant was lawful.
I apologise for submitting this application late, but I had not previously considered that a council could have been capable of committing such procedural errors which were only brought to my attention after the hearing.
-
Bumping this up as urgently need to get an email out as highlighted by @HC Andersen.
All feedback welcome on draft I put together in last post
-
OK I think I understand. Propose to send the below text to London Tribunals. Does this work?
__________________________________________
Dear Sir/Madam,
Further to my call this morning I am writing with regard to Case Reference XXXX.
The Adjudicator's Decision was procedurally incorrect and the decision is not justified based on the evidence presented by the council in relation to the PCN in question.
The vehicle subject to PCN was a hire vehicle, being driven under a hire agreement. The registered keeper and therefore presumed owner for these purposes was *****. As such the authority's evidence does not support their decision to relieve the owner of liability and demand a penalty from me.
Had all the evidence been taken into account no reasonable adjudicator could have reached their decision as has been done.
This is a significant oversight on behalf of the Tribunal and therefore I request the decision be immediately rescinded.
_________________________________________
-
Wrong approach.
You're treating it as a rehearing, but it's not.
Your point is that no reasonable adjudicator could have reached their decision if they had reviewed all the evidence. This issue is not about any findings of fact, it is solely that you could not be treated as the owner and therefore liable. This point seems to have escaped the authority and was not understood by you. However, you've since been advised that this should have been noticed by the adjudicator.
Specifically:
The vehicle was being driven under a hire agreement;
The registered keeper and therefore presumed owner for these purposes was *****;
The authority's evidence does not support their decision to relieve the owner of liability and demand a penalty from you.
-
Called tribunal first thing and referred me to link on website https://shorturl.at/T1qGc
Now need to send letter setting out full grounds for review (assuming not a judicial review) as set out in the link.
I have the points I raised in posting on this thread on 1 April 2025 (below). In addition have the point from HC Andersen re no evidence PCN and CC to hire company was cancelled by council.
Please advise on thoughts on content to submit in letter as soon as possible.
I am over 14 days but that will be addressed and mitigated however do need to get in asap.
Main points I picked up were:
- council officer claims vehicle "Volvo Jazz" was incapable of holding a bathtub.
Volvo Jazz does not exist. Vehicle was Volco XC90 which is more than large enough to hold a bathtub as I have transported in my own XC90 many times.
- council officer claims receipt was fake because missing client name and address and so deemed fake
this was an independent shop which does not issue such receipts. Further even Wickes doesn't issue such receipts. They are accusing me and shop of lying and fabricating receipt
- council officer noted no loading was observed
loading was to occur as I had only gotten to the service counter when the CEO arrived
-
You phone to find out:
When the decision was entered;
What you have to do to request a review and what form it should take?
You're not appealing, you're finding out(or not) the process.
Every day lessens your chances.
-
Don't quite follow. I should call the tribunal and ask to appeal and they will advise on how to do so? If they say beyond 14 days are there mitigating reasons I can put forward to them? If they grant appeal what do I have to do next?
-
Phone the tribunal, they'll advise. But it needs to get done.
If you don't pay the council within the 28-day period then the next steps are:
Order for Recovery(which adds £10 to the debt);
After a further 21 days a warrant.
So you've gor plenty of time to get the issue of review sorted.
-
Bumping up, any thoughts on how to proceed?
-
As per @HC Andersen directions please see link below for docs
Contents:
Page 1-4 PCN to Enterprice
Page 5 Letter to me from Enterprise
Page 6-7 Charge Certificate to Enterprise
Page 8-11 PCN to me
https://ibb.co/0VtXx0xJ
I haven't received a reply from the tribunal about date decision was registered. I am assuming the date on the adjudicator's decision is date from which clock started. Can I still appeal if 14 days lapsed as per Para 12(2)?
Will council escalate to bailiff next stage?
-
Have emailed London Tribunals to confirm the registration date of Adjudicator's decision.
-
Contact the tribunal and ask them.
The procedures for paying the council and requesting a review are unrelated.
-
Refusal decision was 22 March 2025. Does it get registered the same day? Otherwise I am beyond 14 days.
I can get the timeline docs in order asap but can I still pursue if beyond 14 days? Will they get bailiffs out if beyond 14 days? I noted the decision letter said please pay within 28 days (attached)
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It's not a court order, it's a decision of the tribunal.
And see para. 12, in particular 12(2).
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/576/schedule/1
You do not have 28 days, you have 14 beginning on date of registration of decision.
-
Placeholder to acknowledge @H C Andersen request, I'll get working on it and share shortly. Have 28 days I think from date of court order so a little time to tackle. Thanks
-
IMO, the issue is who is to be considered the owner.
-
Aren't the Grounds for Contesting the Appeal put forwrd by Redbridge inaccurate and misleading?
They claim the OP's car was too small to load a bathtub because it is a "Volve Jazz SE", but no such car exists. If the OP's car had been a Honda Jazz it might have been too small, but it's actually a Volvo XC90 which I'd have thought would easily swallow a bathtub.
Also on what grounds does Redbridge conclude that the invoice is not genuine?
Or does none of this matter if the OP never challenged Redbridge's case?
-
FFS, this is bloody nonsense.
OP, are you still in time to request a review? If so, do so.
Interests of justice.
This whole issue has been clouded with who did what, where and when.
It's all irrelevant.
The only issue is: could you be considered the 'owner' and therefore liable in light of the evidence?
IMO, the answer is NO.
Would you pl just extract the evidence as it relates to Enterprise and you getting the PCN. Forget everything else. Put it in the form of a timeline.
which shows that:
Initial PCN to Enterprise;
Some waffly letter(apparently sent by Enterprise and addressed to you alone, so what's it doing in the council's evidence?);
Charge Certificate to Enterprise;
PCN to you.
There is no evidence that the council cancelled the PCN and the CC, just a PCN to you.
IMO, the adjudicator, who is the professional, should have spotted this and as a minimum adjourned with a direction to the authority to produce the evidence or preferably to have allowed the appeal on the grounds of procedural impropriety and that to delay would not have been an efficient use of the tribunal's resources.
-
@HCAndersen
Apologies, the URL changes after clicking to the one I shared originally. Please see below for the working URL:
https://smallpdf.com/file#s=bd985d55-b086-43c2-8ba9-d322702f6e0c
-
None of the linked pages 'exist'.
-
Any more thoughts before I have to resign to payment for this?
-
@H C Andersen
I shared link to full pack as here https://smallpdf.com/file#r=annotate
This includes the vehicle hire information too.
If not what you're looking for please let me know format you're after
-
Other than paying the only option open to you is a review of the decision, for which you'd need compelling evidence that the adjudicator didn't act in accordance with what was in front of him.
You should note that an adjudicator's findings of fact are normally regarded as final and will only be overturned if they are plainly incompatible with the evidence that was before the adjudicator. The mere fact that you disagree with these findings is not a ground for review.
See:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/challenging-eta-decision
-
Can you produce the authority's case in more regular form pl.
I've just looked back to post no.1.....The vehicle was hired.
We must see their evidence, but whether water under the bridge over which the horse that's already bolted galloped..I don't know?
-
This is the invoice plumbing shop provided which looks standard for what I get from an independent. They are not going to write my name, address etc
Assuming view is to just pay then
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
It was your evidence which the adjudicator considered and found as a fact that you did not produce a bona fide invoice/receipt, nothing to do with the authority who it appears took the same view.
I would have thought that 'a week in advance' would have been sufficient for 'personal reasons', but it's difficult to comment as we've not seen your request.
-
Hello, does anyone have further comments about this and suggestion on how best to proceed. Want to address before they start escalating.
Otherwise will reluctantly pay but miffed about them saying invoices fabricated.
Thanks
-
@stamfordman yes I intended to attend but couldn't for personal reasons. Agreed it would have been better but can't do anything about it now. I did inform them a week in advance.
-
You made a big mistake in not attending the hearing as credibility is often satisfied then.
You could ask for a review but it will probably be refused but others may find something to go on.
Otherwise best to pay and move on.
(https://i.ibb.co/9RWgPzz/image.png)
-
I took this to Tribunal and they refused. Require urgent feedback please on how to proceed before council instructs bailiffs. Thanks
Main points I picked up were:
- council officer claims vehicle "Volvo Jazz" was incapable of holding a bathtub.
Volvo Jazz does not exist. Vehicle was Volco XC90 which is more than large enough to hold a bathtub as I have transported in my own XC90 many times.
- council officer claims receipt was fake because missing client name and address and so deemed fake
this was an independent shop which does not issue such receipts. Further even Wickes doesn't issue such receipts. They are accusing me and shop of lying and fabricating receipt
- council officer noted no loading was observed
loading was to occur as I had only gotten to the service counter when the CEO arrived
Decision notice: https://ibb.co/BKQy1FRs
Redbridge pack: https://smallpdf.com/file#r=annotate
-
Just a thought.
Prevented from serving a Pcn can come in different forms , either driving away before Pcn was fully prepared, or the driver or passenger was threatening the CEO so he felt unsafe to carry on issuing the Pcn at that time.
The only way to clarify the circumstances is to see the CEOs notes to explain why a Pcn was not issued at the time.
-
Take a screenshot of that message, it might prove useful later.
-
I think you answered your own question there
-
Does anyone know if there is an issue with Parking Adjudicator website www.londontribunals.gov.uk ?
I was trying to submit yesterday and got the below and still getting the same
"Service not available
The service is currently unavailable due to planned maintenance work and will resume as soon as possible
We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause"
-
OP, at this atage you simply register your appeal, I suggest under the grounds of Contravention did not occur and Procedural Impropriety. You add the body of your argument later.
While you're doing this, there's still an aspect of the events that hasn't been explained as far as I can see. You parked, you left the car in order to go to the shop to collect the bathtub..and you then returned empty-handed to photograph the CEO.
Why?
Where was the bathtub?
There is window on the side of the shop from which I could see the car. When I was at the counter I saw CEO at the car so went out straightaway. Told CEO I am here for loading and he said that's not allowed and have to park at rear (where there wasn't any space). I had to come back to collect the bathtub when there was parking available at rear.
-
Thanks.
OK, this is the OP's version but the council's photos show the vehicle to be some way from the shop
??? the car appears to be parked directly outside the side of the shop to me.
-
Thanks.
OK, this is the OP's version but the council's photos show the vehicle to be some way from the shop and why would the car need moving if all that was happening was loading which was a permitted activity, something which the OP clearly implies knowledge of based upon their reps.
But we have to go with the OP's account, just so long as they recognise that what's apparent to us would also likely be to the adjudicator, and in the context of the CEO's notes.
-
there's still an aspect of the events that hasn't been explained as far as I can see. You parked, you left the car in order to go to the shop to collect the bathtub..and you then returned empty-handed to photograph the CEO.
Why?
Where was the bathtub?
The vehicle was visible from the shops side window and when I was at the till I saw the CEO and rushed out to move the vehicle.
-
OP, at this atage you simply register your appeal, I suggest under the grounds of Contravention did not occur and Procedural Impropriety. You add the body of your argument later.
While you're doing this, there's still an aspect of the events that hasn't been explained as far as I can see. You parked, you left the car in order to go to the shop to collect the bathtub..and you then returned empty-handed to photograph the CEO.
Why?
Where was the bathtub?
-
Any feedback appreciated, looking to submit today. Thanks
I think you should remove the penultimate sentence - "I cannot understand....", and add the following to the last sentence: -
"The points I have made above are irrefutable, therefore... <then rest of sentence>"
-
Any feedback appreciated, looking to submit today. Thanks
-
Going to take this to tribunal. I have the invoice from the plumbing shop from day before when I prepaid for bathtub and accessories which I am going to reference and attach.
Here is my draft of why I am appealing, please share your feedback:
_________________________________________________________________
"The vehicle was parked with hazards on next to a plumbing store for loading of a bathtub that I pre-ordered 15 October 2024 for collection 16 October 2024 (invoice attached). Given the bulky nature of item I parked as close to the shop door as safely possible to enable loading. Therefore in the first instance loading exemption applies which renders PCN invalid.
I note that on the face of it the PCN has been served out of time because more than 28 days have expired between the dates of contravention and service.
Further the PCN alleges vehicle was driven away before CEO had finished preparing PCN or was prevented from serving. The council's photos show I did not prevent PCN from being issued and I have photos as attached showing that there was traffic on the road which clearly would have prevented the vehicle from being driven away (attached). Therefore if CEO wanted to serve PCN in person or affix to vehicle there was ample opportunity to do so.
I cannot understand why this PCN was raised and what motivation CEO/London Borough of Redbridge had for stating false information on the PCN that vehicle was driven away or CEO was prevented from serving. Therefore I request the PCN be rescinded with immediate effect. I look forward to your confirmation of the same."
_________________________________________________________________
-
Your reps were poor as you realise because you didn't stand up the loading exemption.
You still seem to have two solid grounds to take this to the tribunal. Adjudicators often side with appellants on the lack of PCN issuing when they hear from them in person.
-
Can I still use HCs argument too about out of time even though I didn't mention in reps?
Of course
-
Can I still use HCs argument too about out of time even though I didn't mention in reps?
-
Well, if you don't follow our advice you're going to end in the brown stuff ! HOwever, if you are OK to risk the full PCN penalty, then register an appeal now at London Tribunals. Loading is an exemption to the yellow line and I would think a bathtup is sufficiently bulky to be a reason for parking close-by. It is this, or cough-up the £65; it's up to you.
-
I'm a doofus didn't see the last two comments on the second page!
Unfortunately didn't pick up these points (receipt, out of time) in my reps. Should I still appeal based on the reps made?
-
I submitted reps as below and received letter rejecting the reps (see link below). Noticed that on the "Your right to appeal" guidance page the fourth bullet point is incomplete. Pointing out in case it is technically wrong. Otherwise would appreciate thoughts on whether to take this further.
"The vehicle was parked with hazards on next to a plumbing store for loading of large, bulky items. There is no signage relating to the location parked not permitting this activity. Furthermore the PCN alleges vehicle was driven away before CEO had finished preparing PCN or was prevented from serving. I have photos as attached showing that there was traffic on the road which clearly would have prevented the vehicle from being driven away. Further the PCN photos show me approaching vehicle to enter. Therefore if CEO wanted to serve PCN in person or affix to vehicle there was ample opportunity to do so. I cannot understand why this PCN was raised and what motivation CEO/London Borough of Redbridge had for stating false information on the PCN that vehicle was driven away or CEO was prevented from serving. Therefore I request the PCN be rescinded with immediate effect. I look forward to your confirmation of the same."
https://ibb.co/vJdnk88
-
'He didn't affix any PCN nor was prevented from doing so but then I received a PCN by post!'
Whether he was prevented or not is your opinion. It might be right or otherwise, but it's not an objective fact and IMO you need to break down what transpired into smaller events.
As regards 'he said I had to park at rear which was obviously occupied at the time.' pl post a GSV of exactly where you were.
My inclination is to say that as loading is an exemption(where is your receipt and did you pre-order etc...you haven't yet dealt with this point)then whether the exemption applies is the key. I don't think that the exemption can be disapplied by a CEO simply because in their opinion you should have parked off-street. There are some off-street parking areas around my way which I wouldn't drive into if you paid me, their surfaces are a hazard.
You would also add that on the face of it the PCN has been served out of time because more than 28 days have expired between the dates of contravention and service. It is NOT your task to reason why, it's the authority's burden to prove that they were entitled to serve 'late' ... because it's hired and they notified the keeper that reps to the effect that the vehicle was hired were served less than 28 days ago. Proof on their part(copy of NoA to hire company), not assertion.
-
If the bathtub was preordered I can't see how the loading exemption could fail. But your reps need redrafting - have you sent anything?
-
@HCAndersen I was collecting a bathtub from the plumbing shop and hence parked as close as possible. The vehicle was visible from the shops side window and when I was at the till I saw the CEO and rushed out to move the vehicle. While stuck because of the traffic I asked the CEO from the vehicle of I can stay here because loading large item and he said I had to park at rear which was obviously occupied at the time.
I took photo of his epaulette because earlier this year I had a CEO near my vehicle when I was in a parked bay and sat in the vehicle trying to figure out Ringgo because the parking machine was out of order. He didn't affix any PCN nor was prevented from doing so but then I received a PCN by post! After that I thought best to take photo of his epaulette if anything similar happens as same area which now has.
-
'Officer not prevented' from serving a PCN is a fairly common appeal at the tribunal and often upheld if appellants have a personal hearing and are credible to the adjudicator.
Sounds like you have good grounds on this and possibly the loading exemption.
-
There isn't a NTO, this PCN is it..next stop adjudication if reps unsuccessful.
IMO, the sign isn't relevant to the contravention which is stated in the PCN i.e. simple waiting where not permitted.
OP, what were you loading and was it pre-ordered or were you simply shopping?
Loading/collecting is an exemption to the restriction but for this a vehicle must have been essential for the carriage of the item, you should have been parked as close as feasible and not been there longer than necessary.
Do your facts fit?
As regards the CEO, the PCN recites both reasons why this type of PCN may be served i.e. prevention and driving away before they'd finished preparing. It's not all about preventing service. IMO, it's inevitable that the CEO's notes are clear on the circumstances and these support the authority issuing the PCN, therefore it's going to be your word against theirs.
Your photos and account aren't clear. As you were obliged to park, collect and depart smartly I'm surprised you had time to photograph epaulettes. But it's your account and you were there.
-
@Incandescent - ie not worth bothering then?
@NTIAEP - Does this sign apply to the opposite side too (side of plumbing shop facing Ley St)?
If you are going to fight a PCN today, you have to be prepared to forego the discount option. However if your reps are received by them within the discount period, they will re-offer it when rejecting your reps. Their rejection may show them as totally wrong and give you the bones of a formal representation against the next stage, the Notice to Owner. People seem to be totally terrified at losing the discount, and councils know this, and ruthlessly game the system to use this to get the money in.
-
@NTIAEP - Does this sign apply to the opposite side too (side of plumbing shop facing Ley St)?
I would hazard a guess and say "yes", but I'm sure the more learned on the forum will confirm or otherwise. The GSV is from 2020 so might be an idea to check what signs/road markings etc. there are in the present day.
-
@Incandescent - ie not worth bothering then?
@NTIAEP - Does this sign apply to the opposite side too (side of plumbing shop facing Ley St)?
-
GSV from Oct2020 (https://maps.app.goo.gl/2zoYQU4v9C5gwDAs7)
-
Looks OK to me. They will reject no matter what you write.
-
Conscious of timelines so if anyone has comments on the below draft please share your feedback. Thanks
-
Draft of reps:
The vehicle was parked with hazards on next to a plumbing store for loading of heavy items. There is no signage relating to the location parked not permitting this activity. Furthermore the PCN alleges vehicle was driven away before CEO had finished preparing PCN or was prevented from serving. I have photos as attached showing that there was traffic on the road which clearly would have prevented the vehicle from being driven away. Further the PCN photos show me approaching vehicle to enter. In addition I have taken photo of the CEO lapel as attached too. Therefore if CEO wanted to serve PCN in person or affix to vehicle there was ample opportunity to do so. I cannot understand why this PCN was raised and what motivation CEO/London Borough of Redbridge had for stating false information on the PCN. Therefore I request the PCN be rescinded with immediate effect. I look forward to your confirmation of the same.
-
Date of Service deemed 4th.December = day 1 of 14day period for submitting reps inside discount period.
Please post a draft of why you think this PCN should be cancelled and post here for comment before submitting - but do not miss deadline.
-
Note one of the photos on the PCN website shows me arriving to the car so clearly did not prevent a PCN being issued or affixed to the car.
-
Yes the PCN carries my name and address.
The following clause is in the agreement for Renter obligations: (viii) pay any administrative fines, fees, charges, costs, penalties, or other fines that are imposed, issued or incurred in connection with the Renter's usage of the Vehicle during the Rental Period (including usage of the Vehicle by Authorised Drivers or other third parties who are permitted by Renter to use the Vehicle), such as fines or fees for illegal parking or speeding, non-compliance with bus lane, congestion charges, tolls or violations of the rules of the highway or traffic offence or contravention in any country, in all cases, to the extent permitted by law and not caused by Owner;
Below is the letter contents sent to me by email on 25 October 2024.
Dear Customer,
We were recently notified about a traffic violation notice for a vehicle rented to you at the time of the offence. As per our
rental agreement, we are notifying you of your liability.
As the owners of the vehicle, we are required to provide the hirer details to the relevant issuing authority who will in turn re-issue the fine to you. Once you have received this you will be able to respond, pay or appeal directly to the authority.
Please note that if the reduced amount of the fine is applicable, you will still have the opportunity to pay this when the fine is reissued to you.
In the case of speeding offences, once the fine is reissued, you will need to respond to the Police directly using the form they
provide. As a reminder, your signature on the rental contract gives Enterprise full authorisation to process any applicable
charges for associated administration fees.
We will attempt to charge the card used for the vehicle hire. Note: The administration fee is NOT part or full payment of the
fine. You will need to pay the fine separately. Details of the offence and your rental agreement are listed below.
Full details will be available once the fine is reissued to you.
Yours Sincerely,
Traffic Violations Department
Enterprise Mobility
Operating
Enterprise Rent-A-Car
National Car Rental
Alamo Rent-A-Car
Reference ID : 100582950
Issuing Agency : London Borough of Redbridge
Citation Number : AF08101513
Citation Issue Date/Time : 16/10/2024 @ 12:55
Location Of Offense : CRANLEY ROAD
Plate Number : RF24ZBT
Admin Fee Due : £35.00
Violation Type : PARKING
Enterprise will not pay the charge. You will be able to respond, pay or appeal directly to the authority when you receive the
notice.
If you have any querie
-
Does the PCN carry your name and address?
What is the lease company's policy (see agreement/ T&C) with regard to PCNs?
-
Hello
I have received PCN on a hire vehicle (first link below).
I was parked next to a bathroom shop with hazards on for loading of large item, corner of Ley Street and Cranley Road.
The PCN states that I drove the vehicle away which as shown in the photos (links below) is clearly not the case due to the traffic on the road and the officer was not prevented from serving PCN. I even stood next to the officer and took a photo of his uniform in case something like this did happen. He did not attempt to give me a PCN.
Please advise on grounds I can appeal this PCN. Thanks
https://ibb.co/NmHdccw
https://ibb.co/3MWW0kM
https://ibb.co/tCpr8Pd
https://ibb.co/Z1z9M48
https://ibb.co/Tw7k1df
https://ibb.co/gmVpv8p